# Public sector bashing-anyone else sick of it?



## grahamo (26 Jan 2009)

I've been reading through various threads on the forum and am a bit surprised by the amount of bile aimed at Public sector workers. Scapegoating the public sector is definitely flavour of the month at the moment. The generalising and misinformed comments are doing my head in.
I can see that cutbacks need to be made e.g. we are probably the most politically over represented country on the planet and certainly don't need the amount of TD's, top level civil servants we have. At the same time other areas are understaffed. My own dept. is understaffed and the remaining people are doing the extra work on top of their own.
Some of the jibes are a bit of a pain too. I have no problem doing my bit to help out the economy etc. and as usual it will be the PAYE worker who bails the country out but the personal attacks on the public sector workers who post on here are a bit much.

The main jibes:

1.) The 'I'm paying for you' mentality:
I agree the public sector is a drain on the economy,however, some sections of the public sector make money so you don't pay for us all! Plus we pay our taxes too and we're all net contributors to society and the economy.

2.) 'You are all bone idle'
I work my ass off and it is rare I even get to take my lunch break so 
the jibes about the public sector being 'bone idle really get on my tits. Of course there are some wasters but don't tell me that doesn't happen in the private sector.

3.) 'Public sector are all paid too much:'
I agree some are. but the average worker certainly isn't raking it in. For the job I do I could earn more in the private sector.

4.)'You wouldn't last a week in the real world!'
I've spent most of my working life in the private sector. Never had any complaints about the quality or efficiency of my work and I have very good references from private sector employers. Gards and nurses work in the 'real world'. would you do their job?

5.) Your all 'unsackable'
People employed after 1995 in the public sector (not sure about civil service)have the same working conditions as people in the private sector.


----------



## cole (26 Jan 2009)

Totally sick of it. It's the same old boring unimaginative hackneyed responses.


----------



## Vanilla (26 Jan 2009)

No, not sick of it yet.


----------



## DavyJones (26 Jan 2009)

Vanilla said:


> No, not sick of it yet.




Me too, kinda find it entertaining. I understand the public service workers will have to take a hit, like we all will. But I don't hold strong feelings or grudges against the public service like other posters here.


----------



## pinkyBear (26 Jan 2009)

After working within the public service for a number of years - my experience is 
1)the public sector is a drain on the economy.. 
2)the public sector are bone idle..
3)they are paid too much..
4)would die if they had a job in the "real world".. as for change!! Only if the union allows it...
5) and for the most part unsackable...

I only have about 6 years experience of the working in the public sector..
P


----------



## Markjbloggs (26 Jan 2009)

No not sick of it yet - as a matter of fact, would welcome a lot more of it.


----------



## DerKaiser (26 Jan 2009)

The public sector is quite big.  If you're in it and doing a good job then just assume the jibes are directed at the people who are not.  

A blanket defence of the entire public service is not justifiable.  

Outsiders would like to see fewer automatic entitlements and greater performance appraisals.  If you're a hard working public service employee you should welcome this as you'll advance quicker.


----------



## z106 (26 Jan 2009)

I work as a consultant in the public sector and i have to say that a lot of the stereotypes are definitely true.


----------



## z104 (26 Jan 2009)

Not sick of it at all, Just surpised that the teachers are not getting it in the neck for getting 3 to 4 months paid holidays per year. Handy number or what.


If there is duplication of work or excess staff in the public sector then that excess fat needs to be trimmed. I know it's nice to give everybody a job but not from my taxes thanks very much. Keep those who are genuinely needed and sack the rest. The fat cat medical consultants also need to be tackled.

Brian Cowen and the rest of the government are like startled rabbits caught in the head lights. They're paralyzed with fear and will not tackle any of the elephants in the room.


----------



## Complainer (26 Jan 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> A blanket defence of the entire public service is not justifiable.


But the blanket attacks are fine - right?


----------



## june (26 Jan 2009)

> ```
> Brian Cowen and the rest of the government are like startled rabbits caught in the head lights. They're paralyzed with fear and will not tackle any of the elephants in the room.[/quote]
> ```
> I just don't understand why our taoiseach is paid more than Barack Obama


How's that for a pathetic example of how to fritter away taxpayer's money. 
Thats a big enough elephant to be starting with


----------



## Purple (27 Jan 2009)

Vanilla said:


> No, not sick of it yet.


Join in, it's more fun 



pinkyBear said:


> After working within the public service for a number of years - my experience is
> 1)the public sector is a drain on the economy..
> 2)the public sector are bone idle..
> 3)they are paid too much..
> ...


 Opps! Whistleblower number one!



qwertyuiop said:


> I work as a consultant in the public sector and i have to say that a lot of the stereotypes are definitely true.


Opps! Whistleblower number two!

...but yes, some of the comments being made are offensive... and sweeping judgements are meaningless. That said general points can be valid despite many exceptions.

A few points:
1) The public sector should not have to make money. The fact that the services cost money is not the issue. The strong suspicion that they cost a lot more money than they should is the problem.
2) Public sector employees come from the same backgrounds as private sector employees, some even move between the two! Therefore generalisations about the sort of people that work in the public sector are not valid. What are valid are general comments about lack of accountability, lack of sanction and lack of reward.
3) While few public sector employees got rich out of the boom it is true that in general terms the public sector has done considerable better out of the boom than the private sector (numerous reports back this up, the recent ERSI being one). 
4) Bottom line; The state cannot afford to pay the bills any more so they are going to have to cut costs. Since public sector pay accounted for about half of all the tax revenue taken by the state last year and tax receipts will by down by up to 50% this years that puts public sector employees in the firing line. Whether anyone deserved to have their wages cut of lose their job is a moot point at this stage.


----------



## S.L.F (27 Jan 2009)

june said:


> [/html]I just don't understand why our taoiseach is paid more than Barack Obama


[/quote]How's that for a pathetic example of how to fritter away taxpayer's money. 
Thats a big enough elephant to be starting with[/quote]

Who's the elephant Cowen, Obama or Cowen's wages?

Personally I'm sick of all the public sector bashing too.

The real ire should be directed at those who made the P.S. so big in the first place...... FF and their cronies.


----------



## bacchus (27 Jan 2009)

grahamo said:


> Of course there are some wasters but don't tell me that doesn't happen in the private sector.



10% in private sector and 90% in public sector. That's the problem.



grahamo said:


> Public sector are all paid too much:


So, why are the muppets representing you claim that pay cuts will not be accepted?



grahamo said:


> For the job I do I could earn more in the private sector.


I am sick of this statement. Why don't you move back to private sector then?



grahamo said:


> Gards and nurses work in the 'real world'. would you do their job?


Their choice, isn't it?
Would they do my job? probably not. Their choice.


----------



## Birroc (27 Jan 2009)

grahamo said:


> 5.) Your all 'unsackable'
> People employed after 1995 in the public sector (not sure about civil service)have the same working conditions as people in the private sector.


 
Are you being serious ? Its almost impossible to get fired in the public sector. The usual practice for completely incompetent people is to 'move them on' to another department and make it someone else's problem !


----------



## DerKaiser (27 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> But the blanket attacks are fine - right?


No. I don't agree with blanket public sector bashing. In fact I believe most are probably doing their best. But hard working public sector employees should not stand in the way of structural reform, oppose the rooting out of poor employees and inefficient practices or feel threatened by reform


----------



## Upstihaggity (27 Jan 2009)

Niallers said:


> Not sick of it at all, Just surpised that the teachers are not getting it in the neck for getting 3 to 4 months paid holidays per year. Handy number or what.
> 
> 
> I am not a teacher but comments like this really irritate me- what would you have teachers do...work through the summer - that essentially means that kids don't get their summer holidays either!
> ...


----------



## sandrat (27 Jan 2009)

Well turns out public sector people lose their job too [broken link removed]


----------



## z104 (27 Jan 2009)

Actually I do think teachers should work through the summer holidays and I also think that Children should not get 2 or 3 months summer holidays.

Why should teachers be exempt from working through the summer. It's ridiculous to think that they shouldn't work through the summer.


----------



## sandrat (27 Jan 2009)

Also Over 1,000 workers face the dole as councils slash costs


----------



## MrMan (27 Jan 2009)

The bashing isn't all that entertaining and I tend to stop half way through posts when they start going off on one. Funny thing is some of these posters slag tabloids yet their own versions on public sector workers belong to the gutter press. Sweeping statements are meaningless as is the protracted blame game and 'FF and their cronies' got us into this yet can anyone say anything constructive other than we need to cut the public service, after we do that then what? Do we just ***** some more and wait for something to happen?


----------



## grahamo (27 Jan 2009)

bacchus said:


> 10% in private sector and 90% in public sector. That's the problem..


So now 90% of the public sector are 'wasters'...Where did you get that little gem of a statistic?



bacchus said:


> So, why are the muppets representing you claim that pay cuts will not be accepted?.


The Unions are quite rightly looking after the interests of workers. Don't IBEC and employers groups look after their own interests? BTW workers in this country have a constitutional right to union membership.




bacchus said:


> I am sick of this statement. Why don't you move back to private sector then?.


Maybe I will 1 day. What you need to understand is a lot of the public sector are overqualified for their jobs and could earn more in the private sector. Its their choice to work where they are.




bacchus said:


> Their choice, isn't it?
> Would they do my job? probably not. Their choice.


 
Another good answer! I don't know what your job is but it seems to me that unless you are a f***ing Lion Tamer your job isn't anywhere near as stressful/dangerous as one of the gards patrolling the streets.


----------



## Jack2008 (27 Jan 2009)

No public sector employee is going to convince me that they are worse off than private sector employees. And no public sector employee worth there salt would deny that there is huge wastage within the public sector.

A friends husband is a public sector employee and I asked him at the weekend "How many days holidays do you get a year" His reply was " Ah, 21 but I have my 10days paid sick leave as well so I suppose 31" To which I replied "But thats sick leave" "No", he laughed, "Sure we all take it as annual leave" - Now thats what my tax is paying for!!!!! When I said this to him I was told "take it up with the union".

And in answer to the initial query above - No I am not sick of Public Sector bashing and until the unions and there members start realising that this country is in meltdown and nobody not even the public sector is immune from its effects the Public sector bashing will continue!


----------



## Bronte (27 Jan 2009)

grahamo said:


> Maybe I will 1 day. What you need to understand is a lot of the public sector are overqualified for their jobs and could earn more in the private sector. Its their choice to work where they are.


  What a shame that they waste their qualifications in jobs that they are overqualified for.  Why on earth do you think they don't go into the private sector if they can earn more?  What a conundrum.


----------



## sandrat (27 Jan 2009)

Jack2008 said:


> No public sector employee is going to convince me that they are worse off than private sector employees. And no public sector employee worth there salt would deny that there is huge wastage within the public sector.
> 
> A friends husband is a public sector employee and I asked him at the weekend "How many days holidays do you get a year" His reply was " Ah, 21 but I have my 10days paid sick leave as well so I suppose 31" To which I replied "But thats sick leave" "No", he laughed, "Sure we all take it as annual leave" - Now thats what my tax is paying for!!!!! When I said this to him I was told "take it up with the union".
> 
> And in answer to the initial query above - No I am not sick of Public Sector bashing and until the unions and there members start realising that this country is in meltdown and nobody not even the public sector is immune from its effects the Public sector bashing will continue!


 
10 days paid sick leave eh? Actually we can have up to 6 months paid sick leave in a 4 year period however if you go for promotion sick leave goes against you. Also this would have to be certified sick leave as far as I know you are only allowed 5 uncertified sicks days in the year not 10. Maybe he was talking about flexi days?


----------



## CharlieC (27 Jan 2009)

grahamo said:


> Maybe I will 1 day. What you need to understand is a lot of the public sector are overqualified for their jobs and could earn more in the private sector. Its their choice to work where they are.


 
I would disagree and state that in many cases the public sector are not over qualified. Less than 10% of the Department of Finance have any financial qualifications


----------



## Sunny (27 Jan 2009)

I think this is fairly balanced piece on the economy. Ahearne is actually one the few economists worth listening too with his international experience.

[broken link removed]


----------



## simplyjoe (27 Jan 2009)

No. I am not sick of it. The country should be squeezed tight until all of the rubbish is gone. Rubbish = inefficiency, corruption, laziness, tax cheats, cronyism, consumerism, etc.. My english fails me - I am sure you know what I mean.


----------



## Jack2008 (27 Jan 2009)

sandrat said:


> 10 days paid sick leave eh? Actually we can have up to 6 months paid sick leave in a 4 year period however if you go for promotion sick leave goes against you. Also this would have to be certified sick leave as far as I know you are only allowed 5 uncertified sicks days in the year not 10. Maybe he was talking about flexi days?


 
You mean there's more than paid sick leave?
You get flexi days as well - What are they? - More time off that your paid for? What he meant is irrelevant - my point is he gets 10 days off paid more a year that your average private sector worker!

Sure if your all that hard done by, leave and go and work in the private sector! No! Why? Because every public sector worker in this country knows they are sitting on a cushy number and you will not convince me otherwise! 

Our "government" (and I use term in the absence of a more suitable phrase) need to sort out the mess that is the public service and if they don't stand up to the unions and their members they will be very sorry when the Council elections creep round in June (If they last that long)!


----------



## Purple (27 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> I think this is fairly balanced piece on the economy. Ahearne is actually one the few economists worth listening too with his international experience.
> 
> [broken link removed]



Yes, a very good piece.


----------



## sandrat (27 Jan 2009)

flexi days are based on a time in lieu type idea. You work more hours on certain days so you can build up those hours and take them as extra days or flexi days so you need to have worked up the extra time before you can take it. Lots of private sector people take sickies and most employers will pay you for the first 2 days uncertified


----------



## Pique318 (27 Jan 2009)

Jack2008 said:


> You mean there's more than paid sick leave?
> You get flexi days as well - What are they? - More time off that your paid for? What he meant is irrelevant - my point is he gets 10 days off paid more a year that your average private sector worker!



I worked in the Revenue Commissioners about 10 years ago. 6h57mins a day (equal to 139 hours in each 4-week period) and if you worked 10.5 hours extra in a period, you got a day and a half off in the next one. so 18 extra days off are available per year. Or put another way, 32+ days a year for a newbie off the street for a job with less than a 37.5 hour working week.  I personally saw many many people sitting around chatting from 5.30 till 6.30 so that they could get the maximum amount of time on their clock!!
The people in the Data Entry section got extra time off for being efficient at their jobs (determined by the number of net key depressions per day) so they could work up another 18 days annual leave on top of this. Now I could not do DE jobs as it was mind-numbing but the extra leave for doing your job well was, and still is, unique to me.

I am unaware if these practises are still in place but I would be very surprised if they were taken away!!

So to the public servants who are moaning about the abuse they're getting and being to blame for the ills of the world....The beatings will continue until morale improves! Or the slating will continue until the situation (excess pay/benefits/staffing numbers) improves. 

If you're good at your job and are willing to fight to keep it or be promoted, then you have absolutely nothing to complain or worry about, do you?


----------



## Jack2008 (27 Jan 2009)

I repeat - Sure if your all that hard done by, leave and go and work in the private sector! No! Why? Because every public sector worker in this country knows they are sitting on a cushy number and you will not convince me otherwise! 

I get *NO *paid sick leave! I don't work, I don't get paid! You can take 6months paid sick leave in 4years - And my tax is paying for it!

I get 20 days paid holidays a year, I have to contribute to my pension costs and I have *NO *job security. Any increase in my salary is performance based (ie I have to work for it) and not based on how long I serve with the company! And certainly promotion is not service based!


----------



## Purple (27 Jan 2009)

sandrat said:


> Lots of private sector people take sickies and most employers will pay you for the first 2 days uncertified


 I am noy aware of any SME that offers paid sick leave.


----------



## TarfHead (27 Jan 2009)

Benchmarking

Either deliver the productivity improvements promised, or return the money taken.

Until then, you're fair game.

End of


----------



## sandrat (27 Jan 2009)

Any private sector employer i worked for paid you if you rang in sick for 2 days and after that you had to get a cert and illness benefit.


----------



## Celtwytch (27 Jan 2009)

Jack2008 said:


> I get *NO *paid sick leave! I don't work, I don't get paid! You can take 6months paid sick leave in 4years - And my tax is paying for it!


 
If you're paying PRSI, you can claim Disability Benefit. Many Public Sector workers do not qualify for any social welfare payments at all, so they are paid by their employer instead. Plus PS workers pay tax too, so they're paying for their own sick leave.


----------



## Pique318 (27 Jan 2009)

Actually, most companies I've worked for use the Bradford Score, or a variation on it, for Sick Leave.


----------



## Jack2008 (27 Jan 2009)

Celtwytch said:


> If you're paying PRSI, you can claim Disability Benefit. Many Public Sector workers do not qualify for any social welfare payments at all, so they are paid by their employer instead. Plus PS workers pay tax too, so they're paying for their own sick leave.


 
Disability benefit would not even nearly equate to the weeks wages that Public sector employees enjoy.

No self employed person qualifies for any non means tested social welfare benefit and no employer there to pick up the tab! And the employer your refering to is us - Joe Soap - So we pay for your sick leave, my point exactly! 
Yes, public sector workers do pay tax for all other services as well - just like private sector workers and we do not enjoy the added benefit of 6months fully paid leave(not disablity benefit) over a 4 year period.

I will consider getting the violin out tonight and playing a lament for all you hard done by public sector workers whose employers (ie us) have dared asked questions about your productivty, efficency, expenses, flexitime, overtime, sick pay, pension schemes etc etc!


----------



## Purple (27 Jan 2009)

Celtwytch said:


> If you're paying PRSI, you can claim Disability Benefit. Many Public Sector workers do not qualify for any social welfare payments at all, so they are paid by their employer instead. Plus PS workers pay tax too, so they're paying for their own sick leave.


 Good point. Your taxes pay for part of it, not all, but still a good point.


----------



## sandrat (27 Jan 2009)

If the government was sacking people for taking sick leave after say 30 years service and they had to spend money on recruitment of a replacement and training of a replacement and still have similar salary costs with the replacement then people would still be complaining


----------



## Purple (27 Jan 2009)

sandrat said:


> If the government was sacking people for taking sick leave after say 30 years service and they had to spend money on recruitment of a replacement and training of a replacement and still have similar salary costs with the replacement then people would still be complaining


Why sack them? Just don't pay them when they are not working. It's a job, not a entitlement to an income.


----------



## sandrat (27 Jan 2009)

bradford score leads to disciplinary proceedings and eventually sacking.


----------



## z104 (27 Jan 2009)

Bradford scoring punishes a person who takes a day off sick and comes back to work the next day as they feel they need to get the job done where as it can reward somebody who takes 10 days off and who might not really be sick .

You can play the Bradford system if you want but it should not be used as a bible.


----------



## gianni (27 Jan 2009)

To get back to the thread title...

Yes, very sick of it. Too many ill-informed comments from arm chair economists.

The private sector contributors think the public sector have huge salaries, loads of time off, massive pensions. The public sector contributors think the private sector have even greater salaries, bonuses, perks, better promotional opportunities. 

What is particularly tiresome is the hyperbole & hearsay..


----------



## cole (27 Jan 2009)

Interesting that so many from the private sector are posting during working time.

Some posters have made the point that if you are working in the public sector and are good at your job etc then you have nothing to worry about. What concerns me are the blanket critisisms by the private sector on *all* public sector workers coupled with the asinine arguments that the private sector are somehow immune to wasting money or being inefficient etc.


----------



## BoscoTalking (27 Jan 2009)

i think its ironic that the private sector workers post here in frustration and suggest that 10% + cuts should occur even though its fairly certain to the onlooker that if these occur similar cuts / freezing / rationalizations will occur in the private sector thereafter- IBEC will see to that. 
its just that obvious to everyone bar public sector that huge changes have to occur to make the public sector more efficient...


----------



## bacchus (27 Jan 2009)

pennypitstop said:


> 10% + cuts should occur even though its fairly certain to the onlooker that if these occur similar cuts / freezing / rationalizations will occur in the private sector thereafter



Wake up, this has started in the private sector last year if not before and is only on the table now for public sector.


----------



## S.L.F (27 Jan 2009)

Can anyone find staffing levels in the P.S. from 10 years ago and compare it with levels today.


----------



## DublinTexas (27 Jan 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Can anyone find staffing levels in the P.S. from 10 years ago and compare it with levels today.


 
I can't tell you 10 year ago but I can tell you that the number of workers in the public sector in 2008 rose by 5,200 to 369,100.

And if I trust the CSO figures, than public servants are paid on average € 49,150 per annum in comparison to € 40,500 in the private sector and if you compare that to the average industrial wage of €34,000 than you can draw your own conclusions.

So we have about 4,239,848 in population and for the following caluclation let's exclude the under 15 years old which are 864,449, which means that about 3,375,399 people are left which could in theory be part of the workforce. Now 369,100 public sector workers makes 10.93% of the total theoretical workforce.

Do we really need nearly 11% of the workforce in the public service?

This has nothing to do with bashing the public service sector, some of them are needed and I don't know if I could justify to pay only €1,196 a week to Gardi giving the crime wave and risk that is going on.

We simply can't affort to have 11% of the workforce to be public sector workers who earn on average 44.55% more than the average industrial wage or 21.35% than their counterparts in the private sector.

If I multipy 369,100 times 49,150 than I have a wage bill (without any other cost like pension etc.) of 18,141,265,000 € a year or better said every day we pay wages of 50,392,402 € for the public service (yes that is 50+ Million) or to make it even easier, the public sector costs everybody (including childre) 11.88€ a day. And the question is what do I get for my 11.88€ a day?

So in our economic downturn and job losses in the private sector that have not been seen in a long period of time the question is really if we can affort to have a public service this big.

I don't think we can actualy have these many people in public service and yes I do understand that putting them out of work means that they get on the live register and get social welfare of some kind, but a private employer is making the same logic. If they can't affort the staff than they let them go. That is a normal cycle of life.

Now I do not argue that all public service is bad but my points is that if this crisis goes on at one point or another we need to borrow 50 Million a day just to pay our public service without doing anything else and hence we need to make cutbacks.

The idea of the unions to raise the tax to 48% in the high band so that we can continue paying higher wages to the public sector is just a sign how out of touch these people are. The higher the taxes the lower the spend which than results in more unemployeed in the private sector which results in even lower indirect taxes (and let's face it out indirect taxes are a large part of the budget). If that spiral continues sooner or later the majority of out taxes are going to pay for the public service and than what?

Now I'm sorry if this upsets some people here but in my company we just announced a major staff cutback and the goverment ignored all warnings and did nothing to help these people. So if we slim down because of the crisis why can't our public service?


----------



## Complainer (28 Jan 2009)

Jack2008 said:


> No public sector employee is going to convince me that they are worse off than private sector employees. And no public sector employee worth there salt would deny that there is huge wastage within the public sector.


And huge wastage within the private sector too.


Jack2008 said:


> A friends husband is a public sector employee and I asked him at the weekend "How many days holidays do you get a year" His reply was " Ah, 21 but I have my 10days paid sick leave as well so I suppose 31" To which I replied "But thats sick leave" "No", he laughed, "Sure we all take it as annual leave" - Now thats what my tax is paying for!!!!! When I said this to him I was told "take it up with the union".


I really don't believe that this stuff is still happening, but if it, do something about it. Report him in writing by registered post to the Chief Officer of his agency.


----------



## Bronte (28 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> I really don't believe that this stuff is still happening, but if it, do something about it. Report him in writing by registered post to the Chief Officer of his agency.


 
LOL and the Chief Officer will do what? Imagine what bureaucracy will get in his way if he tries to fight sick days and imagine the fight with the unions to boot.  

I personally know of public servants who clock in and leave work to do other things and this is in different areas.  

Does anyone have the figure for how many people are fired from their civil service job annually.  It's probably zero.


----------



## Sunny (28 Jan 2009)

Look people, there is no point arguing about these things. Brian 'Mugabe' Cowan will do things his way. Its his Government and he will run it as he sees fit so everyone should just shut up! 

I reckon his advisors must have been ready to cry when the words came out of his mouth!


----------



## BoscoTalking (28 Jan 2009)

wide awake thanks. it has started I know that - but i think will get dramatically worse if the money is not spent by public sector workers to prop up small businesses. more on dole. less income to spend, butchers / bakers / etc all out of jobs. In light of this, public sector workers should realise that the "bashing" by private sector openly - even though it will lead to worse impacts in their own sector should be understood for what it is - the last cry to call a halt to the crazy spending and low value for €€ we have been getting from the public sector.


----------



## Caveat (28 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> I really don't believe that this stuff is still happening


 
Complainer, if this is a genuine statement I think you are being very naive.

I know 6 people fairly well who all work in different areas/locations of the public sector and civil service - every one of them simply add their annual sick leave entitlement to their holiday entitlement as if it was a completely normal and natural thing to do.

In fact I'm sure I recall public sector workers on this very site, on more than a few occasions, admitting that this is a widespread practice.

(And yes BTW I am, believe it or not, getting sick of public sector bashing)


----------



## shnaek (28 Jan 2009)

cole said:


> Interesting that so many from the private sector are posting during working time.



That's 'cause we're all now unemployed...


----------



## boris (28 Jan 2009)

Would say that it is a possibility that the person who was talking about the sick leave was a prison officer. They are notorious for taking sick leave.

About five years ago I was in the company of a prison officer in the pub who stated he had X number of annual leave days plus X number of sick leave days as well. As I work in the civil service I nearly fell off the bar stool in shock at what he said.

Sick Leave in the Civil Service is closely monitored and explanations are required when persons are in excess of the limits (Certified and UnCertified) and do receive warning letters even before this. From my memory (> 20 years) I have seen very little abuse of the system and most likely the cases being talked about are exceptions.


----------



## sandrat (28 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> Look people, there is no point arguing about these things. Brian 'Mugabe' Cowan will do things his way. Its his Government and he will run it as he sees fit so everyone should just shut up!
> 
> I reckon his advisors must have been ready to cry when the words came out of his mouth!


 
 so I wasnt imagining it then


----------



## Jack2008 (28 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> And huge wastage within the private sector too.
> 
> But you are not picking up the tab for the wastage within the Private sector - that is the difference!


----------



## grahamo (28 Jan 2009)

I 've seen little abuse of the system. I'm not sure if its the same in other areas of the public sector but I pay into an ICP (income continuance plan) and this covers salary if ever out sick so the misinformed posters above should know that their tax (and my tax) isn't being used by me.


----------



## Jack2008 (28 Jan 2009)

Grahamo,

You are taking this very personally - There is wide spread abuse of tax payers money within the Public Service. This is a well known and documented fact only disputed by the workers within the Public Service and their unions! 
If there is wastage within the Private Sector it has nothing to do with the general public - It is an issue for the company involved!


----------



## rabbit (28 Jan 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> We simply can't affort to have 11% of the workforce to be public sector workers who earn on average 44.55% more than the average industrial wage or 21.35% than their counterparts in the private sector.


 
I agree.


We are borrowing 15 billion this year - if we could not borrow that ( and the day will come when we cannot, given we already have to pay double the interest rate Germany does on its borrowings ) then we would have to cut public expenditure by half.

As a german businessman said to be recently, there could be food riots on the streets here yet.


----------



## Birroc (28 Jan 2009)

rabbit said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> We are borrowing 15 billion this year - if we could not borrow that ( and the day will come when we cannot, given we already have to pay double the interest rate Germany does on its borrowings ) the we would have to cut public expenditure by half.
> ...


 
I know people already planning for this possibility - stashing long lasting foodstuffs. We're borrowing 55 million a day and we are begging unions to help us out.


----------



## grahamo (28 Jan 2009)

Jack2008 said:


> Grahamo,
> 
> You are taking this very personally - There is wide spread abuse of tax payers money within the Public Service. This is a well known and documented fact only disputed by the workers within the Public Service and their unions!
> If there is wastage within the Private Sector it has nothing to do with the general public - It is an issue for the company involved!


 
Yes you're right,I probably am taking it too personally , and I apologise for doing so.. we've all heard the stories of execs going on junkets etc. but the average worker doesn't abuse the system, doesn't abuse sick pay, doesn't get huge mileage allowances etc. etc.and when people generalise they personally insult everyone in the PS. Roll on these cutbacks and maybe then people will move on to their next victims 

P.S. This thread was supposed to be a refuge from all the PS bashing for PS workers who post but we're getting even more abuse over here


----------



## Dreamerb (28 Jan 2009)

Jack2008 said:


> But you are not picking up the tab for the wastage within the Private sector - that is the difference!



Uh, what?! Of course we are, all of us. Waste in the private sector costs us money by feeding into higher costs for goods and services.

And before someone comes in to yell "But the markets sort that out!", that isn't necessarily the case either. There are a lot of areas where waste is endemic within an entire sector, or there are quasi-cartels (not formal ones, necessarily, but there's a market leader and many other players follow the same pricing model leaving themselves with the potential for the kind of supernormal profits that positively encourage waste), or there's deliberate lack of transparency in pricing. 

The "Everyone knows there's lots of waste" model just won't wash. There is waste in some areas. There is inefficiency in some areas. Is it a feature unique to or universal within the entire of the very broad public sector? No. 

We are audited, we are subject to value-for-money reports, we have to tender many contracts. All of these are control mechanisms. Could they be more extensive and more rigorous? Quite possibly - but there's a substantial administrative cost to these to, so a balance must be achieved between creating and fostering a culture of minimising costs relative to benefits, and imposing high compliance costs by carrying out enormous and comprehensive checks in every area. Anyone who works in any form of audit or audit compliance in public or private sector will recognise the balance that needs to be achieved. 

The projects that have - famously and horribly - gone off the rails are the ones which have been under-managed and badly specified; honest specification, good preparation, close monitoring and consistent management focus are key to bringing in projects on time and on budget.


----------



## DublinTexas (28 Jan 2009)

So today our fearless leader Brian 'Mugabe' Cowan (to quote Sunny) announced that in his 5 year plan he can might have to look at taxation to ensure we can cover the cost of running this country.

Can someone have a reality check done on Mr. Cowan, his outburst about this being his goverment and him runing it as he sees fit is very bold for an unelected leader of a goverment. Yes I say he is unelected because we did not get the cance to vote for him in the last election, we all voted Bertie because we feelt so sorry for him being constantly bashed.

It is not only time to cut down our public service and have the public service concentrate on what they should do, it also is time for Mr. Cowan to give the public the opportunity to say what they think of his goverment.

It's time to get ride of public services we don't need like the Army (than gain we might need them in case of the food riots when Mr. Cowan's goverment finaly fails)  and countless other areas where there is too much waist. Get ride of the majority of boards which in the majority of cases are nothing else than a way of getting people a job. Start selling shares in companies that the goverment has no business to be in like AerLingus, ESB, Board Gais. These all want to be competetive companies so why allow the state to own them? They are not longer providing a service for all without making profit. These are now for profit companies, so let them run free.

This country always had a little touch of a central american banana republic but somehow we are on our way to become more like a south american peoples republic in which citizing the fearless leader results in major outbursts. I wonder if Mr Chavez is coaching Mr. Cowan.

Again, we need a viable public service as much as we need a viable private sector, these need to go hand in hand and they need to complement each other. 

At present it's just too much public service.


----------



## c00lcarl (28 Jan 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> the number of workers in the public sector in 2008 rose by 5,200 to 369,100.


 
This is an increase of 1.35% which is actually fairly low, especially considering the effects of the downturn were not felt until fairly late in the year



DublinTexas said:


> public servants are paid on average € 49,150 per annum in comparison to € 40,500 in the private sector and if you compare that to the average industrial wage of €34,000 than you can draw your own conclusions.


 
The obvious conclusion is that both sectors are overpaid and need to be brought back in line with the average industrial wage



DublinTexas said:


> 4,239,848 in population, let's exclude the under 15 years old which are 864,449, which means that about 3,375,399 people are left which could in theory be part of the workforce. Now 369,100 public sector workers makes 10.93% of the total theoretical workforce.
> 
> Do we really need nearly 11% of the workforce in the public service?


 
You are leaving out long term sick, students and pensioners etc, in fact the public service makes up nearer 17% which is way too many and should be addressed, around 130,000 of the number you mention are employed by the HSE.

Getting back to the point of the thread, I am sick of misinformed individuals posting ill thoughtout comments about the public sector which no substance to back them, most of the posts just appear to be peoples opinions put forward as fact. The fact of the matter is that no single section of society can correct the situation we are in.

This is an excellent opportunity to introduce more efficient work practices into the public sector and address some of the deficiencies and wasteful processes (and senior management/Govt are the ones to blame for these not being addressed previously, rather than the lower level general grades) that have been tolerated due to the excess of money that has been available over the last 10 years. 

PS. I see that many PS bashers are fond of quoting ESRI calls for cuts in the public sector, but ESRI have actually called for pay cuts across both sectors.


----------



## Sunny (28 Jan 2009)

c00lcarl said:


> PS. I see that many PS bashers are fond of quoting ESRI calls for cuts in the public sector, but ESRI have actually called for pay cuts across both sectors.


 

Shock and horror. I think you find that every sensible private sector employee has already accepted this. Whereas you have the IMO and Teachers Union and all the other unions who don't represent the majority of private sector workers shouting 'over our dead bodies'.... 

Damn it. Promised myself not to involved in this pointless debate anymore!


----------



## Caveat (28 Jan 2009)

c00lcarl said:


> PS. I see that many PS bashers are fond of quoting ESRI calls for cuts in the public sector, but ESRI have actually called for pay cuts across both sectors.


 
Yes, but as the pay cuts in the private sector have happened/are happening anyway, there is probably little point in highlighting it.

_Edit: crossed with Sunny_


----------



## grahamo (28 Jan 2009)

DublinTexas;79342
[B said:
			
		

> It's time to get ride of public services we don't need like the Army


 
Are you for real? But then again who needs publicly funded defence forces, Gardai, Doctors, nurses Teachers etc. I'm sure the private sector will supply all this at a very reasonable, value for money cost to the taxpayer.......NOT! 
A perfect example of the kneejerk comments made by some posters!
The reason we are in this state is because of the grossly overpaid, bonus- and target-driven upper echelons of the private, public and political sectors. NOT the PAYE sector, public or private.
And most posters reaction is to throw the toys out of the pram and shout at the top of their voice  'SACK THE WORKERS! They're all lazy b***ards who wouldn't last 2 minutes in the private sector.'


----------



## rabbit (28 Jan 2009)

grahamo said:


> They're all lazy b***ards who wouldn't last 2 minutes in the private sector.'


 
not all, but many...and do not sack them - just bring down pay levels 20 to 30% to be more in line with the private sector, who do not even have the security.  Oh, and get rid of the public sector widely abused "perks" such as the sick days etc.


----------



## Purple (28 Jan 2009)

grahamo said:


> The reason we are in this state is because of the grossly overpaid, bonus- and target-driven upper echelons of the private, public and political sectors. NOT the PAYE sector, public or private.
> And most posters reaction is to throw the toys out of the pram and shout at the top of their voice  'SACK THE WORKERS! They're all lazy b***ards who wouldn't last 2 minutes in the private sector.'



Most of those "grossly overpaid, bonus- and target-driven upper echelons of the private [and] public [sectors]" are PAYE.
Anyone who works for a living is a worker.


----------



## DublinTexas (28 Jan 2009)

grahamo said:


> Are you for real? But then again who needs publicly funded defence forces, Gardai, Doctors, nurses Teachers etc. I'm sure the private sector will supply all this at a very reasonable, value for money cost to the taxpayer.......NOT!
> A perfect example of the kneejerk comments made by some posters!
> The reason we are in this state is because of the grossly overpaid, bonus- and target-driven upper echelons of the private, public and political sectors. NOT the PAYE sector, public or private.
> And most posters reaction is to throw the toys out of the pram and shout at the top of their voice 'SACK THE WORKERS! They're all lazy b***ards who wouldn't last 2 minutes in the private sector.'


 
Yes I am for real, what is the value the defence forces bring to us that can not be done with other parts of the existing public service. Escorting money trucks should be done by the police force not the army. Sending troups overseas if we have to borrow for their pay and action is the other thing that needs to go. 

I'm not saying that we need to slash the whole defence forces, but we most certainly should bring it to a level that can concentrate on the core business.

Maybe we should install a mandatory service provision for 18 month or so giving youngsters the option to either join the defence forces or work in social institutions for that time like it's done in several continental countries. That why we get teenagers off the street, free professional healthcare workers to do the important task and let the youngsters deliver the home care or food delivery. Saves money and allows at the same time to bring some work manners into the youngers.

And if you read my 1st post you know that I am actualy thinking that gardai are not paid enough for their job.

I'm all for a public service delivering the core business defence, security, education, infrastructure and guidance to ensure that a free market does not run amok (which it did with the banks recently and that despite several regulators looking after them).

Your argument that the upper echelons are responsible is correct but we can't currently do anything to cut the pay of a bank CEO until the state takes ownership and even than nothing will come out of it. And I'm actualy against taking ownership.

We can't do anything against the echelons in the public service because we don't have the option at present to change our goverment because his majesty thinks he does not need to listen to the people.

The solution is a slick public service concentrating on the core business, delivering value for money and that is accountable to the public in an open way.

But if I day after day see my local council service parks and garden department parked down the road for 4 hours on a field that is not even theres doing nothing than I realy question your theory that it's only the upper echelons.

Of if I see the local planing inspector going from house to house to check the satelite dishes on the front of the house for planing permission but when he see's you are Irish he let's you off with a "now you should have had a permission" but to the non nationals he's like "take it down or you go to jail" than I question his value.

Or if the local council stops a private company from collecting glas because it's not waist but at the same time waists money to tell me that I should choose them because they offer better service by collecting glas than I really question why we have them at all.

Sure these examples are just out of the top of my head but I think they show it's not only the upper echelons.


----------



## Complainer (28 Jan 2009)

boris said:


> Would say that it is a possibility that the person who was talking about the sick leave was a prison officer. They are notorious for taking sick leave.


Perhaps if you were getting beaten up, or getting soaked in boiling water, or getting faeces thrown at you, or getting HIV+ blood or saliva over you on a fairly regular basis, you might be notorious for taking sick leave too? As it happens, since 2005, sick leave is covered by other staff at no extra to the prison service.



Jack2008 said:


> But you are not picking up the tab for the wastage within the Private sector - that is the difference!


So who do you think picks up the tab for private sector wastage?


Caveat said:


> Complainer, if this is a genuine statement I think you are being very naive.
> 
> I know 6 people fairly well who all work in different areas/locations of the public sector and civil service - every one of them simply add their annual sick leave entitlement to their holiday entitlement as if it was a completely normal and natural thing to do.
> 
> In fact I'm sure I recall public sector workers on this very site, on more than a few occasions, admitting that this is a widespread practice.


Here's a suggestion. You name the depts and agencies in question. I'll submit FOI requests at €20 a go to get the sick leave entitlement and sick leave taken figures for 2007 or 2008. If the average leave taken comes to less than 50% of the entitlement, you'll stump up to cover the costs of the FOI requests. Deal?

And, why aren't you reporting these individuals in writing as well?


Bronte said:


> LOL and the Chief Officer will do what? Imagine what bureaucracy will get in his way if he tries to fight sick days and imagine the fight with the unions to boot.


Well, given that he'll be assuming that you've also sent the report to Shane Ross and/or Leo Verodokar and/or Daily Mail and/or Joe Duffy, he can't ignore it. And has anyone got any concrete examples of how or where unions have blocked addressing abuse of sick leave, or is this just one of those urban myths?


----------



## Caveat (28 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> Here's a suggestion. You name the depts and agencies in question.



No thanks, I don't think so. Obviously.



> And, why aren't you reporting these individuals in writing as well?


A number of reasons which I thought would have been fairly obvious:


No proof.
No reason to believe that anything at all would be done about it.
If there even was one, no confidence that any investigation would be thorough, professional or impartial.
My own privacy reasons - lack of confidentiality/integrity.
But why should I report these people when people in their own organisation and other public sector workers on this very site accept that this is a problem but don't do anything about it?


----------



## boris (28 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> Perhaps if you were getting beaten up, or getting soaked in boiling water, or getting faeces thrown at you, or getting HIV+ blood or saliva over you on a fairly regular basis, you might be notorious for taking sick leave too? As it happens, since 2005, sick leave is covered by other staff at no extra to the prison service.


 
Actually complainer the thread here was discussing the way persons within the public/civil service seem to assume that Sick Leave was part of their annual leave entitlement. Whether or not there is any extra cost to the prison service is not what we were discussing. Anyway this prison officer I met was within the last year so attitudes have not changed since 2005.

In my years in the Civil Service I have not had the occasion to work with someone who had this attitude and if they had, I imagine it would not have been tolerated very long i.e. take leave and pay off them.

I was out for 4 weeks last year after an operation. I had to submit not alone a doctor cert but also a written report from both myself and my supervisor explaining why. If the case had eventually been problematic I would have been referred to the Chief Medical Officer. Also I have seen and heard of increments/promotions being withheld due to sick leave. 

So basically it is not a free for all with sick leave for the Civil Service.  Just because there are a few bad eggs, don't make us all out to be the same.


----------



## Complainer (28 Jan 2009)

Caveat said:


> No thanks, I don't think so. Obviously.


Why not?


----------



## Dundhoone (29 Jan 2009)

Public sector numbers have increased  - BECAUSE WE WANTED THEM TO.

We voted in FF, on the basis of more Gardai on the streets, more and different services in health care, Local authorities that didnt just tar potholes, less pupils per teacher, more university places and so on.  

The public service is a slow beast but it has responded to these demands.  And now its an about face turn within a very very short period.  

Whats with the constant whining?  If the peoples mandate to now reduce these services, thats what will happen.  

Your gran wont be able to get that nurses visit she had once a week. The police will be slower to respond and you will wait longer in the ER of the hospital. But were living beyond our means so thats what has to happen.


----------



## Caveat (29 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> Why not?


 
I thought the implication was clear enough - I have no intention of exposing myself or this site to the possibility of threats of legal action or any confrontation with public sector/civil service bodies.


----------



## BoscoTalking (29 Jan 2009)

Dundhoone said:


> Public sector numbers have increased  - BECAUSE WE WANTED THEM TO.
> 
> We voted in FF, on the basis of more Gardai on the streets, more and different services in health care, Local authorities that didnt just tar potholes, less pupils per teacher, more university places and so on.
> 
> The public service is a slow beast but _it has responded to these demands._  And now its an about face turn within a very very short period.


Ah come on - do you think FF made all these things happened? reduced class sizes, more gardai on the streets etc? I don't - numbers increased and workload decreased because we kept asking the unions what they wanted... Bertie set the country up for a huge fall and its happening at the same time as a global downturn - thats the saving grace for FF.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> Perhaps if you were getting beaten up, or getting soaked in boiling water, or getting faeces thrown at you, or getting HIV+ blood or saliva over you on a fairly regular basis, you might be notorious for taking sick leave too?


 I don't think that even the most militant of the bearded brethren would suggest that prison officers get soaked in boiling water on a regular basis. Getting soaked in boiling water will result in long term scarring and disability. How often has that happened to prison officers in the last 10 years?


----------



## Dreamerb (29 Jan 2009)

The vast majority of the "Everyone takes sick days as though they're an annual leave entitlement" is coming at second or third hand. I have (as a civil servant for a decade) mentioned that I _once_ knew _one person _who did that - and that it was a profound shock to me. I've personally taken, I think, about ten days over that decade, six of which were certified and two of which would have been had I not refused a cert because I was desperately hoping to get to work the day after an accident that saw me carted to hospital in an ambulance [if you take a cert in such circumstances, you may actually be forbidden to attend work]. 

There are plenty of sanctions available for staff who abuse sick leave, and as a manager I would have no compunction in exercising them - but I don't have to because my staff and colleagues simply _don't_ take sick leave at random. It's not seen as acceptable or appropriate, the culture just doesn't exist. And that goes for all of the areas in which I've worked, which covers several different government departmetns.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2009)

Public sector sick leave is a non-event as far as our current economic crisis is concerned. I really don’t know why this is being discussed in these debates.


----------



## Dreamerb (29 Jan 2009)

Nor I, but it's dredged up over and over (and over and over...).


----------



## Shawady (29 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> Public sector sick leave is a non-event as far as our current economic crisis is concerned. I really don’t know why this is being discussed in these debates.


 
Probably the same reason christmas shopping days and bank time were discussed on other threads. Petty public sector bashing rather than ideas on how to cut 15 billion in five years.
I assume that's what the original poster meant when he posted this question.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2009)

So the real question is how do we cut public sector costs, and numbers, while improving services? How do we cut 20’000 jobs (not outsourcing them, just getting rid of them) from the HSE while improving the service?


----------



## z104 (29 Jan 2009)

I can't believe that Civil servants/public servants get Christmas shopping time off and bank time.

All the crazy entitlements should be cut out. Either all paye workers get the perks of the public service or all get the perks of the private sector. It should not be one rule for one paye worker and another rule for another paye worker .

Especially when the private sector is paying for it.


----------



## Marathon Man (29 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> Public sector sick leave is a non-event as far as our current economic crisis is concerned.


 
Because it (obviously) costs money to cover absenteeism! Cowan is looking for 2 billion. This might be a small start.

Other posters have suggested that there is no evidence of higher sick leave in the public service and that it is merely anecdotal. Read this or [broken link removed].

I think this one really take the biscuit : Indo article
*Nurses win back half-day rights *NURSES have won back their right to take two paid half-day holidays so they can go to music festivals and sporting events. 
The Labour Court has ruled that Donegal nurses can take the leave to attend the Mary From Dungloe and Rory Gallagher festivals. And in Galway, nurses will get similar paid leave to attend the Galway Races. 
The practice of giving half-days had been abandoned in 2003 by the North Western Health Board.


----------



## Shawady (29 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> So the real question is how do we cut public sector costs, and numbers, while improving services? How do we cut 20’000 jobs (not outsourcing them, just getting rid of them) from the HSE while improving the service?


 
Yes. There have been a lot of comments on AAM about the public sector being 'bloated , over-staffed and inefficent'. If the government cuts wages by 10% (which looks likely), all you will get is reduced wages. There will be no change to the service if one is of the opinion it is presently ineffcient.
I think the governemnt should set a goal to reduce numbers by 10% in a time frame of 5 years. I am only familar with my own department so I don't know how achievable it is but I would be surprised with a workforce of 350k, if there was no room for streamlining in some areas.


----------



## boris (29 Jan 2009)

Niallers said:


> I can't believe that Civil servants/public servants get Christmas shopping time off and bank time.


 
Bank Time has been stopped since circa 2001 and is been gradually phased out for other staff who have it by Department.

With regards to Christmas Shopping Leave,  there is no Official Circular on it and a lot of areas do not get it.  Anyway that is *all* they get at Christmas Time (if they get it!).  No paid for Xmas parties, bonus, etc.


----------



## Caveat (29 Jan 2009)

boris said:


> No paid for Xmas parties, bonus, etc.


 
Nor do most of the private sector - in 20 years I have never recieved a bonus or had a paid party etc - nor has anyone I know to my knowledge.


----------



## boris (29 Jan 2009)

Caveat - I agree with you, all the rest of my family work in private sector and have only received these things sporadically. However the point I was making is that the civil service (in my experience) do not get these things *at all* (despite the rumours about what they might get).


----------



## Caveat (29 Jan 2009)

OK so back to the OP.

Yes, I think most people are sick of the bashing (I am) but on the other hand it's very difficult not to respond to posts which defend the PS no matter what. 

I think most reasonable people know and accept that yes there is inefficiency and wastage in the PS (inevitable in huge organisations) and that yes, this can be improved on - and no, not all PS workers are to blame for this nor are they all underworked and overburdened with holidays etc.

Also, I think most people accept that the private sector by and large do not receive bonuses/parties etc.

I tried to stick to the 'truce' a few days ago so I'm starting again - now.  - it's worse than trying to give up fags - I swear.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (29 Jan 2009)

Caveat said:


> Nor do most of the private sector - in 20 years I have never recieved a bonus or had a paid party etc - nor has anyone I know to my knowledge.


 
Thats amazing, i must Dj an invisible parties paid for by companies. With free food and drink all night.

Not just at Christmas but but easter events, summer events etc.

You are looking at it from a personal point of view and not the overall picture as other have accused civil servants of doing.


----------



## Caveat (29 Jan 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Thats amazing, i must Dj an invisible parties paid for by companies. With free food and drink all night.
> 
> Not just at Christmas but but easter events, summer events etc.


 
I said most - I didn't say no-one gets this. And as I said, no-one I know gets it.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (29 Jan 2009)

Caveat said:


> I said most - I didn't say no-one gets this. And as I said, no-one I know gets it.


 
You must have a very small social circle


----------



## Caveat (29 Jan 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> You must have a very small social circle


 
Maybe 

As Purple said, I think it's more constructive to look for any possible solutions that may accelerate recovery from the current economic crisis.

I think this thread has run it's course - some posters (private as well as public) have agreed that they are sick of the bashing and some will continue to bash away anyway.

I think the thread should be closed really - it's just going to degenerate.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (29 Jan 2009)

Well i have seen serious waste of money in my Dept. Might i add its always at the top. 

Between expenses, wasteful IT and other stuff i just can't mention its a disgrace.

I earn well below the Average Industrail Wage, as do all around me. Yet we will be the ones to take the hit in the long run.


----------



## Birroc (29 Jan 2009)

Caveat said:


> Yes, I think most people are sick of the bashing (I am) but on the other hand it's very difficult not to respond to posts which defend the PS no matter what.
> 
> I think most reasonable people know and accept that yes there is inefficiency and wastage in the PS (inevitable in huge organisations) and that yes, this can be improved on - and no, not all PS workers are to blame for this nor are they all underworked and overburdened with holidays etc.
> 
> Also, I think most people accept that the private sector by and large do not receive bonuses/parties etc.


 
Caveat, why do you use 'PS' for public sector and 'private sector' for private sector?


----------



## Caveat (29 Jan 2009)

Birroc said:


> Caveat, why do you use 'PS' for public sector and 'private sector' for private sector?


 
Because it's quicker than saying 'private sector' and 'public sector' and PS for both would be confusing, and because elsewhere on the site it seems to be an abbreviation in common usage.

Were you really that interested?


----------



## RedTop (29 Jan 2009)

I never agreed with Benchmarking but in these times, I would like to see the Public Sector properly Benchmarked Down just like the Private Sector.  We have already had Pay Freeze, 10% Pay Reduction, Layoffs, Forced Holidays (unpaid if you have none left), and we all fly Budget Airlines and stay in cheap hotels while on business.  Our mileage allowance for using our own cars for company business is less than half the rate of the Public Sector.  Expense Reports are examined with a fine tooth comb.  Equipment purchases require VP approval.  We should survive the storm like we have done before, only because we operate a prudent business model.


----------



## Birroc (29 Jan 2009)

Caveat said:


> Because it's quicker than saying 'private sector' and 'public sector' and PS for both would be confusing, and because elsewhere on the site it seems to be an abbreviation in common usage.
> 
> Were you really that interested?


 
But why did you pick PS for public service and not PS for private sector ? Why choose not to abbreviate one over the other ?


----------



## S.L.F (29 Jan 2009)

Niallers said:


> I can't believe that Civil servants/public servants get Christmas shopping time off and bank time.
> 
> All the crazy entitlements should be cut out. Either all paye workers get the perks of the public service or all get the perks of the private sector. It should not be one rule for one paye worker and another rule for another paye worker .
> 
> *Especially when the private sector is paying for it*.


 
This keeps coming up.

Public and civil service employees pay income tax as well.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (29 Jan 2009)

S.L.F said:


> This keeps coming up.
> 
> *Public and civil service employees pay income tax as well*.


 
Well said, if flexi time and banked time are so good why don't these people come work in the public service. They spend all day on the internet already so are prime targets


----------



## Complainer (29 Jan 2009)

Caveat said:


> I thought the implication was clear enough - I have no intention of exposing myself or this site to the possibility of threats of legal action or any confrontation with public sector/civil service bodies.


No confrontation necessary. I'll front the FOI requests. I'm just looking for your commitment to foot the bill when your wild claims are exposed as fiction. But perhaps you're not really that confident about the accuracy of your claims...


----------



## S.L.F (29 Jan 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> They spend all day on the internet already so are prime targets


 
That's not entirely fair!!!

They must do some work....I mean...they are paid aren't they!


----------



## z104 (29 Jan 2009)

S.L.F said:


> This keeps coming up.
> 
> Public and civil service employees pay income tax as well.


 

My taxes would be better used paying for a public servant to be doing nothing on the dole than nothing at work earning multiples of the dole.


----------



## z104 (29 Jan 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Well said, if flexi time and banked time are so good why don't these people come work in the public service. They spend all day on the internet already so are prime targets


 

Where do I apply or do you still need to have pull?


----------



## S.L.F (30 Jan 2009)

Niallers said:


> My taxes would be better used paying for a public servant to be doing nothing on the dole than *nothing at work* earning multiples of the dole.


 
Which public servant?

Name the particular branch or dept they work at.


----------



## Caveat (30 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> No confrontation necessary. I'll front the FOI requests. I'm just looking for your commitment to foot the bill when your wild claims are exposed as fiction. But perhaps you're not really that confident about the accuracy of your claims...


 
I have no interest in making any kind of 'deal' with you re FOI etc.

Complainer, this is getting ridiculous. 

First you say:



> I really don't believe that this stuff is still happening, but if it, do something about it. Report him in writing by registered post to the Chief Officer of his agency.


 
And then you suddenly start referring to 'wild claims'. Bit of an attitude change?!

And I presume you read this? 

Quote from Richard Bruton:

_...there seemed to be a belief in some sections of the public service that sick days were "there to be taken"._
_"That attitude is one that just isn't acceptable, we can no longer afford it and it's vital to protect scarce taxpayers' money," he said._


I'm sorry I can't take you seriously on this. Topic closed for me.


----------



## Dreamerb (30 Jan 2009)

Niallers said:


> Where do I apply or do you still need to have pull?


I know you're deeply prejudiced against public servants, and I'm sure it'll do no good to point it out, but there is no question of having "pull" to get a job. Recruitment competitions, whether for a panel or for a specified job, are completely independently run for all but a very few very low paid jobs (postroom / reception). In the civil service, there's a battery of aptitude-type assessments, interviews and presentations; in the broader public service it does vary somewhat between organisations (for example, schools recruit teachers directly in most circumstances, local authorities go through very similar processes to the civil service). 

You don't get a job offer based on "pull", and in fact it's almost always (perhaps outright always) the case that canvassing disqualifies. You get a job based on the same criteria most large organisations use: your qualifications, track record, aptitude, experience, and interview performance.


----------



## grahamo (30 Jan 2009)

Niallers said:


> My taxes would be better used paying for a public servant to be doing nothing on the dole than nothing at work earning multiples of the dole.


 Here we go again! For the umpteenth time some sections of the Public sector make enough money to run the department/cover costs etc. Your tax isn't needed where I work!
I don't know anyone in my section that 'does nothing at work'
A lot of public sector expenditure goes on purchasing goods and services from the overpriced private sector. Thus helping keep a lot of the private sector in employment. Does that mean my taxes are paying for you?
Sorry to sound like I'm generalising but it does seem there is a lot of it going on here.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (30 Jan 2009)

Niallers said:


> Where do I apply or do you still need to have pull?


----------



## grahamo (30 Jan 2009)

ron burgundy said:


>


 

:d


----------



## Bronte (30 Jan 2009)

Complainer said:


> Well, given that he'll be assuming that you've also sent the report to Shane Ross and/or Leo Verodokar and/or Daily Mail and/or Joe Duffy, he can't ignore it. And has anyone got any concrete examples of how or where unions have blocked addressing abuse of sick leave, or is this just one of those urban myths?


 I've never reported anyone for anything in my life. If someone has what is wrong with that? Not to get personal Complainer I believe that you are a very hard working civil servant. They actually exist, I've met them too. They are so hard working, honest and sincere they don't realise what is going on around them (I'm being serious not sarcastic). I personally know some of what goes on and I absolutely know how powerful the unions are, oftentimes preventing good people in the civil service from speaking out and complaining about what is going on. They have ways and means of stopping people getting promoted and having people live in misery. Whistleblowers are persona non gratia in the state system. This will never change but that's the way it is so until that changes I have no problem bashing the public sector or any other sector where I perceive something to be wrong. I also have no problem praising those who speak out and I admire many civil servants, I know really hardworking teachers and Gardai etc for example and others but I also know there are plenty of people who screw the system.


----------



## Chocks away (30 Jan 2009)

Bravo Bronte! Well done.


----------



## Pique318 (30 Jan 2009)

Bronte said:


> ...very hard working civil servants... actually exist, I've met them too. They are so hard working, honest and sincere they don't realise what is going on around them (I'm being serious not sarcastic). I personally know some of what goes on and I absolutely know how powerful the unions are, oftentimes preventing good people in the civil service from speaking out and complaining about what is going on. They have ways and means of stopping people getting promoted and having people live in misery. Whistleblowers are persona non gratia in the state system. This will never change but that's the way it is so until that changes I have no problem bashing the public sector or any other sector where I perceive something to be wrong. I also have no problem praising those who speak out and I admire many civil servants, I know really hardworking teachers and Gardai etc for example and others but I also know there are plenty of people who screw the system.



And there, in one post is the nub of the whole thread. Well done Bronte!

I haven't read anyone saying that ALL public servants are lazy, good-for-nothing sods....but the reaction of public servants to (1st or 2nd hand) accounts of such behaviour is disproportionate and reminds me of the phrase "methinks they protest too much".

Those people DO exist and need to be booted en masse. Remove the dead wood and the bill will be reduced. Then consolidate ridiculous overstaffing where multiple sections do the same job slightly differently. 

If there is opposition to this by the unions then they are not interested in productivity and value for money as they claim during 'partnership' talks, but to protect their own little empire whereby they are practically the power behind the throne as regards employment decisions in Ireland...this from a conglomerate of multiple unions who together only represent 20% or 25% (I think) of the workforce in Ireland.


----------



## Dreamerb (30 Jan 2009)

Pique318 said:


> I haven't read anyone saying that ALL public servants are lazy, good-for-nothing sods....but the reaction of public servants to (1st or 2nd hand) accounts of such behaviour is disproportionate and reminds me of the phrase "methinks they protest too much".


I've been thinking about this because you make an interesting point here. I would observe that there are just a few posters (very few, to be fair) who _do _appear to generalise across the entirety of the public service. No, I'm not going looking for quotes to back it up - I admit they're a small minority!

But you're right: quite a number of us are defensive. In my case - and I can speak only for myself - it's not that I think the civil or public service is perfect. My experience within the civil service has been that there are certain systemic problems. Thing is, they're nothing to do with bank time, or sick days, or obstructive unions - they're very significantly to do with managing assignments badly so people are placed in work to which they are just not suited. You may have someone at mid-level who is very good at, say, managing a large team of people doing routine work - but is placed as gofer and admin back-up for a small technical team. Or a person who's great on policy development put in a grant processing area even though they're border-line innumerate. Or a person who's good at dealing with the public, but is placed in a role where they have to write a lot even though they're plain bad at it.

All of them have actual real skills that we need, but are placed in roles where they are very nearly doomed to underperform - and much of that in the name of a "generalist" civil service where people are supposed to be able to turn their hands to any kind of work. Some people can, but many more can't.

There are people who are consistent non-performers in any role: yes, they are a drain. 

There are others whose talents and abilities are not properly used: they too are a drain, but importantly it is not actually their fault and may not be for lack of effort (even though it's inevitably demotivating to be placed in a role you're completely unsuited to). 

This is something that needs to be managed better for all our sakes. If we identify where people's greatest skills and aptitudes lie and assign them accordingly, then and only then can we identify the _real _deadwood - the people who can't be bothered or think they have no more than a sinecure. 

So that's why I get defensive: because I think the _wrong_ issues are being identified as "the problem with the public service".

But then, I'm not temperamentally suited to the kind of HR role I'd need to effect major change, so what can you do... 



Pique318 said:


> Those people DO exist and need to be booted en masse. Remove the dead wood and the bill will be reduced. Then consolidate ridiculous overstaffing where multiple sections do the same job slightly differently.


See above!


----------



## Pique318 (30 Jan 2009)

I agree with you that in an organisation as large as the public sector, then there will be square pegs in round holes...people who are not good enough to do THEIR job. 

But if that's the case, they need to be transferred pronto or let go!!!

The reluctance of any union to allow forced transfers (ref: decentralisation) is a problem with part one of that option. If you're bad at your job and won't transfer 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100 miles well then the alternative is forced layoffs, on a case by case basis as some of them will have been better at the job they were in than others so giving 10 weeks redundancy across the board is a golden handshake to those who don't deserve it.

Also, and this has to be acknowledged, If I'm crap at my techie office job, I can't complain if I'm told to go, with the line "but I'm a great orator so it's your fault for putting me in this position in the first place". Aptitude tests are used in the civil service to determine peoples suitability at a job originally. 

Also, people generally 'know' if they're rubbish at their job, unless they're totally deluded, in which case they shouldn't be there, so why have they not applied for a transfer to a position to which they think they would be better suited? Complacency? Laziness? Giving up a cushy number where they can get away with poor performance? Close to home and put that above doing a job to be proud of?

Regardless of all these possibilities, it would take a hard-ass to ruthlessly cut people out of their position in order to rectify these issues, and does the public sector have enough of them that will ignore personal relationships and look at the scenario with the 'bigger picture' in mind ?

I doubt it, but I don't know.


----------



## Dreamerb (30 Jan 2009)

Pique318 said:


> I agree with you that in an organisation as large as the public sector, then there will be square pegs in round holes...people who are not good enough to do THEIR job.
> 
> But if that's the case, they need to be transferred pronto or let go!!!


Transferred, yes I agree (as I think is obvious); let go - not until a reasonable effort has been made at identifying and utilitising strengths. Quite aside from the fact that most of the organisations making up the civil and public service are large and broad enough to encompass and require a wide range of skills, you'd face a barrage of unfair dismissal claims if reasonable efforts were not made.  



Pique318 said:


> The reluctance of any union to allow forced transfers (ref: decentralisation) is a problem with part one of that option. If you're bad at your job and won't transfer 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100 miles well then the alternative is forced layoffs, on a case by case basis as some of them will have been better at the job they were in than others so giving 10 weeks redundancy across the board is a golden handshake to those who don't deserve it..


I doubt we'll fully agree on the decentralisation thing! I transferred to avoid it, and my job has since moved. I was rather good at it, of course, so naturally you're not finger-pointing my way. 



Pique318 said:


> Also, and this has to be acknowledged, If I'm crap at my techie office job, I can't complain if I'm told to go, with the line "but I'm a great orator so it's your fault for putting me in this position in the first place". Aptitude tests are used in the civil service to determine peoples suitability at a job originally. .


 
So that's what they're for!

Seriously, this is something which is horribly under-used. Aptitude tests are not used by Departments in assigining new / existing / promoted staff. I don't think they're even given the data. So Joe Bloggs, who's _brilliant _with numbers isn't put in the payroll area with the complex numerical data they have to deal with; with his only-just-passed the analytical competence test, he's put in an area working on policy. And Mary Jones, who's got a degree in public administration and three years as policy development officer in an NGO but goes blank when faced with numbers more than 10, gets put in payroll.

Swap Joe and Mary; hey presto, the whole organisation works better.

There's room to move, rather than just fire, a lot of people and to raise standards just by strategic assignment. 



Pique318 said:


> Also, people generally 'know' if they're rubbish at their job, unless they're totally deluded, in which case they shouldn't be there, so why have they not applied for a transfer to a position to which they think they would be better suited? Complacency? Laziness? Giving up a cushy number where they can get away with poor performance? Close to home and put that above doing a job to be proud of?


Maybe some of the above, maybe really hopes that if they try really hard that's all that can be asked (even if they're still just not good), maybe afraid to rock the boat, afraid of being seen to be a trouble-maker / unable to cope (some of which latter, regrettably, are justified). Lots of reasons, not all of which necessarily reflect badly on the person. 



Pique318 said:


> Regardless of all these possibilities, it would take a hard-ass to ruthlessly cut people out of their position in order to rectify these issues, and does the public sector have enough of them that will ignore personal relationships and look at the scenario with the 'bigger picture' in mind ?
> 
> I doubt it, but I don't know.


I honestly don't think you even need to be ruthless - at least not very, and at least not yet*. A lot of managers know where their staff's strengths lie, and, if asked for an assessment of what type of assignment will suit both the person and benefit the organisation, would happily give it. 

We're going to lose a lot of people through attrition (retirements, other leavers not replaced, etc) and non-renewal of contracts over the coming years. Most of us will have to take up additional workload / responsibilities, and it'll be in all our interest to see more efficient use of resources, especially including staff. If carefully presented, I could imagine a high level of buy-in to a scheme which tagged people's strengths for use in reassignments.

Whether it can or will be done is of course another question.

* Ruthlessness may well be justified for long-term underperformers after reasonable efforts have been made to fit them to roles for which they should be better suited.


----------



## Caveat (31 Jan 2009)

Good, reasonable posts _Dreamerb_.


----------



## liaconn (31 Jan 2009)

Dreamerb said:


> I've been thinking about this because you make an interesting point here. I would observe that there are just a few posters (very few, to be fair) who _do _appear to generalise across the entirety of the public service. No, I'm not going looking for quotes to back it up - I admit they're a small minority!
> 
> But you're right: quite a number of us are defensive. In my case - and I can speak only for myself - it's not that I think the civil or public service is perfect. My experience within the civil service has been that there are certain systemic problems. Thing is, they're nothing to do with bank time, or sick days, or obstructive unions - they're very significantly to do with managing assignments badly so people are placed in work to which they are just not suited. You may have someone at mid-level who is very good at, say, managing a large team of people doing routine work - but is placed as gofer and admin back-up for a small technical team. Or a person who's great on policy development put in a grant processing area even though they're border-line innumerate. Or a person who's good at dealing with the public, but is placed in a role where they have to write a lot even though they're plain bad at it.
> 
> ...


 
This is a brilliant post and completely summarises the problem. There is so much emphasis on civil servants being generalists, who can be assigned anywhere, that managers and personnel units seem to forget that some staff just will not have the aptitude for certain types of work and should not be assigned to those areas. While it is not possible to assign everyone to an area of work they are going to absolutely love, it is possible to ensure that no one is working in an area where they are absolutely miserable and getting no chance whatsoever to use their skills and talents. This is a fundamental problem in the Service, is well recognised but nothing is ever done about it.


To answer the original question, yes I'm sick  of public service bashing. We're not perfect but neither are we the shower of wasters that some people are very anxious to convey. However, myself and my colleagues are also getting a bit of a laugh at some of the wilder stuff that's being bandied around. Our favourites so far are:

Civil servants get a half day a week to cash their pay check

Civil Servants have to take all their sick leave every year, and just add it on to their annual leave

Civil servants get flexi days,  free, gratis and for nothing

I will also be adding to the  list the statement that you must use 'pull' to get a civil service job. This is absolutely  impossible to do and I do not know  of one single person who has got a civil service job using pull. You must be thinking of the private sector.


----------



## grahamo (31 Jan 2009)

During the 90's I'd go out for a couple of beers with mates of mine (Still do). Mostly Builders, Tradesmen, Taxi Drivers etc. They would give me a right oul slagging about my 'loser'
public sector job while they paid for rounds with £100 notes. (I remember there was a bloke with a beard on the front of the £100 note, I was only ever shown a £100 note, never actually owned one  ).
These lads I grew up with were earning a lot more than me and I was fine with that. We had all came through the tough time that was the 80's together and I believed they deserved their bit of good financial luck as they worked f***ing hard enough for it.
I've noticed that now the 'good times' are over they are saying that over the long term I made the right choice by going into the public sector and 'Fair play to ye!' No animosity or bitterness at all. It seems thats reserved for the middle to upper classes
of Ireland. I wonder what their problem is? Cue lots of upper middle class posting claiming to be working class!


----------



## Purple (31 Jan 2009)

What makes you middle class or upper class? 
I thought this was a republic, I hate class politics.


----------



## z104 (31 Jan 2009)

Good point purple, I would not put myself into a class. I would see myself equal with the poorest person or the wealthiest person. No one person is better than another.

What makes somebody put themselves into a bracket such as upper class or any class?? I would say ignorance.


----------



## rabbit (31 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> What makes you middle class or upper class?
> I thought this was a republic, I hate class politics.


 
There are 2 types of class in this country ; public sector class ( plenty of holidays, security, pensions, coffee breaks, sick days + pay ) and the rest of us.  There will be riots yet.


----------



## rmelly (31 Jan 2009)

rabbit said:


> public sector class ( plenty of holidays, security, pensions, coffee breaks, sick days + pay )


 
And they get paid on top of all that? ridiculous


----------



## grahamo (31 Jan 2009)

I can barely believe the ignorance. It seems to me a lot of posters here must be quite young with not a lot of life experience.


----------



## Padraigb (31 Jan 2009)

rabbit said:


> There are 2 types of class in this country ; public sector class ( plenty of holidays, security, pensions, coffee breaks, sick days + pay ) and the rest of us.  There will be riots yet.



I see no purpose in this post other than to be divisive.


----------



## liaconn (31 Jan 2009)

bacchus said:


> 10% in private sector and 90% in public sector. That's the problem.


 
Really Bacchus? I wasn't aware of this data. Could you let me know the name of the report or piece of research which uncovered this? Or maybe that's just my public service training. Perhaps in the private sector its standard practice to base arguments on made up stats and assumptions.


----------



## Caveat (31 Jan 2009)

Niallers said:


> Good point purple, I would not put myself into a class. I would see myself equal with the poorest person or the wealthiest person. No one person is better than another.
> 
> What makes somebody put themselves into a bracket such as upper class or any class?? I would say ignorance.



I think like intellingence and a good sense of humour, class is something conferred on you by others - if you have any sense you don't say "I'm X class" - someone else tends to _regard_ you as X class.

Mind you the whole notion is pants anyway.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (31 Jan 2009)

class ???

You have to have class.

Otherwise how do you............

Stay Classy


----------



## Purple (31 Jan 2009)

Niallers said:


> Good point purple, I would not put myself into a class. I would see myself equal with the poorest person or the wealthiest person. No one person is better than another.
> 
> What makes somebody put themselves into a bracket such as upper class or any class?? I would say ignorance.



Yep, that's my view as well.


----------



## boris (31 Jan 2009)

liaconn said:


> To answer the original question, yes I'm sick of public service bashing. We're not perfect but neither are we the shower of wasters that some people are very anxious to convey. However, myself and my colleagues are also getting a bit of a laugh at some of the wilder stuff that's being bandied around. Our favourites so far are:
> 
> Civil servants get a half day a week to cash their pay check
> 
> ...


 
To add another one onto your list we supposedly get paid for flexi time we don't take. About 10 years ago I was in the pub and some lad stated this to me. He was very adamant and stated he knew it for a fact. There was no convincing him that it was pure and utter rubbish.

Some time later the same lad got a job with the Civil Service. I met him, congratulated him on his new position and asked him was he on flexi, to which he was. I then asked him does he get paid for untaken flexi at which he walked away. He has hardly spoke to me since. 

I honestly do think that there is mass public hysteria going on at the moment which I do not hasten to add is very disheartening for us that are absolutely pulling our weight and love the jobs we are in. I was out with Mrs Boris the other night for a meal and could clearly hear one table slating the Public Service for which the whole basis of their argument was unfounded. While some of the points being given are very valid and worthwhile arguments, so many are just angry and dangerous incitements


----------



## NorthDrum (1 Feb 2009)

We are all in this together and its turned into a public v private because both parties are not focusing on the job at hand.

Just like most of the country is talking about whos to blame and how they should pay, instead of what we can collectively do to fix the economy.

We all know we are all going to have to make sacrifices, but when it comes to sitting down and discussing it, it turns into a "why should I take the hit".

At the end of the day the private sector will adjust to the harsh realities of the economic downturn. The public sector should also be adjusted to reflect the value of "job security" in todays world.

I dont have a problem with many of the "perks" that are mentioned in the same breath as public service. Differant areas of public service have differant perks, differant levels of efficiency and differant levels of productivity. What I have a problem with is people dismissing these perks simply because they dont have them or dismissing some of the "myths" of public service sectors simply because they work hard. 

Any stats can be used to argue for and against public servants. The only stat that matters to me is the one that shows the costs of the public service v the money in the coffers . . Whatever anybody says they just dont add up, so something has to give . . 

The term "cut your coat according to your cloth" comes to mind.

I think that private sector workers are generally jealous of the comfort of job security (that comes in the public service) that they lack today. Most people in the private sector (on the lower scale of wages) earned no more in the celtic tiger years then those in the public sector who are now complaining that they may have to take a pay cut (while those in private sector may have to look elsewhere for employment). Some here seem to believe that most of us in the private sector lived it up in the good years, made a killing and are paying for it now. Is that any differant from Private sector workers believing that public sector workers get a handy number while working for the richest employer in the country!

A majority of people in the private sector are on or below the average industrial wage, yet dont have the "job security" that seems to be so undervalued by those in the public service.

At the end of the day, we shouldnt be arguing over who is going to take the hit on this. We should be knocking our heads together to figure out how we can all work together to get the country working again in a manner that spreads the "cost" fairly.


----------



## S.L.F (1 Feb 2009)

NorthDrum said:


> At the end of the day, we shouldnt be arguing over who is going to take the hit on this. We should be knocking our heads together to figure out how we can all work together to get the country working again in a manner that spreads the "cost" fairly.


 
Unfortunately the people who are going to have to sort this mess out are the same people who caused it.

*But *if there was an election tomorrow I'd vote for you...


----------



## NorthDrum (1 Feb 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Unfortunately the people who are going to have to sort this mess out are the same people who caused it.
> 
> *But *if there was an election tomorrow I'd vote for you...


 
Thanks for your support ! !

The sentence you highlighted was also intended for our country leaders. Instead of policical posturing they should treat the current crisis like a country at war. 

I discussed it with several friends in differant areas of political circles and they found it unbeliebable that I could suggest such a thing. This seems to be a big part of the problem (people not willing to get innovative in response to our economic problems). People are just not open to all avenues on how to get things moving again, my suggestion may not be our answer but its not to say that its merits shouldnt be discussed. Drastic measures need to be implemented and if getting our parties working together multiplies the chances of us sorthing this out, then why not!

We are a smaller country then the US and the UK and have less options on the table regarding any potential stimulus package. Surely a dail working together would be better then a split floor looking to take advantage of popular opinions at any chance! To me this would be the Politicians getting "patriotic" and would be a bigger statement of intent then taking a paltry "for the cameras" 10% paycut on salaries over 150k!


----------



## putsch (1 Feb 2009)

Another thing that gets my goat is the illusion that public sector pensions are free. I worked in public sector for 25 years and paid 6.5% of salary towards my pension. Now I'm in the private sector and in the company the standard  employee contribution is......5% with an employer contribution of 12%. It is of course a defined contribution scheme so no guarantee of net pay out but even if placed on deposit it would out rank my public sector entitlement and at a lesser cost to me than my public sector pension.

So as far as I'm concerned the public sector is not out of line - I would make an exception for some of the top salaries but despite the fact that I think they are indefensible they pale into insignificance compared to the top private sector salaries and pensions.


----------



## liaconn (1 Feb 2009)

One thing that amazes me on this board is the amount of people stating that public service workers wouldn't last five minutes in the private sector. During the tiger years how many people were let down by builders, plumbers, electricians etc who failed to deliver on agreed contracts or didn't even bother to show up at all. How many people were delivered faulty goods only to find that the shop blamed the manufacturer, the manufacturer blamed the delivery firm, the delivery firm said it was nothing to do with them and the unfortunate consumer was left out of pocket. How many times were people left standing in shops while assistants leant on the counter chatting to each other. What about airlines who advertised cheap flights then added on all kinds of hidden charges once the non refundable fare had been paid, or solicitors who caused huge delays for people buying houses through laziness and inefficiency. Not to mention estate agents who lied through their teeth to get their commission. And there has been plenty of discussion on these boards about GPs charging ridiculous fees, refusing to make house calls, insisting patients make appointments then leaving them hanging around the waiting room for an hour. I could go on and on.  Yes, the  public sector has its faults and inefficiencies. But it amazes me the amount of private sector workers who are wandering around under the delusion that they are somehow examples of 'best practice'. Everyone is going to have to take some pain over the next few years including public service workers who are extremely grateful that they have relative job security.We accept that. It is the constant criticisms of us, by private sector workers who have nothing to boast or preen themselves about, that is p*ssing us all off.


----------



## S.L.F (1 Feb 2009)

liaconn said:


> One thing that amazes me on this board is the amount of people stating that public service workers wouldn't last five minutes in the private sector. During the tiger years how many people were let down by builders, plumbers, electricians etc who failed to deliver on agreed contracts or didn't even bother to show up at all. How many people were delivered faulty goods only to find that the shop blamed the manufacturer, the manufacturer blamed the delivery firm, the delivery firm said it was nothing to do with them and the unfortunate consumer was left out of pocket. How many times were people left standing in shops while assistants leant on the counter chatting to each other. What about airlines who advertised cheap flights then added on all kinds of hidden charges once the non refundable fare had been paid, or solicitors who caused huge delays for people buying houses through laziness and inefficiency. Not to mention estate agents who lied through their teeth to get their commission. And there has been plenty of discussion on these boards about GPs charging ridiculous fees, refusing to make house calls, insisting patients make appointments then leaving them hanging around the waiting room for an hour. I could go on and on. Yes, the public sector has its faults and inefficiencies. But it amazes me the amount of private sector workers who are wandering around under the delusion that they are somehow examples of 'best practice'. Everyone is going to have to take some pain over the next few years including public service workers who are extremely grateful that they have relative job security.We accept that. It is the constant criticisms of us, by private sector workers who have nothing to boast or preen themselves about, that is p*ssing us all off.


 
^^^
What he said!


----------



## sandrat (1 Feb 2009)

liaconn said:


> One thing that amazes me on this board is the amount of people stating that public service workers wouldn't last five minutes in the private sector. During the tiger years how many people were let down by builders, plumbers, electricians etc who failed to deliver on agreed contracts or didn't even bother to show up at all. How many people were delivered faulty goods only to find that the shop blamed the manufacturer, the manufacturer blamed the delivery firm, the delivery firm said it was nothing to do with them and the unfortunate consumer was left out of pocket. How many times were people left standing in shops while assistants leant on the counter chatting to each other. What about airlines who advertised cheap flights then added on all kinds of hidden charges once the non refundable fare had been paid, or solicitors who caused huge delays for people buying houses through laziness and inefficiency. Not to mention estate agents who lied through their teeth to get their commission. And there has been plenty of discussion on these boards about GPs charging ridiculous fees, refusing to make house calls, insisting patients make appointments then leaving them hanging around the waiting room for an hour. I could go on and on. Yes, the public sector has its faults and inefficiencies. But it amazes me the amount of private sector workers who are wandering around under the delusion that they are somehow examples of 'best practice'. Everyone is going to have to take some pain over the next few years including public service workers who are extremely grateful that they have relative job security.We accept that. It is the constant criticisms of us, by private sector workers who have nothing to boast or preen themselves about, that is p*ssing us all off.


 
well said


----------



## grahamo (2 Feb 2009)

liaconn said:


> One thing that amazes me on this board is the amount of people stating that public service workers wouldn't last five minutes in the private sector. During the tiger years how many people were let down by builders, plumbers, electricians etc who failed to deliver on agreed contracts or didn't even bother to show up at all. How many people were delivered faulty goods only to find that the shop blamed the manufacturer, the manufacturer blamed the delivery firm, the delivery firm said it was nothing to do with them and the unfortunate consumer was left out of pocket. How many times were people left standing in shops while assistants leant on the counter chatting to each other. What about airlines who advertised cheap flights then added on all kinds of hidden charges once the non refundable fare had been paid, or solicitors who caused huge delays for people buying houses through laziness and inefficiency. Not to mention estate agents who lied through their teeth to get their commission. And there has been plenty of discussion on these boards about GPs charging ridiculous fees, refusing to make house calls, insisting patients make appointments then leaving them hanging around the waiting room for an hour. I could go on and on. Yes, the public sector has its faults and inefficiencies. But it amazes me the amount of private sector workers who are wandering around under the delusion that they are somehow examples of 'best practice'. Everyone is going to have to take some pain over the next few years including public service workers who are extremely grateful that they have relative job security.We accept that. It is the constant criticisms of us, by private sector workers who have nothing to boast or preen themselves about, that is p*ssing us all off.


 
Yes, Well Said liaconn. I notice the public sector slaters haven't been on to answer this post and its been posted almost a whole day . Maybe they have moved on to their next scapegoats.


----------



## Caveat (2 Feb 2009)

grahamo said:


> Yes,  I notice the public sector slaters haven't been on to answer this post and its been posted almost a whole day . Maybe they have moved on to their next scapegoats.


 
Well it's because most of us are sick of public sector bashing Grahamo - haven't you heard?


----------



## grahamo (2 Feb 2009)

Caveat said:


> Well it's because most of us are sick of public sector bashing Grahamo - haven't you heard?


 
So who are you all going to pick on next?


----------



## grahamo (2 Feb 2009)

Niallers said:


> Good point purple, I would not put myself into a class. I would see myself *equal with the poorest person or the wealthiest person. No one person is better than another.*
> 
> What makes somebody put themselves into a bracket such as upper class or any class?? I would say ignorance.


 
I think most people in this country know that if you've got money behind you then you are a little bit more equal than others


----------



## S.L.F (2 Feb 2009)

grahamo said:


> so who are you all going to pick on next?


 
lol :d


----------



## rabbit (2 Feb 2009)

grahamo said:


> I notice the public sector slaters haven't been on to answer this post and its been posted almost a whole day .


 
The private sector does not get paid to sit at a deck and surf the internet.

Cut the top public sector wages + perks by 50%, the rest by 30 %, to bring things more in to line.


----------



## Lak (2 Feb 2009)

My wife is at the mercy of public sector bashers working in the local employment office and for anyone with a chip on their shoulder or wanting to let off steam it seems she is fair game to receive abuse both barrells after theese people read of the shennanigans taking place at FAS. Hardly surprising though considering the coffers are well and truly empty, meaning any person who may possibly have the offer of a job if for example they were to undertake certain training programmes can not avail of what is on offer as there is zero funding at the moment to take advantage of them. It makes my blood boil that an agency thats fundemental role is to help the unemployed are redundant because by the time the vast sums of money allocated to them filter down to the basic duty of helping those for whom the service is designed for, their is preciousl little left. Vast sums squandered and obscenely wasted, try telling a person that they can not avail of a training programme that would have been available to to a number of individuals for the cost of a Mary Harney hair do and manicure. I do not blame people being angry, but we should all stop to think exactly where the blame for theese type of things should be attributed and it isnt the public service workers doing their job of work !!!!
Did any one ever ask the thousands of pensioners who marched in Dublin during the medical card fiasco just why they voted Bertie and his cronies back into office when I would wager the vast majority gave his party the vote despite the blindingly obvious treacherous nature of his affairs and those of the party he represented. Burying ones head in the sand and propotioning blame retrospectively does not exonerate the Irish people for voting this shambolic symbiotic rabble of a government back into power.


----------



## baldyman27 (2 Feb 2009)

I too am sick of the public sector bashing, even though I can be accused of taking part in it. Some posters seem to post just to have a go, others are accused of bashing when they highlight inefficiencies, which, IMO, is what needs to be done so we can see where improvements can be made.

I know people in the public sector who are honest, hard working and proud of their work, who don't take advantage of the perks on offer to them. I also know honest, hard working folk there who DO take advantage. And, this is hearsay, they complain about people they work with who sicken them with their attitudes and laziness. 

I've known people in the private sector through the years who have not performed at all and were paid handsomely. These people are now unemployed. The private sector HAS reacted to our current situation, the public sector needs to react too and stop just talking about it. That then might stop the bashing. We hope!


----------



## Green (2 Feb 2009)

legs-akimbo said:


> Burying ones head in the sand and propotioning blame retrospectively does not exonerate the Irish people for voting this shambolic symbiotic rabble of a government back into power.


 
Excellent, I agree completely..


----------



## rabbit (2 Feb 2009)

legs-akimbo said:


> My wife is at the mercy of public sector bashers working in the local employment office .


 
lol   My heart bleeds for her.   Has she not got a great well paid job and other perks like security......many people do not.    Now you complain of people going in to her office to "bash" her.    I think your claims are a bit exagerrated, as few if any public sector workers put up with any bashing or other abuse from anyone during their working hours. 

   As far as I know, no other employment office workers in the world are as highly paid as your wife....she should be grateful we are borrowing so much to pay her.


----------



## liaconn (2 Feb 2009)

It would be interesting if some of the people bashing civil servants would state what they do for a living. 'Private Sector' covers a multitude and I'm sure many of your individual sectors are open to a bit of 'bashing' as well.


----------



## grahamo (2 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> lol My heart bleeds for her. Has she not got a great well paid job and other perks like security......many people do not. Now you complain of people going in to her office to "bash" her. I think your claims are a bit exagerrated, as few if any public sector workers put up with any bashing or other abuse from anyone during their working hours.
> 
> As far as I know, no other employment office workers in the world are as highly paid as your wife....she should be grateful we are borrowing so much to pay her.


 
Typical anti public servant post here. Absolutely full of bile & bitterness. It isn't enough to just have a go at her profession. It has to be a personal attack too. 
Makes Victor Meldrew look like a nice guy!


----------



## grahamo (2 Feb 2009)

liaconn said:


> It would be interesting if some of the people bashing civil servants would state what they do for a living. 'Private Sector' covers a multitude and I'm sure many of your individual sectors are open to a bit of 'bashing' as well.


 I doubt they would have the balls. I have a sneaky feeling some of them could be some of the real culprits of this economic downturn.


----------



## Purple (2 Feb 2009)

grahamo said:


> I doubt they would have the balls. I have a sneaky feeling some of them could be some of the real culprits of this economic downturn.


 I don't think so, I can't see anyone from SIPTU making anti public sector comments...


----------



## liaconn (2 Feb 2009)

grahamo said:


> I doubt they would have the balls. I have a sneaky feeling some of them could be some of the real culprits of this economic downturn.



I agree. I have had this feeling for some time also.


----------



## Padraigb (2 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> lol   My heart bleeds for her.   Has she not got a great well paid job and other perks like security......many people do not.    Now you complain of people going in to her office to "bash" her.    I think your claims are a bit exagerrated, as few if any public sector workers put up with any bashing or other abuse from anyone during their working hours.
> 
> As far as I know, no other employment office workers in the world are as highly paid as your wife....she should be grateful we are borrowing so much to pay her.



That's a really nasty post. People working in public offices in areas like SW and Revenue are subjected to verbal abuse and, on occasion, to physical abuse.


----------



## z103 (2 Feb 2009)

> That's a really nasty post. People working in public offices in areas like SW and Revenue are subjected to verbal abuse and, on occasion, to physical abuse.


Plenty people in the private sector get their unfair share of abuse too. (bouncers, taxi drivers, IT support people etc...)

Many of them don't have the security of the public sector, so I agree with rabbit's post.

Shouldn't we be blaming bertie and co? - why still all this public/private sector bickering? Public sector people were just taking advantage of a situation created by bertie and co.

Blame bertie.


----------



## Padraigb (2 Feb 2009)

leghorn said:


> Plenty people in the private sector get their unfair share of abuse too. (bouncers, taxi drivers, IT support people etc...)
> 
> Many of them don't have the security of the public sector, so I agree with rabbit's post.



I must be odd. I don't think it right that anybody should be subject to abuse, be they in the private or the public sector.

You and rabbit seem to take the position that people should have a licence to abuse public sector workers on an individual basis simply because they have work contracts that you don't like.


----------



## becky (2 Feb 2009)

Padraigb said:


> I must be odd. I don't think it right that anybody should be subject to abuse, be they in the private or the public sector.
> 
> You and rabbit seem to take the position that people should have a licence to abuse public sector workers on an individual basis simply because they have work contracts that you don't like.


 

No you're not odd I agree that no one should be subjected to abuse.

There are people who think that they can 'abuse' public servants to the point of tears and think its okay because its her job......


----------



## z103 (2 Feb 2009)

> You and rabbit seem to take the position that people should have a licence to abuse public sector workers on an individual basis simply because they have work contracts that you don't like.


Really?
That's what I wrote was it? Thanks for letting me know


----------



## Lak (3 Feb 2009)

Who's bleating about it?... if you were not so selective in in reading my post you would notice I said "its hardly surprising" and "I do not blame people for being angry"
Get real, if people were so sensitive that anyone with a cross word to say iliicited a hysterical cry baby attitude then we really would have problems.
Its the odd ball verging on dangerous that come in on occassion that concern me in an open office of just two women, but hey she is well paid so a good slap is well deserved for the sin of being in a secure job is it.


----------



## Lak (3 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> lol My heart bleeds for her. Has she not got a great well paid job and other perks like security......many people do not. Now you complain of people going in to her office to "bash" her. I think your claims are a bit exagerrated, as few if any public sector workers put up with any bashing or other abuse from anyone during their working hours.
> 
> As far as I know, no other employment office workers in the world are as highly paid as your wife....she should be grateful we are borrowing so much to pay her.


 


 Who's bleating about it?... if you were not so selective in in reading my post you would notice I said "its hardly surprising" and "I do not blame people for being angry"
Get real, if people were so sensitive that anyone with a cross word to say iliicited a hysterical cry baby attitude then we really would have problems.
Its the odd ball verging on dangerous that come in on occassion that concern me in an open office of just two women, but hey she is well paid so a good slap is well deserved for the sin of being in a secure job is it.


----------



## rabbit (3 Feb 2009)

Padraigb said:


> People working in public offices in areas like SW and Revenue are subjected to verbal abuse and, on occasion, to physical abuse.


 
I doubt it.   I would not condone any abuse to anyone.    I have never heard of any verbal abuse or physical abuse directed to members of the public service like SW or Revenue.  What would be the point ?  It would more than likely be counterproductive in any case.    Public sector staff have the security of the Public service.    The people I see who hand out S.W. in the post office are behind a counter and screens.   A self employed shopkeeper who has to stop / deter gangs of shoplifters is in a more vunerable position if you ask me....not to mention security staff in nightclubs, store detectives, taxi drivers,  etc.   Yet "Verbal abuse or physical abuse" is  not top of the list of worries from many people not in the Public service - it is simply trying to pay the bills and wondering how to keep their house / pay for their kids education.


----------



## BoscoTalking (3 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> I would not condone any abuse to anyone.    I have never heard of any verbal abuse or physical abuse directed to members of the public service like SW or Revenue.  What would be the point ?  It would more than likely be counterproductive in any case.


 yes to someone with half a brain.  Alas anyone to hurl abuse across a counter to someone who won't pay their benefits for January so they can organize santa in Dec and continue until 3 verbally battered tellers call security, probably does not understand what counterproductive means. I witnessed this scenario when about 4 people (RO'CK labeled "scobes") were in the post office a fortnight before Christmas. It was a glimpse for me into how that other half operate and i would honestly wouldn't work there for love nor money.


----------



## rabbit (3 Feb 2009)

pennypitstop said:


> yes to someone with half a brain. Alas anyone to hurl abuse across a counter to someone who won't pay their benefits for January so they can organize santa in Dec and continue until 3 verbally battered tellers call security, probably does not understand what counterproductive means. I witnessed this scenario when about 4 people (RO'CK labeled "scobes") were in the post office a fortnight before Christmas. It was a glimpse for me into how that other half operate and i would honestly wouldn't work there for love nor money.


 
I would not describe anyone as having " half a brain". Even the most disadvantaged members of the community realise that the people behind the counter and security screen in the post office cannot give them the 2009 social welfare money in 2008 ...in fact sitting behind a screen in a well heated post office ( with sick days, holidays, coffee breaks, camaradie of work colleagues ) , handing out money is far from being the worst job in the world, when you know the unique pay / security etc involved. "  
Many's a person would love a job like that", as the saying goes.


----------



## BoscoTalking (3 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> I would not describe anyone as having " half a brain" Even the most disadvantaged members of the community realise that the people behind the counter and security screen in the post office cannot give them the 2009 social welfare money in 2008


 well having witnessed that scene i would say there are fair few that don't appreciate the basic rules of free money. 



rabbit said:


> ...in fact sitting behind a screen in a well heated post office ( with sick days, holidays, coffee breaks, camaradie of work colleagues ) , handing out money is far from being the worst job in the world, when you know the unique pay / security etc involved. "


 far away hills appear green alright. 



rabbit said:


> Many's a person would love a job like that", as the saying goes.


 Mammy - how long have you been on aam?


----------



## rabbit (3 Feb 2009)

pennypitstop said:


> i would say there are fair few that don't appreciate the basic rules of free money.


 
Public servants may get paid much more than the private sector ( here or abroad) , they may have great perks like job security and pensions, but it is not free money.  No money is really free....not even the 20 billion a year we are borrowing.    The last "free" money we got was from the taxpayers of Germany and the UK, through the EC.    The money now is borrowed and will be paid back - or will be expected to be paid back - by our children and grandchildren.
Our credit rating is now the worst in Europe, thanks to govt overspending on public finances, meaning we pay even more to borrow money as we are perceived to be riskier, such is the state of our public finances.


----------



## BoscoTalking (3 Feb 2009)

i was referring to people mistreating those at the hatch in the post office - that was the context, and to them it is "free" for they will never care (or possibly have the ability to comprehend) where it comes from.


----------



## Bronte (3 Feb 2009)

pennypitstop said:


> (RO'CK labeled "scobes") .


 What does that mean please?

Social welfare offices and others have glass screens to protect the staff from the customers, this is particularly true in social welfare offices. People in desperate financial circumstances are more likely to lose the rag here than almost any other institution. I've always put it down to a mixture of a) difficult financial circumstances added to b) bureaucratic incompetence (wrong form, incorrectly filled out form, pensions office in Sligo, community welfare officer in bally de where ever, another department of the social welfare, you have to sign on in FAS first but they're not open today, and this means your claim can't be assessed for another month etc) together with having stood in line for 3 hours = breaking point when they've realised they're not getting the money.


----------



## BoscoTalking (3 Feb 2009)

RO'CK Ross O'Carroll Kelly. 
breaking point does not give anyone the right to verbally abuse someone doing their job to the best of their ability - surely you are not condoning this behaviour?


----------



## rabbit (3 Feb 2009)

pennypitstop said:


> i was referring to people mistreating those at the hatch in the post office


 
I have never heard of any member of the public being mistreated at the hatch in the post office. Kept queing for ages etc yes - but mistreated no. If anyone tried to mistreat someone through a glass / counter I am sure they would find it counterproductive too. 

If public sector employees think they are mistreated - surely they are entitled to "danger" money for the hardships they endure so ? lol Not to mention stress / councelling etc and extra days off for same. Better not mention it - they probably already get it.

This talk of "abuse" of public servants is deflecting attention from the very serious financial situation the country sees itself in, where the international financial community thinks we are the riskiest country in Europe to lend money to, and charges us premium interest rates accordingly.


----------



## Vanilla (3 Feb 2009)

Anyone who deals with the public comes across their fair share of looneys, whether private or public employee. I've mainly worked in relatively small country offices but even in those we generally have a panic alarm button at reception and on the rare occasion have had serious difficulties with assaults etc.


----------



## rabbit (3 Feb 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Anyone who deals with the public comes across their fair share of looneys, whether private or public employee. I've mainly worked in relatively small country offices but even in those we generally have a panic alarm button at reception and on the rare occasion have had serious difficulties with assaults etc.


 
Lucky you to have a panic button.  Many people who deal with the public in all works of life do not have counters and screens to sit behind, panic buttons etc


----------



## dewdrop (3 Feb 2009)

Speaking to a public servant recently who mentioned about their 2 days of privileged leave.  Never heard of such a thing but i was told it originated in people getting a day off at christmas and easter to enable them travel home. Cant believe it still exists. Maybe i was conned


----------



## Lak (3 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> Lucky you to have a panic button. Many people who deal with the public in all works of life do not have counters and screens to sit behind, panic buttons etc


 
Precisely so, but if you truly believe that every person who comes into an office looking for their benefits is of the disposition that they have nothing to gain through ranting and raving at unprotected staff and will amiably accept that there is nothing that can be done for them so will merrily go on their way then I find this astonishingly shortsighted and shows an inconceivable lack of judgement on certain members of societys charachter and psyche.
Most workers realise that whatever occupation they hold has its unwelcome side and simply get on with the job in hand, is that so hard to conceive of ?


----------



## rabbit (3 Feb 2009)

legs-akimbo said:


> Most workers realise that whatever occupation they hold has its unwelcome side and simply get on with the job in hand


I quite agree.  That has little or nothing to do with the way pay for our public servants is so way out of line, both compared to the private sector and public servants in other countries.

This talk of "abuse" of public servants is deflecting attention from the very serious financial situation the country sees itself in, where the international financial community thinks we are the riskiest country in Europe to lend money to, and charges us premium interest rates accordingly.


----------



## grahamo (3 Feb 2009)

Now thats all sorted. We're taking the pain too now.

So lets see now, who else to pick on.....


----------



## DublinTexas (3 Feb 2009)

grahamo said:


> Now thats all sorted. We're taking the pain too now.
> 
> So lets see now, who else to pick on.....


 
Over? Just because public servants now pay a levy for their generous penions you think this is over?

Where is the action to scale the service down?
Where is the action to equalize pay because even after levy there is still a pay gap that needs addressing.

This is the kind of short sighted politics I'm used to from our goverment. No vision, just quick fixes that need to be fixed again in a couple of month.

Just because of a levy and no pay increase (which in my company are also out of the window) what does this do to address the 50 million we need to borrow every day to pay the public service?

What happens next is that the unions will call for strikes because this is an unfair treatment of their members.

This is not over by a long shot.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (3 Feb 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> *This is not over by a long shot.[/*quote]
> 
> I'm not in a union but i do agree, Social Welfare will be hit first !


----------



## grahamo (3 Feb 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> Over? Just because public servants now pay a levy for their generous penions you think this is over?
> 
> Where is the action to scale the service down?
> Where is the action to equalize pay because even after levy there is still a pay gap that needs addressing.
> ...


 
Exactly the response I was expecting
The Levy will effectively be a 5-10% pay cut. However, its a much bigger sacrifice for the post 1995 public sector staff whose pensions are NOWHERE NEAR AS GOOD AS pre 1995 staff as they pay more for a lot less of a pension (Don't believe all the tabloid crap on pensions)
As for scaling down...All people on contract will be out. I also think there would be legal problems regarding pay cuts for people on contract as pay terms are in the contract. (and believe me there are a lot of people on contract in the public sector).


----------



## rabbit (4 Feb 2009)

jaybird said:


> Those who were making great money in the boom are now in trouble,


Many public sector employees were making greater money in the boom than most private sector workers.   Check your figures.



jaybird said:


> and those who never made much money (on the whole), but kept on doing the important work of keeping public services running are now public enemy number one.


 Who " never made much money" ...do you mean factory workers, shop assistants, hotel staff, restaurant workers, small farmers etc ?  These people do not do the " important work of keeping public services running" !


----------



## Ron Burgundy (4 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> Many public sector employees were making greater money in the boom than most private sector workers. *Check your figures*.
> 
> 
> Who " never made much money" ...do you mean factory workers, shop assistants, hotel staff, restaurant workers, small farmers etc ? These people do not do the " important work of keeping public services running" !


 
Perhaps you should also, your belief is that all are on amazing money ??

The majority aren't


----------



## DublinTexas (4 Feb 2009)

I don’t work in the public sector and I’m a big critic of big government hence advocating that public service should concentrate on the core business and pay a fair market salary to people that are employed.

Even I am sick of the bashing of public sector *workers*. Throwing them all into one big pile is not helpful, what needs to be done is too look at each service that is provided by public (or public owned) services and companies and then determined if there is a possibility of cutback, privatization or other methods to reduce cost.

This is a normal approach in the private sector and why should it not be done in the public sector.

I could not work in the gardai or fire service and I think that these people should earn a fair salary for doing the highly specialized job they do in the same way I should earn a fair salary for my job. Sure there needs to be adjustments for job security, extra benefits and a guaranteed pension but that are details where it needs to be worked out.

Just putting a levy onto the pensions is the wrong way. Sure I appreciate that people are now having to contribute more to a guaranteed pension especially as I have to contribute more to make up for the losses in my pension fund and even than it’s not guaranteed that I will get a good pension but that alone is not the right step.

We need to take stock of where we don’t need public service or where previous state monopoles (like electricity or gas) have run amok and how we can privatize that while ensuring that the basic right of infrastructure is delivered on.

Looking at the pension levy table, I really wonder why we have public servants earning over 150,000 € because I most certainly think that we have not enough talent in the public service that deserves that kind of payment. 

We need to get away from the sense of entitlement that everybody has, we are on the verge of a collapse of the country (and if we would not be in the € zone we would be even worse off) and all we do is complain about someone trying to take away rights we gained in fat years.

And before you complain, I took a salary cut so that I still have a job, I pay more into my pension fund because I need to make up for losses and I do my part by shopping in Ireland.

Now can we maybe stop bashing workers and the public service as a total entity and concentrate on pointing out where the public service should not be in at all or where there is waste of tax payers money by the public sector.


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> I don’t work in the public sector and I’m a big critic of big government hence advocating that public service should concentrate on the core business and pay a fair market salary to people that are employed.
> 
> Even I am sick of the bashing of public sector *workers*. Throwing them all into one big pile is not helpful, what needs to be done is too look at each service that is provided by public (or public owned) services and companies and then determined if there is a possibility of cutback, privatization or other methods to reduce cost.
> 
> ...



Agree completely


----------



## Sunny (4 Feb 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> I don’t work in the public sector and I’m a big critic of big government hence advocating that public service should concentrate on the core business and pay a fair market salary to people that are employed.
> 
> Even I am sick of the bashing of public sector *workers*. Throwing them all into one big pile is not helpful, what needs to be done is too look at each service that is provided by public (or public owned) services and companies and then determined if there is a possibility of cutback, privatization or other methods to reduce cost.
> 
> ...


 
Well said but we have tried bring some sense to the dicussion on the million threads on the subject and it has yet to happen. I think mindless public sector bashing has just replaced sex in peoples lives judging by the amount of fustration that is being vented around the place!


----------



## DublinTexas (4 Feb 2009)

Well than let me start with what I think we need to do.

Let me start:


Allow the private waste collector in Fingal Glas collection again to level the playing field and allow the customer (me) to choose a service on a fair basis.
Sell off AirLingus as the state has no longer a role in the airline business while ensuring that public service routes are contracted out and slot rights are just leased out.
Instead of a facility mangement contract give out an airport operations contract for terminal 2 so that we have real competition for our airport operator.
Keep the infrastructure of gas, electricity, transport, telecoms in state hands but sell of state companies that dominate the market to encourage competition and that includes getting ride of the commisions that "regulate the market" by setting prices etc.
Sure this is all long term but we need to start long term goals.


----------



## capall (4 Feb 2009)

It seems that salaries at the top in our public sectors are way out of line when compared with other countries. From central bank governors,government ministers,university lecturers ,garda superintendents ,etc ,etc

Also for these guys 10% contribution for the pensions they get is a joke. They retire on a pension based on the ongoing salary for that post. I'd like to see proper figures for what these pensions are costing.

Most people will agree that senior managment in alot of our public sector has been poor and continues to be poor. They are overpaid and are bad value for money
And their is no accountability at least in the private sector heads are rolling at the top levels and we will see more of that

I am not sure why management is so poor,is it how people are promoted,the culture. Alot of people in the PS seem to feel beaten by the system,alot of really good ,commited people never seem to move up the ranks


----------



## rabbit (4 Feb 2009)

capall said:


> It seems that salaries at the top in our public sectors are way out of line when compared with other countries.


 
Not just "at the top"....all public sectors are so well overpaid this country is the joke of Europe.


----------



## Sunny (4 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> Not just "at the top"....all public sectors are so well overpaid this country is the joke of Europe.


 
So is most of the private sector (and I am one of them before you ask).


----------



## Ron Burgundy (4 Feb 2009)

Rabbit, please stop taking LSD.

Can you provide examples of these from the bottom up


----------



## Sunny (4 Feb 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> what complete rubbish really, can you please provide some examples from the bottom up ???


 
Well ok start at the bottom. Who has the highest or second highest minimum wage in Europe? Go to the top. Our executives at public companies like banks are overpaid in relation to their continental couterparts. The middle would take too long to go through.

EDIT: You obviously changed your post!


----------



## Ron Burgundy (4 Feb 2009)

Sunny said:


> Well ok start at the bottom. Who has the highest or second highest minimum wage in Europe? Go to the top. Our executives at public companies like banks are overpaid in relation to their continental couterparts. The middle would take too long to go through.
> 
> EDIT: You obviously changed your post!


 

Ya clicked on the wrong post

But i agree


----------



## rabbit (4 Feb 2009)

Some people had not obviously read the beginning and need to be corrected.


----------



## liaconn (4 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> Some people had not obviously read the beginning and need to be corrected.



Rabbit

Is there any chance you would tell us what you do for a living? People keep talking about the 'Private Sector' as if it is one homogenous group and seem to feel that the fact that some private sector workers are losing their jobs or taking pay cuts means that all private sector workers are 'sharing the pain'. This is not true. There are  many workers in the 'private sector' who are still in well paid jobs and yesterday's measures did nothing to ensure they, too, play their part towards economic recovery. Focussing entirely on public service workers is unfair. We certainly don't mind doing our share but we would also like to see it spread evenly across the board.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (4 Feb 2009)

rabbit said:


> Some people had not obviously read the beginning and need to be corrected.



Rabbit, as i asked can you please provide us with all the inside info you have on overpaid Public Sector employees at all levels ???

Remember the ones you said yesterday that was getting money from the state for doing nothing ??


----------



## Lak (4 Feb 2009)

Rabbit clearly does not work in the public sector, is it possible he is a private sector office worker in a low paid job, hence the bitterness and unsubstantiated nonsense being suggested. I have a hunch he sits at his desk surfing the web and posting on AAM and generally conducting himself in the very manner that is so abhorent of the lazy overpaid useless public sector work force
I would be delighted to be proven wrong if you would care to offer hard factual evidence to substantiate some of your claims particularly in relation to the the average employee, I think we are only all to aware of how the fat cats snouts are buried deep into the greedy trough, tell us something to back up you're claims.


----------



## Birroc (4 Feb 2009)

legs-akimbo said:


> is it possible he is a private sector office worker in a low paid job, hence the bitterness


 
Are all private sector workers in low paid jobs bitter? Hardly a fair comment on Rabbit or low paid workers.

It is greed that got us in this mess and still most of us have no idea of how drastic it is going to get.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (4 Feb 2009)

Poor Rabbit.

All together ahhhhhhhh


----------

