# "Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants"..statement by Michael O'Leary in SIndo



## liaconn (6 Jul 2009)

As a Civil Servant of many years, I was disconcerted to read a statement by Michael O'Leary in yesterday's Sunday Independent, stating that 'most' civil servants must take a compulsory 10 days sick leave a year. On my first day at work, some lying meany in Personnel told me the following:

You could only take 7 uncertified sick days a year, and this was a maximum figure not a target.

You could only take 2 days in a row uncertified and after that, you had to produce a doctor's note.

You  could only take sick leave if you were actually sick, and abusing this would be a disciplinary action.

You could only take a certain number of sick days (certified or uncertified) over a 3 year period before you were barred from going for promotion.


Like an eejit, I fell for all that rubbish and am now owed scores of 'compulsory sick days' that I haven't been taking over the years. I was just wondering if any fellow civil servants could direct me to the 'compulsory sick leave' circular, to back up my claim. I'm sure it must exist as the article in question was edited by Senior Reporter, Daniel McConnell, and I'm sure he wouldn't print something like that (and flag it on the front page) without checking his facts.


Thanks.


----------



## Purple (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

Excellent post


----------



## Teatime (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

A STARTLING 100,000 working days were lost in one month in the HSE due to absenteeism.

The unpublished HSE figures show the average absence rate for health service staff in January was 6.82% — almost double the private sector average. 

The figure equates, on average, to just under a day per month per staff member, of which there are 113,000 in total. However, the average levels of non-attendance are eclipsed by some sections of individual hospitals and agencies, where absenteeism was far higher. 

It is thought non-attendance at work costs the health services €150 million a year in replacement staff.


----------



## becky (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

I'm in the HSE and was told something similar. Now we don't have the bar on promotion if we exceed the quota over 3 years so happy days to those who make sure they take 7 sick days a year by strategically planning the leave so as not to coincide with the public holiday and concessions days. Anyway they deserve credit for the planning and organizing skills involved.


----------



## Padraigb (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Teatime said:


> A STARTLING 100,000 working days were lost in one month in the HSE due to absenteeism.



It's startling if you decide to be startled.



> The unpublished HSE figures show the average absence rate for health service staff in January was 6.82% — almost double the private sector average.
> 
> The figure equates, on average, to just under a day per month per staff member, of which there are 113,000 in total.



I have no idea if that is excessive. More information would be needed in order to make an informed judgement. HSE staff work with people who are very ill, often with infectious diseases; they work with people who are disturbed or violent, and sometimes suffer assaults; they work with people whose lives are in serious disorder, and that can be stressful. I would expect HSE staff to lose more days to illness than most categories of worker.



> However, the average levels of non-attendance are eclipsed by some sections of individual hospitals and agencies, where absenteeism was far higher.



No surprise there. That's how it works with averages. But it's less sensationalist to write that some sections of the HSE have lower than average absenteeism.


----------



## gipimann (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Teatime said:


> The figure equates, on average, to just under a day per month per staff member, of which there are 113,000 in total.


 
I certainly haven't had a day a month sick leave, somebody must be using my sick days ! 

Maybe it was the psychiatric staff who've been assaulted, or the medical staff who contracted MRSA or similar, or any staff who think they've got flu' of some sort (swine or otherwise) and don't want to share.......


----------



## Teatime (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Padraigb said:


> It's startling if you decide to be startled.


 
I took those lines from the Irish Examiner. I cant find the article now but I found a reference to it below.
[broken link removed]


----------



## Padraigb (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Teatime said:


> I took those lines from the Irish Examiner. I cant find the article now but I found a reference to it below.
> [broken link removed]



My comment remains the same.

If you want to quote somebody else's words, it's good practice to give an attribution.


----------



## liaconn (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Teatime said:


> A STARTLING 100,000 working days were lost in one month in the HSE due to absenteeism.
> 
> The unpublished HSE figures show the average absence rate for health service staff in January was 6.82% — almost double the private sector average.
> 
> ...


 

Teatime

The article in the Indo referred specifically to 'Civil Servants' and did not include Public Servants.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

I am always very wary of statistics in these cases but if you look at absenteeism rates across the civil service and wider public sector, there is no doubt that there is a problem there. Whether this is down to employees taking liberties, the nature of the work or is a reflection of the mismanagement of the public sector that have left people disilusioned and unmotivated can be debated. All I know is that any private sector company I have worked in would be examining the reasons behind the figures below and try and do something about it. 

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/absenteeism-rates-across-the-public-sector-1587718.html

Over 4% for the department of Arts, Sports and Tourism? Even though if Martin Cullen was my boss, I would tempted to stay at home as well!


----------



## liaconn (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Sunny said:


> I am always very wary of statistics in these cases but if you look at absenteeism rates across the civil service and wider public sector, there is no doubt that there is a problem there. Whether this is down to employees taking liberties, the nature of the work or is a reflection of the mismanagement of the public sector that have left people disilusioned and unmotivated can be debated. All I know is that any private sector company I have worked in would be examining the reasons behind the figures below and try and do something about it.
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/national-news/absenteeism-rates-across-the-public-sector-1587718.html
> 
> Over 4% for the department of Arts, Sports and Tourism? Even though if Martin Cullen was my boss, I would tempted to stay at home as well!


 
How does any of this imply that civil servants must take a compulsory number of sick days a year? Or am I missing something?


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> How does any of this imply that civil servants must take a compulsory number of sick days a year? Or am I missing something?


 
Never said it did. Just saying I don't believe an absenteeism rate of 4.35% in a department like that can be explained by genuine sick leave unless there was some sort of pandemic there. Has anyone ever looked into it  in detail? Until they do, neither you or I know what is genuine sick leave and what isn't. 

The article you are referring to is the usual Michael O Leary publicity seeking bull****. Not even going to comment on it.


----------



## Mpsox (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

I'm not sure I believe the issue around comp sick leave, but then again I never believed that some civil servants got a half hour off a fortnight or something like that to cash their salary cheque, even though they are paid electronically, until posters on here and the relevant union confirmed it.

Looking at some of the stats being bandied about here, if they are correct, and I have no reason to believe their not, then they do indicate a failure on managers in the public sector to manage sick leave. Sick leave can be managed down, in accordance with procedures, if managers take responsibility for it


----------



## Delboy (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Mpsox said:


> I'm not sure I believe the issue around comp sick leave, but then again I never believed that some civil servants got a half hour off a fortnight or something like that to cash their salary cheque, even though they are paid electronically, until posters on here and the relevant union confirmed it.
> 
> Looking at some of the stats being bandied about here, if they are correct, and I have no reason to believe their not, then they do indicate a failure on managers in the public sector to manage sick leave. Sick leave can be managed down, in accordance with procedures, if managers take responsibility for it


......


----------



## liaconn (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

Delboy

From the above, and comments you have made on another thread, you seem to have been landed in one of those Sections which is used as a dumping ground for problem staff. However, it is not fair to imply that all Civil Servants behave like this. I have worked in the Civil Service for years, and the vast majority of people I have met, worked with or managed do not take excessive sick leave, fiddle certs etc although I'm sure that a minority of unscrupulous staff do. You have also stated that you're not long in the Civil Service so you really are talking from the viewpoint of an unfortunate Manager who got stuck in a problem area. While I can understand your frustration, this doesn't really quaify you to talk about the Civil Service in general.


----------



## markpb (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Mpsox said:


> Looking at some of the stats being bandied about here, if they are correct, and I have no reason to believe their not, then they do indicate a failure on managers in the public sector to manage sick leave. Sick leave can be managed down, in accordance with procedures, if managers take responsibility for it



I've seen the same statistics for several years running and rather than being a general problem across the civil and public sectors, it seems to be limited to a small number of departments. Indeed some parts have a lower sick rate than private sector. 

However, in those departments where it is a problem, it's several percent higher than private which is worrying. Some of those are public facing health departments where the percentage will always be higher but others make no sense at all and do seem to indicate a problem where unusually high sick leave is tolerated.


----------



## S.L.F (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

One of the other problems with the satistic here is some staff have their work week based on a 7 day week so if a person is off work for, say 6 months (183 days) it will look far worse than if someone's work week was based on a 5 day week 6 months (131 days).

The other big one of course is the health service where you can't go into work with a cold and look after people in ICU it's just not safe.

Teatime your figures are from January (colds, flu, chest infections)


----------



## liaconn (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

Seems like the Press - and Michael O'Leary - are in good company. Why let the truth get in the way of a good bit of Civil Service bashing.


----------



## boris (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

Do believe that this is Michael O'Leary looking for attention again and throwing facts and reputations to the wind for the sake of a headline. He is at it again today with if you stand you can fly for free with Ryanair.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bu..._Allow_Passenger_To_Stand_Up_For_Cheaper_Fare

I have worked for nearly 20 years in the Civil Service and while there are slight abuses here and there, the vast vast majority of people are extremely careful when it comes to sick leave. It affects promotion, increments and basically your career prospects if it is excessive and there is evidence of abuse.

Know one colleague last week who was out with a head cold who took holidays rather than being on sick leave. That doesn' t sound like compulsory sick leave does it.


----------



## johnd (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

Bet you are all jealous of teachers who are allowed 31 days of uncertified sick leave a year. A cert is only needed is the sick leave extends past 4working days so Thur/Friday and Monday/Tuesday does not require a sick cert whie Tuesdday to Friday does!


----------



## Mar123 (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

I think Batt O' Keefe tried to put a spin on this , then had to admit the average teacher took one sick day per year.


----------



## S.L.F (6 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Mar123 said:


> I think Batt O' Keefe tried to put a spin on this , then had to admit the average teacher took one sick day per year.


 
Now don't let the facts get in the way here what's the catch


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



johnd said:


> Bet you are all jealous of teachers who are allowed 31 days of uncertified sick leave a year. A cert is only needed is the sick leave extends past 4working days so Thur/Friday and Monday/Tuesday does not require a sick cert whie Tuesdday to Friday does!


That seems incredible. Can anyone post a link? Teachers have such a very short working year (36.5 weeks in primary, 33.5 weeks in secondary) it can't be the case that they can take 10% off without a cert.


----------



## Shawady (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Purple said:


> That seems incredible. Can anyone post a link? Teachers have such a very short working year (36.5 weeks in primary, 33.5 weeks in secondary) it can't be the case that they can take 10% off without a cert.


 
Cannot post a link but I was of the same opinion as Johnd that teahers got something like 25-30 days _uncertified_ sick leave a year.


----------



## Shawady (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

http://www.into.ie/ROI/InformationforTeachers/LeaveofAbsence/SickLeave/filedownload,10299,en.pdf

Just quickly looking at this it looks like johnd was right. 31 days for primary, 30 days for secondary but seems to be much less for VEC school teachers - 7 days.


----------



## Green (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> Seems like the Press - and Michael O'Leary - are in good company. Why let the truth get in the way of a good bit of Civil Service bashing.


 
I'm a public servant and took up with my union the recent public sector bashing and what were my union doing to counteract this. The response was that journalists in the Sunday Independent had told them that pro public sector stories would not be published. The Indo has a anti public sector policy...


----------



## Marion (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

This old issue was raised by Batt O Keeffe last November.

[broken link removed]



> A spokesman for Mr O’Keeffe denied that the Minister was claiming widespread abuse by teachers. The Minister was putting the figures out there, he said.





> INTO general secretary John Carr said there was clearly not a problem in relation to teachers’ sick leave. “According to the Minister’s figures, there was a total of 59,992 uncertified sick days. This works out at about one per teacher per year. “A total of 12,734 uncertified substitute days in the whole school year were used on Mondays. This works out at an average of 340 on any given Monday. It is just over 0.5 per cent of the teaching population.”


Marion


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



YOBR said:


> I'm a public servant and took up with my union the recent public sector bashing and what were my union doing to counteract this. The response was that journalists in the Sunday Independent had told them that pro public sector stories would not be published. The Indo has a anti public sector policy...


 I am very surprised that this is not in the left wing media (RTE, Irish Times etc)


----------



## boris (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



YOBR said:


> I'm a public servant and took up with my union the recent public sector bashing and what were my union doing to counteract this. The response was that journalists in the Sunday Independent had told them that pro public sector stories would not be published. The Indo has a anti public sector policy...


 
So much for balanced reporting.  Anyway stopped buying the O'Reilly rag mags years ago.

As I work for the public sector and am not against reporting on these types of abuses, there is a civil responsability by the media to be fair and equal in their jobs.  

It is because of this reporting that I was subject to abuse in the pub lately over all this supposed sick leave and other terms of employment.  It is populist at the moment to attack the public / civil service.  When it descends into public hysteria is when the brakes have to be pulled.


----------



## BoscoTalking (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Purple said:


> That seems incredible. Can anyone post a link? Teachers have such a very short working year (36.5 weeks in primary, 33.5 weeks in secondary) it can't be the case that they can take 10% off without a cert.


 so if they worked a full year they would be more than 10% sick? very dangerous profession there.


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



YOBR said:


> I'm a public servant and took up with my union the recent public sector bashing and what were my union doing to counteract this. The response was that journalists in the Sunday Independent had told them that pro public sector stories would not be published. The Indo has a anti public sector policy...


 
Says it all really. What a professional attitude to take to news and current affairs reporting. The only decent journalist they have is Gene Kerrigan and I can't understand why he wants to be associated with such a shallow rag. I'm sure other papers would snap him up.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> Says it all really. What a professional attitude to take to news and current affairs reporting. The only decent journalist they have is Gene Kerrigan and I can't understand why he wants to be associated with such a shallow rag. I'm sure other papers would snap him up.



Hearsay from one union rep - hardly to be taken as gospel.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Purple said:


> Hearsay from one union rep - hardly to be taken as gospel.


 
Exactly. I doubt the Sunday Independent came out and admitted that they were anti public sector and that no pro public sector articles would be published even if that was their position. To be fair to them, every paper has been publishing the same stuff. Every economist/commentator is saying the same things so I wouldn't just pick on one paper. 

By the way I work in banking so I am willing to argue over who has gotten a worse press over the past year!


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Purple said:


> Hearsay from one union rep - hardly to be taken as gospel.


 
No, but as a Civil Servant I am well aware of the lies, half truths and distortions that are constantly being printed in this paper which back up this statement. Also, our union has had huge problems getting the media to give them newspaper space or air time.


----------



## Caveat (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> No, but as a Civil Servant I am well aware of the lies, half truths and distortions that are constantly being printed in this paper which back up this statement.


 
So in your view are there any publications that treat civil servants fairly?



> Also, our union has had huge problems getting *the media* to give them newspaper space or air time.


 
The media generally? Do you really think there is a blanket media conspiracy against the civil serice/public sector just because unions don't get free PR?


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> No, but as a Civil Servant I am well aware of the lies, half truths and distortions that are constantly being printed in this paper which back up this statement. Also, our union has had huge problems getting the media to give them newspaper space or air time.



The media in Ireland is generally very left wing. RTE are a semi-state body, are you saying that they are anti-public sector? The Irish Times is akin to the print wing of the Labour Party. If the Indo is right wing then it goes a small way to redressing the existing general bias.


----------



## Birroc (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

When I worked for the public sector, I got almost 50 days off per year : 30 days holidays, 12 days flexi days and 6 uncertified sick days.
To get a flexi day you had to work up a full day per month over and above the 6hr36 working day. This was very easy to do.
Sick days were definitely not mandatory but were 'encouraged'.

Can someone please tell me - why did I leave?!?


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Caveat said:


> So in your view are there any publications that treat civil servants fairly?
> 
> 
> 
> The media generally? Do you really think there is a blanket media conspiracy against the civil serice/public sector just because unions don't get free PR?


 
The unions are not asking for free PR. They're asking for *balanced *reporting. 

In relation to your first question, I consider the Sunday Independent the worst offenders as do many other civil servants who refuse to buy it anymore because of their constant ranting against the civil service. I have no objection to fair criticism of the civil Service in the media and have often criticised aspects of it on this board myself.  I object to lies and to unbalanced reporting.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Birroc said:


> When I worked for the public sector, I got almost 50 days off per year : 30 days holidays, 12 days flexi days and 6 uncertified sick days.
> To get a flexi day you had to work up a full day per month over and above the 6hr36 working day. This was very easy to do.
> Sick days were definitely not mandatory but were 'encouraged'.
> 
> Can someone please tell me - why did I leave?!?


You wanted to be able to look yourself in the eye?


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Birroc said:


> When I worked for the public sector, I got almost 50 days off per year : 30 days holidays, 12 days flexi days and 6 uncertified sick days.
> To get a flexi day you had to work up a full day per month over and above the 6hr36 working day. This was very easy to do.
> Sick days were definitely not mandatory but were 'encouraged'.
> 
> Can someone please tell me - why did I leave?!?


 
Flexi days are not days off, they are days worked up in advance.

How was taking sick days 'encouraged'?

I don't know about the general public service, but in the Civil Service you would need to be extremely senior to get 30 days annual leave a year. And very senior staff are not usually on flexi time.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Birroc said:


> When I worked for the public sector, I got almost 50 days off per year : 30 days holidays, 12 days flexi days and 6 uncertified sick days.
> To get a flexi day you had to work up a full day per month over and above the 6hr36 working day. This was very easy to do.
> Sick days were definitely not mandatory but were 'encouraged'.
> 
> Can someone please tell me - why did I leave?!?


A friend of mine working in an Institute of Technology gets 54. He says he has the best job in the country.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> Flexi days are not days off, they are days worked up in advance.


 Yes but 6.5 hours a day is a very short working week (8-3 with a 30 minute break) so working what amounts to a full week (40-45 hours) will give you your flexi-days in no time.


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Purple said:


> Yes but 6.5 hours a day is a very short working week (8-3 with a 30 minute break) so working what amounts to a full week (40-45 hours) will give you your flexi-days in no time.


 
Civil Servants work 7 hours a day, excluding a lunch break which has to be taken outside of those hours and in your own time. You have to work up an extra 7 hours to get a flexi day. I'm not sure where Birroc worked, but it definitely wasn't the Civil Service.


----------



## Caveat (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> The unions are not asking for free PR. They're asking for *balanced *reporting.
> 
> In relation to your first question, I consider the Sunday Independent the worst offenders as do many other civil servants who refuse to buy it anymore because of their constant ranting against the civil service. I have no objection to fair criticism of the civil Service in the media and have often criticised aspects of it on this board myself. I object to lies and to unbalanced reporting.


 
Balanced reporting? I dunno about that.

I have yet to read a newspaper article which concerns a union issue and which doesn't feature some sort of statement from a union rep.

As far as I can see they don't do interviews anyway - just issue short vague statements which they refuse to expand upon - in fairness a lot of this has to do with ongoing talks/issues etc.


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

Well, they obviously didn't consult a union rep when they printed Michael O'Leary's comment. 

As I said, I've no objection to fair criticism, but subjective rants from the likes of Brendan O'Connor, with no balancing article elsewhere in the paper, really annoy me. However, we obviously have to agree to disagree as this could go on and on.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> Civil Servants work 7 hours a day, excluding a lunch break which has to be taken outside of those hours and in your own time. You have to work up an extra 7 hours to get a flexi day. I'm not sure where Birroc worked, but it definitely wasn't the Civil Service.


 OK, 42 hours a week; still a short working week (42 hours is average in the private sector, 34.5 is average in the public sector).


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

Yes, but that's a different debate. My point was that flexi days are not extra leave. They are days worked up in advance. And Civil Servants work a 35 hour week, not 34.5 and if you factor in a lunch break, which I'm sure the Private Sector does, it goes up to 40 hours.


----------



## Latrade (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> Well, they obviously didn't consult a union rep when they printed Michael O'Leary's comment.
> 
> As I said, I've no objection to fair criticism, but subjective rants from the likes of Brendan O'Connor, with no balancing article elsewhere in the paper, really annoy me. However, we obviously have to agree to disagree as this could go on and on.


 
It's a press release from O'Leary that received minor changes and was printed as an article. It's not PC or CS bashing from a newspaper, it's just knowledge that whenever O'Leary comes out with some extreme statement, it gets attention.

And before the next logical point about journalistic prudence in compiling the article (i.e. mixing in different views), note that it's the exact same principle applied to all union generated press releases. It's copy to fill the pages and it's rarely altered. 

So it's fine when it's a union agenda I suppose, but not when it's the other extreme.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> if you factor in a lunch break, which I'm sure the Private Sector does, it goes up to 40 hours.



No, the figures are based on hours worked, lunch breaks are extra. In that context it does matter as the 7 flexi-hours will just being both to the same working week. In fact if those figures were used the private sector people work up an extra day each week!


----------



## galleyslave (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

I dunno, we'd all be better off if the whole lot of 'em went on permanent sick leave... *G*


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Latrade said:


> It's a press release from O'Leary that received minor changes and was printed as an article. It's not PC or CS bashing from a newspaper, it's just knowledge that whenever O'Leary comes out with some extreme statement, it gets attention.
> 
> And before the next logical point about journalistic prudence in compiling the article (i.e. mixing in different views), note that it's the exact same principle applied to all union generated press releases. It's copy to fill the pages and it's rarely altered.
> 
> So it's fine when it's a union agenda I suppose, but not when it's the other extreme.


 
Its not an extreme statement, its a blatant and damaging lie which was printed, uncorrected, by the newspaper. You don't work for the Indo by any chance?


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Purple said:


> No, the figures are based on hours worked, lunch breaks are extra. In that context it does matter as the 7 flexi-hours will just being both to the same working week. In fact if those figures were used the private sector people work up an extra day each week!


 

Fair enough, but its still a different debate. Civil Servants are required to work 7 hours a day. If they want to take a flexi day they have to work up an additional 7 hours first. Flexi days are not extra holidays as Borrit was implying. That was my point.


----------



## Birroc (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> How was taking sick days 'encouraged'?


 
Well let's just say I wasn't tortured to take my sick-days. Everyone knew how many they had taken and how many uncertified sick days they had left. Managers had no problem with people using their sick days if they had run out of holidays.


----------



## Latrade (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> Its not an extreme statement, its a blatant and damaging lie which was printed, uncorrected, by the newspaper. You don't work for the Indo by any chance?


 
Nope, don't work for any media outlet, but was a journalist. It's the way of every newspaper, the press release comes across the desk, it sounds interesting/newsworthy or you just need to fill some space, you edit it and send it on. I'm not defending it, but that's the way it is.

There is no checking of any stats or "facts" in the media. Sad but true. Hence the current media myth that the electricians have their increases agreed in the LRC.

And on O'Leary: c'mon, if anyone takes him seriously, then I pity them. Though the only incorrect part of his statement i can see is he used compulsory rather than "entitlement". It's hard to deny that there are those in the PS CS who see the sick leave as an entitlement. 

The point is all sides of the work force have suffered negatively as a result of the media just copying a press release. It's not a bias, it's just laziness/no time on behalf of the journalist to correct them all.


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*

This wasn't a press release, it was an article compiled by one of their senior reporters. The difference between compulsory and entitlement greatly changed the statement in this case. My brother works in the media and, believe me, he checks and rechecks every fact and figure before it sees the light of day. But then, he's a highly regarded professional and wouldn't print a blatant untruth because he 'didn't have time' to verify it.


----------



## Latrade (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> This wasn't a press release, it was an article compiled by one of their senior reporters. The difference between compulsory and entitlement greatly changed the statement in this case. My brother works in the media and, believe me, he checks and rechecks every fact and figure before it sees the light of day. But then, he's a highly regarded professional and wouldn't print a blatant untruth because he 'didn't have time' to verify it.


 
It's an article compiled based on an O'Leary statement.

I'm not defending the practice at all, I'm just saying that it is very common and it works both ways. To say it is only ever applied to the detriment of the PS and CS is false.

Kudos to your brother and I wish that's how it was across the media but it isn't. Again, I hate how agendas are hidden behind false statements and statistics, but this is never questioned by the media. Again, it's agendas across the spectrum of political and social issues that aren't challenged. It's a broad probelm with the media and not just focussed against one group.


----------



## boris (7 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Birroc said:


> Well let's just say I wasn't tortured to take my sick-days. Everyone knew how many they had taken and how many uncertified sick days they had left. Managers had no problem with people using their sick days if they had run out of holidays.


 
Well I work in the CS and have never seen that type of carry-on. If it happened in our place, it would be treated as akin to fraud. I remember being in a meeting with a senior manager once who stated casually that anyone messing with the flexi system or sick leave was defrauding the state and should be treated accordingly.

With regards to checking facts, my brother works in the media as well. I have lost count as to how many times I have had to correct his facts on things.


----------



## csirl (8 Jul 2009)

One former employer of mine (private sector) had a daily sick leave rate in excess of 11% - yes, more than 11% of people gone every day. Company still exists in spite of this.

Any talk of the Indo being sued for libel by public sector unions? Would be a huge payout given the number of employees involved.


----------



## liaconn (8 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Birroc said:


> Well let's just say I wasn't tortured to take my sick-days. Everyone knew how many they had taken and how many uncertified sick days they had left. Managers had no problem with people using their sick days if they had run out of holidays.


 
When you say managers 'had no problem', were they aware people were using sick days when not ill. 
Was it all managers or just the one you worked for? 
Or were you a manager yourself, as your very generous annual leave would suggest. 
How does keeping a record of sick days taken indicate intention to abuse the system?
How widespread was this abuse? One or two unscrupulous staff, or everyone.


----------



## liaconn (8 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Latrade said:


> It's an article compiled based on an O'Leary statement.
> 
> I'm not defending the practice at all, I'm just saying that it is very common and it works both ways. To say it is only ever applied to the detriment of the PS and CS is false.
> 
> Kudos to your brother and I wish that's how it was across the media but it isn't. Again, I hate how agendas are hidden behind false statements and statistics, but this is never questioned by the media. Again, it's agendas across the spectrum of political and social issues that aren't challenged. It's a broad probelm with the media and not just focussed against one group.


 
Yes, but as a Civil Servant I am objecting to a lie printed about us in the paper. If lies are printed about other groups, they should also object. Saying it happens all the time doesn't excuse it or mean people who have been unfairly insulted should just put up with it.


----------



## Latrade (8 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> Yes, but as a Civil Servant I am objecting to a lie printed about us in the paper. If lies are printed about other groups, they should also object. Saying it happens all the time doesn't excuse it or mean people who have been unfairly insulted should just put up with it.


 
I've never excused it, trust me on this, I'm involved in highlighting it and trying to get the standards raised, my point was that you perceived an anti-CS/PS agenda, however it's just poor journalism. There are plenty of times when SIPTU acting for the PS has had statements reproduced and agendas printed without qualification as if they were fact. The point is it works both ways, and you have to be mindful of opening a can of worms that may ultimately harm your cause.

As always, if it is such a egregious error/untruth, do what most do and send a letter to the Editor to clarify. It's limp and lame and it will never repair the damage fully though, but at least it's something on record.


----------



## Complainer (9 Jul 2009)

Both O'Leary and the SIndo cronies are attention whores. The best thing you can do is starve them of attention. Don't go writing letters to the editor or ranting here on AAM about their wild allegations. Just ignore them, as you would with a toddler's tantrum.

Not buying their publications and not buying their plane tickets is pretty effective too.


----------



## bogle (9 Jul 2009)

Complainer said:


> Not buying their publications...



Couldn't agree more. Haven't bought anything from the Indo group in ages and from what I hear on the business news they need every sale they can get!


----------



## Purple (10 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



Latrade said:


> I've never excused it, trust me on this, I'm involved in highlighting it and trying to get the standards raised, my point was that you perceived an anti-CS/PS agenda, however it's just poor journalism. There are plenty of times when SIPTU acting for the PS has had statements reproduced and agendas printed without qualification as if they were fact. The point is it works both ways, and you have to be mindful of opening a can of worms that may ultimately harm your cause.
> 
> As always, if it is such a egregious error/untruth, do what most do and send a letter to the Editor to clarify. It's limp and lame and it will never repair the damage fully though, but at least it's something on record.


 Excellent post, excellent points.


----------



## Raskolnikov (10 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> You could only take 7 uncertified sick days a year, and this was a maximum figure not a target.




I can take two days of uncertified sick leave; after that, I need to produce a doctor's note.

My girlfriend has even more stringent rules than this. She can take two days off sick, once she passes that, she is no longer paid and has to sign on for any days she's ill.


----------



## liaconn (10 Jul 2009)

Raskolnikov said:


> I can take two days of uncertified sick leave; after that, I need to produce a doctor's note.
> 
> .


 
Civil Servants can also only take two days together before producing a doctor's cert.


----------



## Purple (10 Jul 2009)

I have never worked anywhere where there was any paid sick leave. I don't understand why it should ever be an entitlement.
If a company pays its taxes then it contributes to the welfare system which provides sick pay, why should they pay for it twice?


----------



## ludermor (10 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> Civil Servants can also only take two days together before producing a doctor's cert.


 
Not sure if the previous poster meant 2 days in total or two days together.


----------



## Purple (10 Jul 2009)

Complainer said:


> Both O'Leary and the SIndo cronies are attention whores.


 Bit OTT. If someone said that about the Bearded Brethren or the smoked salmon socialist party your'd be the first one venting your indignation.


----------



## becky (10 Jul 2009)

Raskolnikov said:


> I can take two days of uncertified sick leave; after that, I need to produce a doctor's note.
> 
> My girlfriend has even more stringent rules than this. She can take two days off sick, once she passes that, she is no longer paid and has to sign on for any days she's ill.


 
Its the same in the CS and PS. Employees hired after 1995 have to claim social welfare if they are out sick for the 3rd day and this amount is deducted from their salary.

Employees like me who were hired pre 1995 pay a modified stamp so have no entitlement to social welfare.

I have no doubt that it is one of the main reasons sick leave is so high in the HSE is people get full pay.


----------



## becky (10 Jul 2009)

ludermor said:


> Not sure if the previous poster meant 2 days in total or two days together.


 
It's 2 days together.  If someone is out on a Friday or Monday they are considered sick for the weekend so must produce a cert.


----------



## Raskolnikov (10 Jul 2009)

ludermor said:


> Not sure if the previous poster meant 2 days in total or two days together.


I meant I can take two days uncertified leave in a year. I think that's fair enough. Seven days uncertified leave is crazy though.


----------



## becky (10 Jul 2009)

Raskolnikov said:


> I meant I can take two days uncertified leave in a year. I think that's fair enough. Seven days uncertified leave is crazy though.


 
Do you take them? As is 2 days that you may as well take as not take?


----------



## boris (10 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



liaconn said:


> Yes, but as a Civil Servant I am objecting to a lie printed about us in the paper. If lies are printed about other groups, they should also object. Saying it happens all the time doesn't excuse it or mean people who have been unfairly insulted should just put up with it.


 
Agree with you there liaconn.

However I would say that another problem is that CS staffs are constrained by the Official Secrets Act and whatever other particulars that have with their particular office. Therefore they do not defend themselves in public media. 

Also another problem is that supposedly every Department's Press Office is to deal with issues or misinformation like this and don't. I would go further to say that this is because these accusations are directed against the CS in general, no one Department seems to or want to take on the reply. Might be one for the Dept. of Finance to do seeing that they set the regulations overall.

Was out last night with colleagues of mine from the CS. The barman (who is a shareholder in the place) was throwing this and other mistruths at us all night. Asked him did he ever have a problem taking our money over this. Left us alone after that.


----------



## Padraigb (10 Jul 2009)

*Re: Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants*



boris said:


> ... Was out last night with colleagues of mine from the CS. The barman (who is a shareholder in the place) was throwing this and other mistruths at us all night. Asked him did he ever have a problem taking our money over this. Left us alone after that.



That's extraordinary.

It's extraordinary that you would take such bad manners from a barman and not simply find another pub.


----------



## boris (11 Jul 2009)

You are probably right but it is so populist at the moment to lambast and ridicule civil servants that we don't even notice it anymore.


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

boris said:


> You are probably right but it is so populist at the moment to lambast and ridicule civil servants that we don't even notice it anymore.


 
OK, enough. I've finally had enough of this woe is me, everyone's picking on us attitude. (Not directed at you personally Boris, just in general.)

First, I'm sorry, but there is nothing special about people in the vast majority of the PS/CS. Nothing that requires a special protection from the harsh realities of what is going on. 

People are especially annoyed now because they've always felt/known that there are parts of the PS/CS that are massively over-staffed and also massively inefficient and ultimately it's costing a fortune. The thing is, people were annoyed before the bottom fell out of the FF Stamp Duty Pyramid Scheme and that's when we could afford it. Now, we’re pretty much livid.

If employees of the PS/CS can't see some of the realities that we really do not need that many people working in indirect services, that some of the archaic practices and agreements run the risk of bankrupting the country; that simply, at this very moment we just cannot afford this behemoth of a system, then you can understand why some people are a bit tetchy.

The PS/CS spin machine will always work to try and link any cut in personnel with less nurses, teachers, fire fighters, gardai. It will let us think we'll be raped and murdered in our homes, our dear old gran will die uncared for, our kids will be just one illiterate number in a class of 100, because of any cut. It won't mention the over paid and under worked administrative side. It won't mention archaic nursing agreements that mean the HSE has to use agency staff (union members of course) even though there are full time staff available. 

It'll get the "pension levy" mentioned within the media in every sentence the PS/CS is mentioned. Try a proper pay cut, one that you'll never get back, not something that goes towards a very generous pension that'll you'll get back when you take early retirement. Now that’s spin, even O’Leary could take a tip from that spin machine.

And even though the public see through the spin, naturally it's us who are wrong and unreasonable. I mean, the nerve of us wanting to hold a PUBLIC or CIVIL service to account. The nerve of us expecting that one of the largest drains on our very brittle public revenue is protected and shielded from the realities of what is happening right now. 

I see now just how inappropriate and unreasonable I have been. For shame on us all in the private sector.


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

Well said


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> OK, enough. I've finally had enough of this woe is me, everyone's picking on us attitude. (Not directed at you personally Boris, just in general.)
> 
> First, I'm sorry, but there is nothing special about people in the vast majority of the PS/CS. Nothing that requires a special protection from the harsh realities of what is going on.
> 
> ...


 
Lartrade

What most of us are objecting to are the sweeping statements tarring _everyone_ in the Public Service with the same brush eg they're all a crowd of lazy spongers, they're all useless, they all fiddle their sick leave etc.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> People are especially annoyed now because they've always felt/known that there are parts of the PS/CS that are massively over-staffed and also massively inefficient and ultimately it's costing a fortune. The thing is, *people were annoyed before the bottom* fell out of the FF Stamp Duty Pyramid Scheme and that's when we could afford it. Now, we’re pretty much livid.


 
If they were so annoyed why did they continue to vote for FF so?


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2009)

Very well said Lartrade.



YOBR said:


> If they were so annoyed why did they continue to vote for FF so?


 This old chestnut again... the answer is simple; the alternative was even worse.


----------



## Deiseblue (13 Jul 2009)

People are especially annoyed now because they've always felt/known that there are parts of the PS/CS that are massively over-staffed and also massively inefficient and ultimately it's costing a fortune. The thing is, people were annoyed before the bottom fell out of the FF Stamp Duty Pyramid Scheme and that's when we could afford it. Now, we’re pretty much livid.

Huge difference between " felt " and " known " ! - what one do you subscribe to ?
Do you know that the PS/CS is massively over staffed or do you just feel it to be that way ?


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> Lartrade
> 
> What most of us are objecting to are the sweeping statements tarring _everyone_ in the Public Service with the same brush eg they're all a crowd of lazy spongers, they're all useless, they all fiddle their sick leave etc.


 
I suppose the problem is that sweeping generalisations are the nature of the beast. But it's not just the PS and CS is it? It never has just been the PS/CS. Ask farmers. How many sweeping generalisations do they have to put up with? We all think of the 6 land rovers, acres of land, raking in the money from EU subsidies. But the reality is different. Think it's bad being in the PS/CS? When asked in a pub what you do, say you work for a bank or you're a property developer...



YOBR said:


> If they were so annoyed why did they continue to vote for FF so?


 
First, of everything that was written, that's the thing to pick up on? Second, you're point only works if it was the entire private sector workforce and employers who kept voting FF. What? No huge support from the PS/CS? Of course, it's not as simple as that is it? FF is the biggest party, FF will always have dedicated support and votes from a signficant population, irrespective of what they do. Add into the mix that there really wasn't much in the way of a competent alternative at the time and yes add in that the Pyramid Scheme kept paying out to it's investors with low taxes and a nice benefit system. 

Ultimately though, what is your point? FF got voted back in, how does that devalue the statement?


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> I suppose the problem is that sweeping generalisations are the nature of the beast. But it's not just the PS and CS is it? It never has just been the PS/CS. Ask farmers. How many sweeping generalisations do they have to put up with? We all think of the 6 land rovers, acres of land, raking in the money from EU subsidies. But the reality is different. Think it's bad being in the PS/CS? When asked in a pub what you do, say you work for a bank or you're a property developer...


 
So that makes it alright? Civil Servants should put up with anything that's said about them without complaint because, sure, its happening to farmers and bankers as well? Where do you work, Lartrade? Can I come on  here and make a load of sweeping insulting statements about your profession and expect you to sit silently saying nothing?


----------



## csirl (13 Jul 2009)

> Where do you work, Lartrade?


 
Maybe Lartrade doesnt work?


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> Huge difference between " felt " and " known " ! - what one do you subscribe to ?
> Do you know that the PS/CS is massively over staffed or do you just feel it to be that way ?




Huge difference also between addressing the points raised and selecting a red herring to divert the argument. Welcome to the world of informal fallacies and Ignoratio Elenchi.

However, to humour you: it is both. I know there are certain areas within the PS/CS that are over staffed, I feel that this is indicative of this being a trait in many areas. Which is actually more of a formal fallacy along the lines of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but no one's perfect. 




liaconn said:


> So that makes it alright? Civil Servants should put up with anything that's said about them without complaint because, sure, its happening to farmers and bankers as well? Where do you work, Lartrade? Can I come on here and make a load of sweeping insulting statements about your profession and expect you to sit silently saying nothing?


 
Liaconn, again as in other posts you see my point as an excuse for saying it's all right. What I'm saying comes back to the first line of my post today: you're not special. 

There is no special agenda against you all, many, many people face sweeping generalisations. What I object to is the PS/CS expecting special consideration or sympathy because it happens to them. Whether I'm unemployed and claiming benefit, a butcher, baker, candlestick maker, my whole life is subject to the same generalisations and, depending on what I do, the same bitterness and attacks as the PS/CS.

No it's not acceptable, but no you're not special.

I'm not going to state where I work or what I do publically because, one I'm a chicken, but more that I prefer to have some privacy on such forums. If you really wish to know PM me.

However, just to state for the record, my job and employer has come in for more than its fair share of stick on these forums, in the media and in public. Let me put it this way: I will go out of my way to not use a taxi because of the inevitable "so where do you work" conversation. 

The difference is, where people are right in their criticism, I agree with them, why would I get defensive when they're right? Why would I defend the indefensible? Where they're wrong, I explain to them a different perspective, I try to show what the reality is. If it doesn't work and they still have their prejudice, then it really is no skin off my nose. 

I like my job, I even like my employer, but I'm not going to get wound up about something which is effectively a means to pay my mortgage and to facilitate my life outside of work hours and at weekends. It's a job, a good one and it pays well enough, but it's just a job. If, despite pointing out their errors, people still want to have a go, then ho hum, I'll have bit of craic with them, maybe even play along with the stereotype they have just to wind them up. But I won’t take literally or to heart.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> Liaconn, again as in other posts you see my point as an excuse for saying it's all right. What I'm saying comes back to the first line of my post today: you're not special.
> 
> There is no special agenda against you all, many, many people face sweeping generalisations. What I object to is the PS/CS expecting special consideration or sympathy because it happens to them. Whether I'm unemployed and claiming benefit, a butcher, baker, candlestick maker, my whole life is subject to the same generalisations and, depending on what I do, the same bitterness and attacks as the PS/CS.
> 
> ...


 
I never said we were special, I said we are entitled to defend ourselves against the sweeping generalisations we have been subjected to over and over in the media and on these boards in the past few months. I have no problem with specific criticisms of specific areas and would agree with many of them (and have done on here). I also feel I am entitled to try and put the record straight where I feel unfair or untrue comments have been made.

And as for saying there is no special agenda against the public service, I think that's a bit disingenuous. There has been a definite campaign to pitch the public against the private sector in recent times.


----------



## Deiseblue (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> Huge difference also between addressing the points raised and selecting a red herring to divert the argument. Welcome to the world of informal fallacies and Ignoratio Elenchi.
> 
> However, to humour you: it is both. I know there are certain areas within the PS/CS that are over staffed, I feel that this is indicative of this being a trait in many areas. Which is actually more of a formal fallacy along the lines of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but no one's perfect.
> 
> ...


----------



## S.L.F (13 Jul 2009)

This whole thread is just another PS/CS bashing thread as I said before, this bit is the bit that annoys me the most.



Latrade said:


> People are especially annoyed now because they've always felt/known that *there are parts* of the PS/CS that are massively over-staffed and also massively inefficient and ultimately it's costing a fortune.


 
Which parts, name them please?

If you are able to do that then name parts that are not overstaffed massively inefficient and ultimatelty costing a fortune.


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> And as for saying there is no special agenda against the public service, I think that's a bit disingenuous. There has been a definite campaign to pitch the public against the private sector in recent times.


 
I'd say there's a chicken and the egg situation here. Which came first: the alleged media agenda or the private sector being angry at the public sector? If you ask me, it was the latter as just when the first redundancies, pay cuts, etc were hitting the private sector, the PS/CS was talking about striking over any move the government wanted to make in order to reduce costs. Largely, the media reported the public agenda in a sympathetic light, which didn't go down well with the private sector. Since then there has been an actual issue of public vs private.

However, to highlight why I still think there is no agenda, I'll use a different topic as an analogy. Take humble soccer and one of the biggest rivalries: Liverpool and Manchester United. See as a Liverpool fan, I'm livid after each panel discussion on RTE as I feel they're so biased against my club, that their anti-Liverpool agenda is so blatant, that they can't give any praise even when the team demolishes Real Madrid in Europe. I've been known to rant and rave at the reporting in newspapers, the negativity against Liverpool and their manager is a disgrace, how can this be called journalism when it seems they just let Alex Ferguson write copy for them. Then I speak to my friends who would be United fans and they also hate RTE because they feel it's ABU, they hate the printed press because it glorifies Liverpool and is always against their club.

The same show, the same articles and yet we both think they're against our clubs. 

There is no agenda. All that offence is in they eye of the beholder. While I have no doubt some journalists do allow their own views and opinion to creep into the copy they write (and not those employed to write opinion or copy), I feel on reflection it's give and take, in some articles you win, in some you lose. 

In those cases where there are clear and deliberate lies, you're right to highlight them, I've never denied that. But if you do that, then you must also highlight the cases where untruths or dodgy stats are used in your favour, you can't just highlight the negative ones.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> I'd say there's a chicken and the egg situation here. Which came first: the alleged media agenda or the private sector being angry at the public sector? If you ask me, it was the latter as just when the first redundancies, pay cuts, etc were hitting the private sector, the PS/CS was talking about striking over any move the government wanted to make in order to reduce costs. Largely, the media reported the public agenda in a sympathetic light, which didn't go down well with the private sector. Since then there has been an actual issue of public vs private.
> 
> However, to highlight why I still think there is no agenda, I'll use a different topic as an analogy. Take humble soccer and one of the biggest rivalries: Liverpool and Manchester United. See as a Liverpool fan, I'm livid after each panel discussion on RTE as I feel they're so biased against my club, that their anti-Liverpool agenda is so blatant, that they can't give any praise even when the team demolishes Real Madrid in Europe. I've been known to rant and rave at the reporting in newspapers, the negativity against Liverpool and their manager is a disgrace, how can this be called journalism when it seems they just let Alex Ferguson write copy for them. Then I speak to my friends who would be United fans and they also hate RTE because they feel it's ABU, they hate the printed press because it glorifies Liverpool and is always against their club.
> 
> ...


 
I have not seen the media, or anyone on here, using untruths or dodgy stats in favour of the Public Sector. And as I have already stated, I have had no problem agreeing with fair and accurate criticism of the Civil Service and even highlighting some of its shortcomings myself.

Re your opening para I don't agree that its a chicken and egg situation. I think there has been a concerted campaign to set public sector against private sector workers in order to divert attention away from some of the real culprits of this mess. While this has, rightly, drawn attention to some of the outrageous salaries being paid to CEOs of semi states etc it has also resulted in very unfair attacks on other PS workers who have not been accumulating huge amounts of money, possessions or property during the tiger years and who just want to earn a living and pay their mortgages without having to continually apologise for having a secure job.


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

S.L.F said:


> This whole thread is just another PS/CS bashing thread as I said before, this bit is the bit that annoys me the most.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well if we accept reports that An Bord Snip Nua is saying cut at least 20,000 jobs, I think it is safe to assume that there are areas of the public and civil service that are highly inefficient and overstaffed. I don't know why people in the civil service and public sector are so against reform. I know plenty of people in both sectors who complain about out dated work practices, poor career progression, poor motivation etc etc. Personally I would welcome a clean up to get rid of a lot of the dead wood so that that the talented people in the civil and public sector of which there are many would have a better chance at a more satisfying and rewarding career.


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Which parts, name them please?
> 
> If you are able to do that then name parts that are not overstaffed massively inefficient and ultimatelty costing a fortune.


 
I assume then it's only fair to use supposition and assumptions when arguing for PS/CS?

But as you ask, there are several sources for this conclusion:

1. (Ex) Trade and Commerce Minister John McGuiness described his own department (in September 2008) as being over-staffed and containing staff with no real designated function. He also pointed out the problems with trying to make cuts within the CS. His own words, though stated in the Dail. 

2. SIPTU's own statistics relating to the number of administrative and line management roles within the HSE. Herein lies the wonderful spin of the PS, anyone who calls for cuts is accused of trying to get rid of nurses and front line staff, when it's the excessive admin roles that should go. Is it ok to use SIPTU "facts" to support an argument of over-staffing?

3. Leaked internal CS reports stating over-staffing as high as 8000 across whole CS.

4. Dept of agriculture over-staffing where couldn't lay off employees and had to create roles elsewhere, such as training them to be driving examiners.

5. IMF report. Factual?


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Believe me, Sunny, I think the Bord Snip exercise is long overdue and am really hoping it will lead to positive reform. However, these will be reforms suggested on the basis of proper research and analysis, not knee jerk reactions to reports in the media, statements by IBEC, something someone heard from their cousin's best friend's babysitter etc.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> I assume then it's only fair to use supposition and assumptions when arguing for PS/CS?
> 
> But as you ask, there are several sources for this conclusion:
> 
> ...


 

In relation to your first point, John Mc Guinness is a hot head and I wouldn't rely totally on his word - did he produce any facts, figures or data to back up his statement?

Re the rest, yes there are areas of the CS and PS that are overstaffed. But there are also lots of areas that are not overstaffed and indeed some that are under severe pressure. Its the assumption that the whole Public and Civil Service are bloated and full of lazy people wandering around doing nothing that most of us object to, not a bit of rationalisation, moving people where they're needed, trimming back on those areas which are overstaffed etc.


----------



## S.L.F (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> Well if we accept reports that An Bord Snip Nua is saying cut at least 20,000 jobs, I think it is safe to assume that there are areas of the public and civil service that are highly inefficient and overstaffed. I don't know why people in the civil service and public sector are so against reform. I know plenty of people in both sectors who complain about out dated work practices, poor career progression, poor motivation etc etc. Personally I would welcome a clean up to get rid of a lot of the dead wood so that that the talented people in the civil and public sector of which there are many would have a better chance at a more satisfying and rewarding career.


 
Do you really believe they will just get rid of all the dead wood in 1 clean sweep or do you believe as I do that all the brown nosers and ass wipers will be the last to go.



Latrade said:


> I assume then it's only fair to use supposition and assumptions when arguing for PS/CS?
> 
> But as you ask, there are several sources for this conclusion:
> 
> ...


 
1 I think John Mc Guiness is bucking for the leaders job and will say anything that will get him noticed

2 The problem with trying to bring cuts into the PS is you have to employ more staff to find out where the cuts can take place.

Madness I know

3 I would love to know which person leaked that report

4 Can't comment about this because I don't know anything about that

5 See above

Unlike the PSCS bashers I don't rattle on about things I know nothing about.
Well maybe once in a while


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Purple said:


> Very well said Lartrade.
> 
> This old chestnut again... the answer is simple; the alternative was even worse.


 
Yes, and your response is in the same vein. So your suggesting that the people, by either pressure or changing voting patters, can't get action on specific issues that they want. If this is the case why do we have so many NGO's? I think your view is just an easy cop out. Nobody cared about this issue and now everybody is jumping up and down about it despite their voting (and other actions) rubberstamping benchmarking and partnership over the last 20 years.


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> Yes, and your response is in the same vein. So your suggesting that the people, by either pressure or changing voting patters, can't get action on specific issues that they want. If this is the case why do we have so many NGO's? I think your view is just an easy cop out. Nobody cared about this issue and now everybody is jumping up and down about it despite their voting (and other actions) rubberstamping benchmarking and partnership over the last 20 years.


 
So the only reason FF got back into power was becase the private sector workers put them there?


----------



## Staples (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> I know there are certain areas within the PS/CS that are over staffed,* I feel* that this is indicative of this being a trait in many areas.


 
There's that expression again. _I feel _a song coming on...."_Feelings...Nothing more than feelings......"_

I'd continue but I don't *know *the words.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> So the only reason FF got back into power was becase the private sector workers put them there?


 
I have never seen any information about the occupations of individual voters nor do I believe any exists except maybe private polls by parties.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> So the only reason FF got back into power was becase the private sector workers put them there?


 
No, but many of the Private Sector workers who are now jumping up and down about partnership, benchmarking etc must have voted for them in the last election. Presumably because they were doing very nicely themselves, thank you, and didn't want to rock the boat.


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Do you really believe they will just get rid of all the dead wood in 1 clean sweep or do you believe as I do that all the brown nosers and ass wipers will be the last to go.


 
Well if you believe this then surely that just proves that what a mess the civil and public sector is in and how badly managed it is because of vested and self interests.


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> No, but many of the Private Sector workers who are now jumping up and down about partnership, benchmarking etc must have voted for them in the last election. Presumably because they were doing very nicely themselves, thank you, and didn't want to rock the boat.


 
Not one political party came out and said they would reverse benchmarking or scrap social partnership if they got into power so where was the alternative?


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> I have never seen any information about the occupations of individual voters nor do I believe any exists except maybe private polls by parties.


 
So why assume that because FF got back into power, that no-one had any issues with benchamrking etc?


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Do you really believe they will just get rid of all the dead wood in 1 clean sweep or do you believe as I do that all the brown nosers and ass wipers will be the last to go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
SLF, I would disagree with the "bashing" accusation, largely because I've been involved in the discussion. You can't use that card every time there is criticism of the PS/CS. Where Liaconn and others have pointed out discrepancies in the accusations, they have been taken on board and accepted. That's reasoned debate, not bashing. It's good to have and it's informative. 

However, are you saying that I don't know what I'm on about? You asked how I came to my conclusion (and be fair to me I even accepted some element of jumping to a larger conclusion) and I told you. I did what was asked. 

Liaconn, I think we're at a point where we have to agree to disagree. You feel on balance there is an agenda, I feel on balance there isn't. Without going through the every issue of the last year or 18 months of the Indo, I guess we're both arguing from a position of personal feeling. 

There are and have been plenty of occasions where statistics are massaged for a positive spin on the PS/CS, I won't list them, but they're there. Examples are the percentage of GDP spent on the PS being lower per head than the OECD countries. However, the percentage of the money spent that goes to salaries is much higher here than in the OECD. However, this bit is never mentioned.  

Again, SIPTU is more than willing to hang on to that one statistic from the OECD, yet accuses the OECD of having a capitalist agenda when it criticises the Irish Government for not following its model of a PS/CS. 

This isn't bashing anyone, my position is and will remain that there is no agenda, just a media overly reliant on various interest groups/individuals who generate press releases for copy. 

To come back to your point, why should we dismiss what IBEC say as being biassed to one agenda and not treat the other side of the social partners with the same scepticism?


----------



## Shawady (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> If you ask me, it was the latter as just when the first redundancies, pay cuts, etc were hitting the private sector, the PS/CS was talking about striking over any move the government wanted to make in order to reduce costs.


 
I can see where you are coming from when you see people like Liam Doran and Mc Cloone on the news say they are not even going to discuss pay cuts, but to be fair when Impact balloted for strike action they did not get the required majority. I would take this as a lot of public sector workers had accepted their pay cut.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> Not one political party came out and said they would reverse benchmarking or scrap social partnership if they got into power so where was the alternative?


 
I don't remember it even coming up as an issue. And, if you're unhappy with the way a Government is performing, you don't vote for them, and tell them you won't be doing so, in order to let them know of your dissatisfaction. Voting for them and then saying that their policies on partnership and benchmarking are what brought the economy down is not very bright.


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

Staples said:


> There's that expression again. _I feel _a song coming on...."_Feelings...Nothing more than feelings......"_
> 
> I'd continue but I don't *know *the words.


 
Yes, there's that expression again because I was clarifying the original context. Sweet Enola Gay! 

As I said, it's an old trick to try to divert attention away from points by picking up on small issues.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> Not one political party came out and said they would reverse benchmarking or scrap social partnership if they got into power so where was the alternative?


 


Sunny said:


> So why assume that because FF got back into power, that no-one had any issues with benchamrking etc?


 
I am amazed at the amount of people and the media who now, so vehemently, complain about the public sector yet yet have not advocated any change or reform over the past 20 - 30 years. To infer that that such an opinion for reform would, if articulated by enough people, who not have caught the attention of political parties is rubbish. While I accept that individuals may have issue with benchmarking by voting for the same party for the last 20 years no meaningful change was achieved.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> I don't remember it even coming up as an issue. And, if you're unhappy with the way a Government is performing, you don't vote for them, and tell them you won't be doing so, in order to let them know of your dissatisfaction. *Voting for them and then saying that their policies on partnership and benchmarking are what brought the economy down is not very bright*.


 
Agreed, I think a number of people are embarrassed that their individual voting choices have resulted in this so we now need people/groups to blame, (the bankers, the public servants, the immigrants) all to make us sleep better at night that it was them and not *ME* that got us into this.


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> I am amazed at the amount of people and the media who now, so vehemently, complain about the public sector yet yet have not advocated any change or reform over the past 20 - 30 years. To infer that that such an opinion for reform would, if articulated by enough people, who not have caught the attention of political parties is rubbish. While I accept that individuals may have issue with benchmarking by voting for the same party for the last 20 years no meaningful change was achieved.


 
I'm amazed that you think it's only now people have a problem with benchmarking. It's always been there and this has been represented in the media.

However, this has no relation to voting for FF. You're implying that FF only got back because of private sector employees, ignoring the support for FF within the PS and other sectors that directly benefited in government.


----------



## Shawady (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> I don't know why people in the civil service and public sector are so against reform.


 
Sunny, it is my belief that the government is in a strong postition to introduce reform.
The wage bill is going to have to be reduced and if it is not done through reducing numbers it will be done through pay cuts.
I think most people that are faced with taking up some extra work would do it if it did not impact on the wages.


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> Agreed, I think a number of people are embarrassed that their individual voting choices have resulted in this so we now need people/groups to blame, (the bankers, the public servants, the immigrants) all to make us sleep better at night that it was them and not *ME* that got us into this.


 
Thats rubbish. I have never once voted FF in my life but I don't blame FF voters for getting us into this mess. I voted for FG but I readily admit that the only criticism that they made of FF's management of the economy was that they didn't spend enough. All the political parties deserve blame for what has happened. Anyone remember the opposition parties calling for help to be given to first time buyers and everyone else at the height of the property boom instead of calling for steps to be taken to cool house prices?


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> I'm amazed that you think it's only now people have a problem with benchmarking. It's always been there and this has been represented in the media.
> 
> However, this has no relation to voting for FF. You're implying that FF only got back because of private sector employees, ignoring the support for FF within the PS and other sectors that directly benefited in government.


 
No, I am well aware of the problems with benchmarking going back to the non publication of the rationale for the increases in the 1st phase. However, I would disagree that this has no relation to voting for FF. If you want to stop a Government policy, you don't keep voting for it.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> Thats rubbish. I have never once voted FF in my life but I don't blame FF voters for getting us into this mess.


 
They may not have got us into this mess, but they supported the government that did. I, as a Civil Servant, did not vote for FF because, despite benchmarking, I could see beyond my own personal situation to the fact that they are a morally bankrupt party.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> All the political parties deserve blame for what has happened.


 
So the people who voted for them are blameless too? In some senses this issue is a useful microcosm on Irish people and their political choices, too many people decide their voting on local issues rather than on long term strategic considerations.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> they may not have got us into this mess, but they supported the government that did. I, as a civil servant, did not vote for ff because, despite benchmarking, i could see beyond my own personal situation to the fact that they are a morally bankrupt party.


 
+ 1


----------



## Padraigb (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> Well if we accept reports that An Bord Snip Nua is saying cut at least 20,000 jobs, I think it is safe to assume that there are areas of the public and civil service that are highly inefficient and overstaffed...



That is faulty logic. You can shed 20,000 jobs by reducing or eliminating services. That's not eliminating inefficiency.


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> So the people who voted for them are blameless too? In some senses this issue is a useful microcosm on Irish people and their political choices, too many people decide their voting on local issues rather than on long term strategic considerations.


 
So who did you vote for and why? What did they offer that was so different?


----------



## csirl (13 Jul 2009)

I think that people are generalising too much and getting sucked into an argument being promoted by a certain newspaper group with a political agenda.

You cannot say the public sector is good, bad or whatever. There are so many diverse functions and organisations that you cant generalise. Same as you cannot say the private sector is good, bad etc. What the public sector bashers are doing would be akin to public sector workers having a go at all private sector workers just because a minority in certain sectors got us into a financial mess. 

I personally think that the broad brush - cut the pay of all public sector workers approach - has political motives. While many areas of the public sector e.g. the civil service, are generally apolitical in that they are not staff by supporters of political parties (mainly because it is illegal for civil servants), there are a lot of "public sector" organisations that are staffed with supporters of political parties who benefited from a "jobs for the boys" approach in recent years. Think quangos, health boards, unnecessary local authorities etc. and your looking in the right direction. No coincidence that the underperforming parts of the PS are the "jobs for the boys" parts?

The policital motive behind encouraging broad brush attacks on the PS is that if the PS was looked at organisation by organisation, reformed and cuts made, the "jobs for the boys" people would be out of work very quickly as generally speaking, they are unproductive. By encouraging the broad brush approach whereby all Public Servants have to suffer, these unproductive political supporters hang onto their jobs.


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> They may not have got us into this mess, but they supported the government that did.


 
Does that mess include benchmarking? That was the original context of why some felt it was the fault of the private sector that FF retained power.

You cannot blame one section of society for FF votes. Secondly, it's a bit rich to imply that there is no responsibility on the PS/CS for profiting from benchmarking because people kept voting in FF. In the same way bankers and senior civil servants obtained obscene bonuses, they can't put the blame solely on the voting public.

And we keep ignoring the nonsensical assumption that FF only retained power because of the private sector. The other big issue is the opposition. Let's be honest and upfront and say it doesn't matter who was in power there was no way in the world benchmarking was going to go. Look at the fuss that was created when they tried to introduce a system of promotion being based on merit instead of length of service. Mandate were up in arms that their members would be subject to performance reviews and may never get a promotion if they performed poorly.

And what of the likely opposition? FG/Labour? I'd be delighted to know exactly how there would have been any change with Labour in a position of power. And disenfranchisement was evident over the last few elections, not just with FF, but all parties. Voter turn out has dropped considerably, some may be apathy because the times were good, but some is also people of the opinion that no party/candidate is worth a vote.

The PS/CS unions pushed for, achieved and fought tooth and nail to keep benchmarking the nice earner it was. I’m sorry, but I find it particularly galling to find the blame for benchmarking put onto the voting public and not the greed of Union members.

Last, look around the forum, you will see many, including myself, who have repeatedly stated there has to be personal responsibility for many of the issues. Except, in most cases we were accused of a right wing agenda for suggesting that people who took out extreme mortgages leaving themselves with a very tight margin were short-sighted. Yet it seems when it comes to benchmarking, it’s the public’s fault, when it comes to the public, it’s the bank’s fault.



csirl said:


> The policital motive behind encouraging broad brush attacks on the PS is that if the PS was looked at organisation by organisation, reformed and cuts made, the "jobs for the boys" people would be out of work very quickly as generally speaking, they are unproductive. By encouraging the broad brush approach whereby all Public Servants have to suffer, these unproductive political supporters hang onto their jobs.




PS/CS Myth: 101. When people state that they want reform and cuts in the PS/CS they are not saying that all those cuts are from front line or lower pay scales. We’re all aware of the huge salaries, overloading of middle and senior roles and the jobs for the boys. Yet every time it is mentioned, those who advocate a review and change are painted with the brush that we want nurses, gardai, teachers and fire-fighters on the dole.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

I'm not saying only Private Sector workers voted for FF. I'm saying that they are the ones now complaining about benchmarking and partnership yet a large number of them must have voted FF back into government in 2007. Why didn't they vote them out then, when they had the chance, if they were so furious with these policies? Because they too were benefitting from this Government, that's why.


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> I'm not saying only Private Sector workers voted for FF. I'm saying that they are the ones now complaining about benchmarking and partnership yet a large number of them must have voted FF back into government in 2007. Why didn't they vote them out then, when they had the chance, if they were so furious with these policies? Because they too were benefitting from this Government, that's why.


 
But thats the point. Who could they have voted for that would have reversed benchmarking or ended social partnership that was long past its sell by date? I am sure there are plenty of people who didn't agree with benchmarking but voted FF because of other reasons because no political party had the guts to come out and take on the public sector interest groups. Most of the private sector gained nothing from benchmarking or social partnership but unlike the public sector, didn't have a strong lobby group like the trade unions to fight their corner.


----------



## Shawady (13 Jul 2009)

In the last election Fianna Fail did very well in the commuter belt - Meath, Kildare, Wicklow.
Ironically, these are the areas that are now suffering the highest increase in unemployment and sharpest falls in house prices.


----------



## Staples (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> Yes, there's that expression again because I was clarifying the original context. Sweet Enola Gay!
> 
> As I said, it's an old trick to try to divert attention away from points by picking up on small issues.


 
Any considered analysis of issues is always welcome. It's a bit of a trick (or should that be "illusion") though to make conclusions based on feelings.

The relative merits/demerits of the public/private sectors have been discussed on this site for years. The only reasonable conclusion is that there are examples of good and bad in both sectors.

However, the public sector is so broad in terms of its functions and reach that it's pretty pointless to make sweeping conclusions on the entire sector on the basis of individual examples of inefficiency (which undoubtedly exist). That sort of analysis just doesn't stand up.

It's extremely easy to adopt and repeat the mantra that "the public sector is in urgent need of reform". Presenting specifics (and I mean being VERY specific) in terms of where and how this should be applied is far more difficult. An Bord Snip took months of analysis to make some stab at it - I'd welcome the publication of that report.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Sunny said:


> But thats the point. Who could they have voted for that would have reversed benchmarking or ended social partnership that was long past its sell by date? I am sure there are plenty of people who didn't agree with benchmarking but voted FF because of other reasons because no political party had the guts to come out and take on the public sector interest groups. Most of the private sector gained nothing from benchmarking or social partnership but unlike the public sector, didn't have a strong lobby group like the trade unions to fight their corner.


 
The point is, that had they objected vocally at the time and made it clear that they weren't voting for FF because they objected to benchmarking and partnership, they would have made their feelings loud and clear. They didn't because, as you said they were voting FF for other reasons - because they were doing very well themselves out of FF's short sighted policies.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> They didn't because, as you said they were voting FF for other reasons - because they were doing very well themselves out of FF's short sighted policies.


 He said that was one of the reasons. I didn't vote for FF but I found it very hard to find anyone I wanted to get in. A vote for FG is a vote for Labour and they are nothing more than the political wing of Congress (formerly known as ICTU) , or maybe I should say that they are a political wing of Congress since Congress are a political body all by themselves.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Purple said:


> He said that was one of the reasons. I didn't vote for FF but I found it very hard to find anyone I wanted to get in. A vote for FG is a vote for Labour and they are nothing more than the political wing of Congress (formerly known as ICTU) , or maybe I should say that they are a political wing of Congress since Congress are a political body all by themselves.


 

There are many people, in both the private and public sector, who voted for FF out of self interest and with no regard for the good of the economy. My point is that those in the private sector who did this are being a bit hypocritical to now start lambasting benchmarking and partnership when they didn't do anything about it when they had the chance. Maybe they'll put a bit more thought into their vote next time.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> The PS/CS unions pushed for, achieved and fought tooth and nail to keep benchmarking the nice earner it was. I’m sorry, but I find it particularly galling to find the blame for benchmarking put onto the voting public and *not the greed of Union members*.


 
An interesting question, is it greed or just the ability to be able to buy a house? I bought a house in a suburb or Dublin in 1996 £70,450 (approx €89.5k), the same house in 2006 was worth €425,000. Given this rapid rise in house prices is it not acceptable that union members (both private and public) would press for wage increases to be able to afford a house?


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> There are many people, in both the private and public sector, who voted for FF out of self interest and with no regard for the good of the economy. My point is that those in the private sector who did this are being a bit hypocritical to now start lambasting benchmarking and partnership when they didn't do anything about it when they had the chance. Maybe they'll put a bit more thought into their vote next time.


 
And to follow this to its logical conclusion, are they now actively raising this as an issue with their local representatives...


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> An interesting question, is it greed or just the ability to be able to buy a house? I bought a house in a suburb or Dublin in 1996 £70,450 (approx €89.5k), the same house in 2006 was worth €425,000. Given this rapid rise in house prices is it not acceptable that union members (both private and public) would press for wage increases to be able to afford a house?


 
And then we wonder why we ended up with a property bubble


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

Staples said:


> Any considered analysis of issues is always welcome. It's a bit of a trick (or should that be "illusion") though to make conclusions based on feelings.


 
I think the point of what I said and was trying to say is being lost in the use of one word. I clarified it and even pointed to where some assumptions had been made. Note I didn't hide away at all from the fact that I had made some assumptions. I clearly stated where and what they were.

However, to highlight that one word out of all the points made, even when there has been a clarification, even when there is quantifiable evidence to demonstrate the point has some amount, if not a significant, of merit is to keep up the illusion or trick. It is to introduce a red herring to deter the discussion. 

I'll admit, as I made an accusation/stated society felt that was the case, it was for me to produce evidence to back up the claim. I feel I gave at least some points as to where this came from. 

An Bord Snip's report is to give the full extent and specific nature of where cuts may be possible, whatever the reason. The current absence of this report in the public eye doesn't deter from the other reports and evidence that show some areas and in general where there is an issue of over-staffing.

Anyway, with all due respect to the OP, the whole thread started on a feeling that there was an unfair bias against the PS/CS in the media's reporting.


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> An interesting question, is it greed or just the ability to be able to buy a house? I bought a house in a suburb or Dublin in 1996 £70,450 (approx €89.5k), the same house in 2006 was worth €425,000. Given this rapid rise in house prices is it not acceptable that union members (both private and public) would press for wage increases to be able to afford a house?


 
To use some of the logic being applied here, the property bubble and the sudden collapse is therefore the fault of those under benchmarking. Instead of realising your limitations in terms of earning and being more reasonable, the prevailing thought was to try and match your pay scale to the false inflation. However, if there hadn't been such a drive and wages had stayed lower, then the house prices would have had to drop to meet the demands of the consumer. 

The short-sighted demands of union members only fuelled the property bubble.


----------



## liaconn (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> Anyway, with all due respect to the OP, the whole thread started on a feeling that there was an unfair bias against the PS/CS in the media's reporting.


 
No, it didn't. My intention was to highlight one particular deliberate lie made by Michael O'Leary and to criticise the reporter in question for not checking his facts in this particular case, given that it would have been very,very easy to do so.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> An interesting question, is it greed or just the ability to be able to buy a house? I bought a house in a suburb or Dublin in 1996 £70,450 (approx €89.5k), the same house in 2006 was worth €425,000. Given this rapid rise in house prices is it not acceptable that union members (both private and public) would press for wage increases to be able to afford a house?


 Yes it was. They should have pushed for actions that would lead to a reduction in house prices. They were, and still are, part of the problem.
On another point, if you sold you house in 2006 would you have sold to the highest bidder? If so would that make you the same as the "greedy developers"?


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Latrade said:


> To use some of the logic being applied here, the property bubble and the sudden collapse is therefore the fault of those under benchmarking. Instead of realising your limitations in terms of earning and being more reasonable, the prevailing thought was to try and match your pay scale to the false inflation. However, if there hadn't been such a drive and wages had stayed lower, then the house prices would have had to drop to meet the demands of the consumer.
> 
> *The short-sighted demands of union members only fuelled the property bubble.[/*quote]
> 
> Good god, what a statement! I assume you are including private sector union members here too? We are now being blamed for the property bubble too......despite this country being knee deep in planning corruption, having twenty years of a pro developer Government and no real land use and transport policy its the fault of union members...What were they supposed to do, go into the showhouse and say I'll give you five grand less than the asking price, I know what the response would have been....Next!


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR;898681
 
Good god said:
			
		

> No it was a joke. Private sector employees were implied to be a fault for FF remaining in power, so to use the logic, continually pushing for more money under benchmarking to keep pace with house prices, fuelled the bubble.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Purple said:


> Yes it was. They should have pushed for actions that would lead to a reduction in house prices. They were, and still are, part of the problem.


 
And would you consider private sector workers during the same period of time (96 - 06) part of the same problem?


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> Good god, what a statement! I assume you are including private sector union members here too? We are now being blamed for the property bubble too......despite this country being knee deep in planning corruption, having twenty years of a pro developer Government and no real land use and transport policy its the fault of union members...What were they supposed to do, go into the showhouse and say I'll give you five grand less than the asking price, I know what the response would have been....Next!



Latrade's logic is completely sound, if not encompassing the full spectrum of who is to blame. The unions have been at the top table of government for the last 10 years; they are one of the socialist partners. They knew better but since they were suckling at the tit of the bloated capital tax bubble they were happy to nod along and play lip service to their “members”. Orwell could have dedicated a book to them.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> And would you consider private sector workers during the same period of time (96 - 06) part of the same problem?


If they were in a union then yes. The CIF, IBEC and the other vested interest groups that ran the country while the government took a back seat are all one and the same, public pontifications not withstanding. They all saw what was happening, they all knew better and they chose to do nothing because it suited their short term vested interest.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> I have never seen any information about the occupations of individual voters nor do I believe any exists except maybe private polls by parties.


 


Latrade said:


> No it was a joke. *Private sector employees were implied to be a fault for FF remaining in power,* so to use the logic, continually pushing for more money under benchmarking to keep pace with house prices, fuelled the bubble.


 
As I have said above earlier, I don't know what class or type of employee voted for FF, all I do know is that about 38% of the voters did so. There are many different and varied factors which fuelled the bubble to various degrees but I think that is a debate for a different thread.


----------



## Green (13 Jul 2009)

Purple said:


> Latrade's logic is completely sound, if not encompassing the full spectrum of who is to blame. The unions have been at the top table of government for the last 10 years; they are one of the socialist partners.


 
Yes, his logic is sound but does not take all the factors into account and I would suggest that these others factors had a bigger affect on the bubble that wage inflation.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2009)

YOBR said:


> Yes, his logic is sound but does not take all the factors into account and I would suggest that these others factors had a bigger affect on the bubble that wage inflation.


Wage inflation and lending multiples are, IMO, the biggies.


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2009)

Even taking out the property bubble, wage inflation in this Country was unsustainable from a competitiveness point of view and yet not one member of the social partners came out and shouted stop. It was a cosy relationship between Government, Trade Unions and Big Business. ISME wasn't even allowed to negotiate as a full member and were the only ones saying enough is enough. Look around and see the people who are really suffering now. Small businesses who were not represented during those talks and are now paying the price.


----------



## Latrade (13 Jul 2009)

liaconn said:


> No, it didn't. My intention was to highlight one particular deliberate lie made by Michael O'Leary and to criticise the reporter in question for not checking his facts in this particular case, given that it would have been very,very easy to do so.


 
Mea culpa, though it did, quickly, come through that the view is there is an anti-PS/CS agenda. However not, as I gave the impression, in the original post.



YOBR said:


> Yes, his logic is sound but does not take all the factors into account and I would suggest that these others factors had a bigger affect on the bubble that wage inflation.


 
Which was a point I was trying to make several pages ago when the topic changed to how if there was disquiet against benchmarking prior to the collapse (which there was) people shouldn't have voted for FF. However, there are too many factors involved to justify the unjust (i.e. benchmarking, or the system established rather than the principle) on the basis of private sector employees voting for FF. As you said, 38% voted them in, hardly a ringing endorsement.


----------

