You could drive a bus through the holes in that logic.
No payrises in benchmarking ? "Shock"
- Thread starter Pique318
- Start date
LOL
Although is it Bus Eireann, Dublin Bus or a private company ?
More to the point is it driven by an NBRU or a SIPTU driver!?
I wasn't referring to the infrastructure. I was referring to the policy which privatised the operation of much of the bus and rail network, all in the name of the great God of competition. Ask any UK commuter how that's working out for them.
Of course you have choices with public sector services. If you don't like the way the Irish public sector works, go find another public sector that better meets your needs. It's slightly more difficult than changing bank, I grant you. But it is an option.
Nice theory. Pity it doesn't work in practice. Markets are not perfect. Consumers display intertia.
DiarmudC's comment applies here. Here's the corrected version of the first sentence.
The unions have pushed hard for pay increases for their lower class, middle class, and upper class public sector members for the last ten years as part of the agenda they set within social partnership, in partnership with IBEC, SFA, the farmers, the NGOs and indeed the Govt themselves.
Your economic arguement is of course selective in the extreme. There is no logic in blaming increases in indirect taxation on public sector salaries. This assumes that overall tax income was static, i.e. no growth in corporate tax, no growth in CGT, no growth in the numbers paying income etc - all flawed assumptions. Why single out public sector salaries? Why not blame the transport infrastructure spend? Or the capital programme spend in the health sector? Or all those pesky OAPs and other social welfare recipients who sought and received increases? Or all those farmers who get paid for not growing produce? The only reason for blaming public sector salaries is to scapegoat.
Your description of union activity bears no resemblance to the real-world activities of the two union officials in my immediate family. I really think you are living in the past. Perhaps you've been watching reruns of 'On the buses' or some other seventies stuff. This isn't Ireland. [And let's not forget of course that not everyone in the public sector is unionised, and shock/horror - some private sector staff are unionised!]
So when did they introduce a second department of Foreign Affairs? If I don’t like the service I get from the department of social welfare which other department of social welfare should I call? (What are you talking about ?)
The customer can choose not to move in the private sector, they have no choice with the public sector. Choice, get it? Individual freedom rather than collectivism.
I no more want IBEC or the SFA than SIPTU usurping the function and duty of our elected government. I don’t like any of the lobby groups that have their feet under the table of government. My point is that unions within the euphemistically called social partnership framework sold out the poor long ago. They led the charge when the “give us the money but don’t increase direct taxes” policy was floated by all the smart lads at the “partnership” talks.
Capital spending is an investment for a return. Increasing pensions looks after vulnerable elderly members of society. I realise they don’t pay the union dues that keep the fat cats at the top of (the ironically named) Liberty Hall in double chins so they of little interest to unions that are nothing more than lobby groups for middle class employees in (for the most part)protected sector of our economy. The thread is about Benchmarking which is a phenomenon which affects all tax payers in this country. Unfortunately most private sector tax payers feel its affect negatively. That’s what the thread is about so why would I bring capital spending into it? If you wish to introduce a straw man argument then by all means fire away but don’t expect me to do it for you.
I see unions that do all they can to protect the weak and dishonest and prevent chance and a focus on focusing public services on the public.
I never saw on the buses so that one is lost on me. What I have seen is 15 years of prosperity wasted by a bad government who have been kept in power by an opposition that is unelectable while they fall over themselves to give away the responsibility and duty they have to run the country to vested interest groups like IBEC and SIPTU. The same morons moan about all that is wrong but do all they can to prevent change and protect their own little corner.
Sorry - I do realise I was a little obtuse here. This choice is to move to another country which better meets your needs. Find a Thatcherist regime somewhere that will create a divided society by exploiting public sector and other workers for the benefit of the few. Isn't that the ultimate step towards the great God of competition?
I'll get back on the other weak arguments later on - have to go serve the public now.
Indeed you were.
The system is perfect, only the people are flawed. Is that it?
Us non-socialists value individual freedom and think that the state should serve the people, not the other way around. You'd get a round of applause in 1950's Red Square for that comment though
No. Competition is a valuable tool as it penalises waste and inefficiency. Unions are the champions of socialism. They serve their members, not the people. They are a vested interest group that seeks to suck resources from the many and concentrate them in the hands of their middleclass members. Collectivism never benefits the many.
It's always fun.Don't work too hard; you'll have the union down on top of you.
The crux of their position is that they will abide by the findings of an independent body as long as they like the findings. If they don't they will break their word, showing that their leaders were lying from the start, and screw the country for more money.
Can you imagine the new levels of apoplectic self-righteous indignation that our left wing media (RTE and the Irish Times) would indulge in if employers tried that?
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
This takes the biscuit. To paraphrase: "there is no need to reform our system. If people don't like it they can emigrate." Are you reading Mugabe at the moment, by any chance?
Me neither.
Anyone who thinks that IBEC/SFA represent the country's employers, IFA represent the country's farmers and SIPTU and ICTU represent the country's workers is either codding themselves or has a vested interest in maintaining this pretence.
IBEC/SFA (ultimately the same organisation, btw, SFA is a direct subsidiary of IBEC) is dominated the the major employers including the banks and semi-state bodies such as RTE, ESB etc. Hence the existence of ISME and other bodies outside the partnership process.
IFA represents only the large better-off farmers. Hence the proliferation of other farm representative organisations outside the partnership process.
ICTU, SIPTU and the other unions represent a declining share of the country's workers, predominantly those in the highly-protected public sector.
The "Partnership" process is a scam.
Excellent post. I couldn't have put it better myself.
This is the ultimate in one eyed, self serving, I'm all right Jackism. This is what the Unions are all about at the moment. You're doing a great job of proving everyone else's point.
Back to the 80's we go, time to dig out the Miami Vice suit and Duran Duran box set.
I'll 'fess up to a Duran Duran single, but not the whole album. And never the Miami Vice suit.
I'll also 'fess up that my emigration suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek. It does seem like the only solution for someone who is hugely unsatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system. It is highly unlikely that any of these will fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years, so what other options are available?
But back to the more important issues. Purple's tenuous linking of union lobbying on public sector to indirect taxation holds no water. There is no logical reason to link these two together. Public sector pay is no more or less responsible for increases in indirect taxation than any other aspect of public spending.
On the broader issue, this kind of 'four legs good, two legs bad' - 'private sector good, public sector bad' over-simplified analysis does not shine any light on important and complex issues. If anyone really wants to address the issues that do exist in the public sector, some deeper thinking will be required.
But maybe it's just easier to parrot out Daily Telegraph headlines....
I'll also 'fess up that my emigration suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek. It does seem like the only solution for someone who is hugely unsatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system. It is highly unlikely that any of these will fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years, so what other options are available?
But back to the more important issues. Purple's tenuous linking of union lobbying on public sector to indirect taxation holds no water. There is no logical reason to link these two together. Public sector pay is no more or less responsible for increases in indirect taxation than any other aspect of public spending.
On the broader issue, this kind of 'four legs good, two legs bad' - 'private sector good, public sector bad' over-simplified analysis does not shine any light on important and complex issues. If anyone really wants to address the issues that do exist in the public sector, some deeper thinking will be required.
But maybe it's just easier to parrot out Daily Telegraph headlines....
I don't read the Daily telegraph so I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.
In your considered opinion what are the problems with the public sector and what are the solutions? Do you think the public sector is efficient and well run? Do you think that better management is possible without changing structures, incentives and penalties? Hell, do you think better management is possible while unions have an effective veto on management decisions?
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Twenty years ago, plenty of people were "hugely dissatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system" and most people believed it "highly unlikely that any of these (would) fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years". The country was in such a mess that the late Brian Lenihan Senior said at one stage that no one could expect such a small island to support all 3.5 million of its inhabitants.
Its easy to be fatalistic about economics and to believe that it is impossible to change things for the better. The Irish experience over the past 20 years shows clearly that such fatalism is misguided.
To be honest you can't batter all the public/civil service with the same stick.
I sent off a form for a change of address on a car to Environment on Wednesday and got my new licencing certificate in the post this morning!!!
However I know someone else who has been trying to get a form from the Dept. of Agriculture for the last 6 weeks and keeps getting the wrong form everytime.
Under the SMI strategy launched when John Bruton was Taoiseach, the Civil Service tried to align themselves with the practices and changes undertaken by the New Zealand civil service. To a large degree there has been improvements and successes. However Unions/Bad Management/Driftwood etc. are always going to hold back or slow change. Most public/civil servants welcome change and not slow to adapt to it.
Whatever successes there have been have never received public attention or very little. The media are not interested in happy stories from the public service, they prefer just to keep battering away. Also civil/public servants can't talk as they are constrained from making comment (Confidentiality/Official Secrets Act etc.). This doesn't not give fair play for when success is achieved and it tends to be hijacked for political purposes (watch who attends the opening of any new facility even though they have had absolutely no input to it)
As a public servant myself I agree with a lot of what previous posts have said. However I would have to say that some of the perceptions stated were incorrect. One that I would definitely disagree is that Government employees get their pay increases even when they are inefficient. That is totally wrong. I have worked in 3 Departments for the last 15 years and have seen pay rises stopped for many reasons in all of them.
Most civil servants were happy with the first round of benchmarking and were very surprised that agreement was given to a second round so quickly. There were not any expectations for this one from many and so not a lot of surprise there. Just the traditionalists for moaning (nurses/teachers/guards).
However just because there is i[FONT=Times New (W1)]nefficiencies in one area does not mean that they are all the same. We too have to deal with these problems and are quiet annoyed/fustrated at times.[/FONT]
Now back to work
I sent off a form for a change of address on a car to Environment on Wednesday and got my new licencing certificate in the post this morning!!!
However I know someone else who has been trying to get a form from the Dept. of Agriculture for the last 6 weeks and keeps getting the wrong form everytime.
Under the SMI strategy launched when John Bruton was Taoiseach, the Civil Service tried to align themselves with the practices and changes undertaken by the New Zealand civil service. To a large degree there has been improvements and successes. However Unions/Bad Management/Driftwood etc. are always going to hold back or slow change. Most public/civil servants welcome change and not slow to adapt to it.
Whatever successes there have been have never received public attention or very little. The media are not interested in happy stories from the public service, they prefer just to keep battering away. Also civil/public servants can't talk as they are constrained from making comment (Confidentiality/Official Secrets Act etc.). This doesn't not give fair play for when success is achieved and it tends to be hijacked for political purposes (watch who attends the opening of any new facility even though they have had absolutely no input to it)
As a public servant myself I agree with a lot of what previous posts have said. However I would have to say that some of the perceptions stated were incorrect. One that I would definitely disagree is that Government employees get their pay increases even when they are inefficient. That is totally wrong. I have worked in 3 Departments for the last 15 years and have seen pay rises stopped for many reasons in all of them.
Most civil servants were happy with the first round of benchmarking and were very surprised that agreement was given to a second round so quickly. There were not any expectations for this one from many and so not a lot of surprise there. Just the traditionalists for moaning (nurses/teachers/guards).
However just because there is i[FONT=Times New (W1)]nefficiencies in one area does not mean that they are all the same. We too have to deal with these problems and are quiet annoyed/fustrated at times.[/FONT]
Now back to work
Raskolnikov
Registered User
- Messages
- 350
The fact that there are 900,000 people in this country who no pension provision at all would suggest otherwise.
I think one of the draw backs with public sector pay is as a nurse - if you apply for a job in another hospital unless it is a promotion - pay remains the same. However atleast in the private sector wages are varied for each job.
That doeos not mean that public sector workers should get a pay rise - their pension is worth 12% of a private sector contribution... No private sector worker has that privilage without AVC's...
That doeos not mean that public sector workers should get a pay rise - their pension is worth 12% of a private sector contribution... No private sector worker has that privilage without AVC's...