# How safe are public service jobs?



## mu66 (25 Nov 2008)

Employees in the public service that started employment after 1995 pay higher PRSI - I heard recently that this is to allow for redundancy payments?
Is it likely that the so-called safe public sector jobs are not so secure after all?


----------



## Marion (25 Nov 2008)

Public service jobs were never safe contrary to popular opinion on AAM.

One is always bound to be aware that one can be suspended or dismissed if one is accused of and proven to be acting ultra vires.

If one finds oneself in a position to be suspended with a view to being dismissed it is imperative that one has an excellent case that can be visited in a legal environment. 

Marion


----------



## FutureProof (26 Nov 2008)

That was 13 years ago to be fair.


----------



## yop (26 Nov 2008)

They are safe as long as you dont shoot someone.  

I know of 2 cases where if the same happened in a private sector company, they would have been sacked on the spot.

Its going to take the government 18 months to come up with the report anyway, paying former public servants to analyse the public service!! Its a farce


----------



## venice (26 Nov 2008)

I don't think you can head-butt you boss either but not sure, its a gray area


----------



## Caveat (26 Nov 2008)

Probably depends exactly what is meant by 'public service jobs' too.

For example, many offices/services appear ostensibly to be 'public' but in reality are pretty much autonomous but are _funded _by public money - which in theory could be stopped at any time.  In fact it's happening already.


----------



## yop (26 Nov 2008)

I will put a question out there to see what you think a person should be paid based on this job description, which is a public service job:

Enter data into a PC from a phone received from another public servant. There is no other work to be done with the data, just enter it the system so that it is available to the relevant departments.

So what do you think a person doing that job should get? Btw I know what the pay is  Will tell you when I get a few responses, personally I nearly died when I heard it.


----------



## tara83 (26 Nov 2008)

yop said:


> I will put a question out there to see what you think a person should be paid based on this job description, which is a public service job:
> 
> Enter data into a PC from a phone received from another public servant. There is no other work to be done with the data, just enter it the system so that it is available to the relevant departments.
> 
> So what do you think a person doing that job should get? Btw I know what the pay is  Will tell you when I get a few responses, personally I nearly died when I heard it.


 
If it where a private sector job I would presume it would be somewhere along the pay of office juniors - not sure what the going rate is but maybe 23 -26k but public sector if they have been doing the job for years I would imagine it will be more


----------



## Newbie! (26 Nov 2008)

yop said:


> I will put a question out there to see what you think a person should be paid based on this job description, which is a public service job:
> 
> Enter data into a PC from a phone received from another public servant. There is no other work to be done with the data, just enter it the system so that it is available to the relevant departments.
> 
> So what do you think a person doing that job should get? Btw I know what the pay is  Will tell you when I get a few responses, personally I nearly died when I heard it.



This will probably be a ludicrous amount of money!

Its hard to guess based on that one line description - is there any analysis or calculations to be done based on the data entered? If it is pure data entry, I would put it somewhere around the early 20's mark.....


----------



## yop (26 Nov 2008)

Its pure data entry. Btw I am not anti-public service at all, BUT I dont like the way its been run, cant blame the foot soldiers if they are been paid crazy money, with pensions, health cover, great holidays and sick pay. 

Also sorry for hi-jacking the thread!!!!


----------



## Dreamerb (26 Nov 2008)

yop said:


> [...] with pensions, health cover, great holidays and sick pay.
> 
> Also sorry for hi-jacking the thread!!!!


Health cover? That's very unusual. Certainly not mainstream civil service, if that's included.

In the civil service, holidays at the lowest levels are statutory minimum or just over (plus those famous two privilege days), but they do go up for middle to senior managers (to a maximum of 31 days). It would be unusual for other public sector jobs to have substantially better leave allowances.

To get to the question, I'd have thought that's a CO salary, so depending on how long the person's been serving, somewhere between €24 k and nearly €40k [which is the maximum of that scale, after 17 years at the grade].


----------



## venice (26 Nov 2008)

they would possably a grade 5 so depending on service €47 - €58 but i think is more then just typeing on a PC


----------



## venice (26 Nov 2008)

sorry, a grade 5 is €42 - €51


----------



## yop (26 Nov 2008)

FutureProof said:


> That was 13 years ago to be fair.





venice said:


> they would possably a grade 5 so depending on service €47 - €58 but i think is more then just typeing on a PC



Its pure data entry, I know 2 people working there, bored off their trees, but hey the pay is good


----------



## Guest122 (26 Nov 2008)

Basic data entry starts at €19,500/anm for first year and rises to about €26,000 max after at least three years service for *good* workers. Stays about this level with just nominal pay rises (usually less than inflation) for ever. Most get promotion, moved or quit after a few years.
No pension, no sick pay, no union, no health benefits, basic holidays etc...


----------



## yop (27 Nov 2008)

Sorry meant to update this yesterday. The basic is 40k euro with a 25% shift allowance. 

Is it any wonder its near impossible to get into the place


----------



## bleary (28 Nov 2008)

I can guess where you are talking about Pulse ,Castlebar??  starting salary definitely not 40 k ..Starting is CO salary + shift allowances , Shifts are 24 hours 7 day weeks, 
Starting salary 2 years ago was 21k with top of scale 34k gone up a bit since then but not that much.


----------



## yop (28 Nov 2008)

The information is from people who work there, why would they bother to lie???


----------



## bleary (28 Nov 2008)

The information on staffing and wages is publicly available.
For staffing structure see
[broken link removed]
It has expanded numbers since then -possibly with long service you may get close to that salary but otherwise only with promotions etc.
The shift premium also was not 25% for all shifts.That applied to the most antisocial shift only,or did at the beginning. Starting salary for CO which the majority of the staff are is available on Dept finance websites about 23k nowadays.

People always lie about 2 things in my experience 
1. salarys.
2. alcohol intake .


----------



## yop (28 Nov 2008)

So both of them lied! That report is over 2 years old. 

Just pointing out the difference in pay between private and public.


----------



## HouseOfCards (28 Nov 2008)

venice said:


> I don't think you can head-butt you boss either but not sure, its a gray area


 
Hmmmmm..... not sure on that one either. I'd say no head-butting.... but then again.... not sure


Know someone who went from private sector to civil service about a year ago. She thought it was a wind up. Maybe she was just being given time to find her feet but she was told to relax, do a few courses to fill the day and she'd get used to the new pace of life after 6 months or so




.


----------



## liaconn (28 Nov 2008)

HouseOfCards said:


> Hmmmmm..... not sure on that one either. I'd say no head-butting.... but then again.... not sure
> 
> 
> Know someone who went from private sector to civil service about a year ago. She thought it was a wind up. Maybe she was just being given time to find her feet but she was told to relax, do a few courses to fill the day and she'd get used to the new pace of life after 6 months or so
> ...


 
Or maybe the idiot who told her that is the kind of lazy w*nker who gives all civil servants a bad name.


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Nov 2008)

Comes down to where you are. I moved a couple of years back private to public, and where I am I'm always busy. More work than is possible to do. The main difference is I don't have to work stupid hours to earn some else a bonus. Some of that is down the age profile. The average age is much older in the public sector, at least where I am, so theres a more mature approach to work. But I don't think its the same everywhere.


----------



## buzybee (1 Dec 2008)

I moved last year from private to public.  I still have enough work to keep me occupied every day, but I do not have a mad scramble to get everything done within the working day.  In the private sector, I felt my job was a joke.  I worked very hard, yet could barely get all my work covered, despite doing 45 hours a week (I was only paid for 39)  It got to the stage where I got very stressed and hated going to work.  

Now I feel I have got my life back again.  I enjoy going to work, but I also enjoy my weekends and annual leave.  I feel I am able to switch off fully during the evenings and weekends.  The working day is much shorter too, 35 hours, where I get all my proper lunch breaks etc.


----------



## Purple (1 Dec 2008)

buzybee said:


> I moved last year from private to public.  I still have enough work to keep me occupied every day, but I do not have a mad scramble to get everything done within the working day.  In the private sector, I felt my job was a joke.  I worked very hard, yet could barely get all my work covered, despite doing 45 hours a week (I was only paid for 39)  It got to the stage where I got very stressed and hated going to work.
> 
> Now I feel I have got my life back again.  I enjoy going to work, but I also enjoy my weekends and annual leave.  I feel I am able to switch off fully during the evenings and weekends.  The working day is much shorter too, 35 hours, where I get all my proper lunch breaks etc.


 Good for you. What holiday leave do you get? Do you get paid sick leave?


----------



## capall (1 Dec 2008)

I think that public sector jobs are no longer safe though some areas are obviously more exposed than others.
The public sector in ireland is just not sustainable in its current form and the political will is there now to do something about it.


----------



## aircobra19 (2 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> Good for you. What holiday leave do you get? Do you get paid sick leave?


 

I know you didn't ask me, but...I get the same I got in the private sector. At least when working for large companies.


----------



## Purple (2 Dec 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> I know you didn't ask me, but...I get the same I got in the private sector. At least when working for large companies.



How many is that?


----------



## aircobra19 (2 Dec 2008)

More than 2 days sick has to be certified, Mon & Fri always have to be certified, theres a limit to the number of uncertified days and certified days in a time period, couldn't tell you what they are. Long term sick have other limits. Only people I've heard hitting those are people with serious illness or injury. Holidays change per grade, most have 22~24. Higher managers and long timers, get a couple of more days over time. Of course you can add privilege days. Some have flexi time, but not all. The main difference is the 2 privilege days. Oh and you don't work crazy hours for no reason/benefit which was common in the private sector for me at least.

Pretty much identical to what I had in numerous companies in the private sector. Most people I know in the private sector have the same if not better.


----------



## Purple (2 Dec 2008)

In the SME sector/ small shops etc I have never heard of anyone getting more than the statutory minimum. 
I get 20 days a year. We don’t give sick pay but if a long term employee is seriously ill we do pay them (often for months) as they have given years of service to the company and usually have a family to support and a mortgage to pay. Without playing the martyr I don’t really get sick so sick pay for me doesn’t come up, I can’t think of more than five or six days I’ve had to take off in the last 18 years, none in the last 6.
Obviously if anyone is out due to a work related injury they are paid in full including overtime (averaged for the last 8 weeks) but again thankfully, this is a very rare occurrence. We have had to send people home because of injuries that they sustained at home (one guy came in the day after he cut off his finger at home with a circular saw!).

The notion of people taking their uncertified sick days as if they were extra holidays is completely alien to me, and those I work with. A friend who works in the HSE said that she gets a notification from her union rep telling her how many sick days she has left. She said that she is put under low-level pressure to take them.


----------



## Caveat (2 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> A friend who works in the HSE said that she gets a notification from her union rep telling her how many sick days she has left. She said that she is put under low-level pressure to take them.


 
Yes, I've heard of this too.


----------



## Dreamerb (2 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> The notion of people taking their uncertified sick days as if they were extra holidays is completely alien to me, and those I work with. A friend who works in the HSE said that she gets a notification from her union rep telling her how many sick days she has left. She said that she is put under low-level pressure to take them.



That's appalling, and I'm shocked. 

Because this has been coming up a lot lately, both in the media and on AAM, I've asked a few colleagues how uncertified sick leave is treated by my current Department: some have slightly different procedures than others and I've only been here a couple of years - not long enough to have taken any myself since on average I take about one uncertified sick day every three to four years! I'm informed that it's looked at very closely, particularly if it falls on a Friday or Monday. Line managers are expected to pay attention to the amount of uncertified sick leave taken by staff, and to act if there's the remotest suspicion of abuse. One person was contacted by personnel having taken two Mondays as uncert sick - both when genuinely ill, apparently, but the point is that it's rigorously monitored and absolutely not viewed as some sort of bonus leave entitlement. 

I do know of some people who treat is as such, and was actually dunbstruck some years ago when a then-colleague said she had only three days leave and two sick days "left to take".


----------



## Purple (2 Dec 2008)

Interesting post Dreamerb, what sanction can be taken by HRor a manager against an employee who takes loads of uncertified sick days?


----------



## aircobra19 (2 Dec 2008)

You're not comparing like with like, if you are comparing SME sector/ small shops with public sector. The public sector is very similar to big companies and the corporate environment in general. 

Not much point in comparing working considerations in say Intel or Microsoft, with working in your local corner shop, or your family business. I worked for many years in a family business and other odd jobs. It never occurred to me to use that in my comparision. If you choose that instead of working somewhere with better conditions, thats a personal decision. I choose not to work in those kinda jobs. Indeed I have left jobs where I was expected to work excessive hours for no worthwhile gain in either pay or in achieving work goals. 

I have had the opposite experience of sick leave. Its not encouraged. I think it goes against you when it comes to promotions too. But I'm sure its down to the culture in particular office, and specific managers. In the same working excessive hours is usually down to specific people/managers rather than a realistic/useful schedule. 

Not everyone is a resistent to sickness as everyone else. Some people genuinely do catch everything going, especially if they have kids or are older. So the implication that because one person doesn't take sick days, no one else should, doesn't really stand up. You can have good years and bad years. Thats life.


----------



## Purple (2 Dec 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> You're not comparing like with like, if you are comparing SME sector/ small shops with public sector. The public sector is very similar to big companies and the corporate environment in general.
> 
> Not much point in comparing working considerations in say Intel or Microsoft, with working in your local corner shop, or your family business.


Why should the public sector not be benchmarked against the SME sector?
Intel and IBM have massive worldwide revenues and their business spans the globe, the pay and conditions that they offer their employees lean on that worlkwide base, not the local base in Ireland. The SME sector is a truer indicator of what is sustainable in this economy.


----------



## Dreamerb (2 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> Interesting post Dreamerb, what sanction can be taken by HRor a manager against an employee who takes loads of uncertified sick days?


Plenty, though as you can presumably tell from my post it's not an issue I've had to deal with - my staff are very reliable, and as it happens I've never had someone reporting to me who's taken "sick" leave in that way. Problematic for other reasons (not anyone I'm currently working with, happily), yes on occasion, but not that one.

Anyway, I gather that a quiet word from the direct manager is usually sufficient to deal with a problem, but if it's not there are quite a few sanctions available. These could include, depending on persistence of the problem, one or a combination of withholding - or, in extreme cases, taking back - of increments, withdrawal of flexible working hours where available, warnings recorded on the formal personnel file, and recording (when someone's applying for promotional positions) that they are "unsatisfactory" in attendance / sick-leave. That last would weigh heavily against someone for promotion and obviously would not be used for genuine and certified illness unless there was a compelling reason to believe they could not take the job for medical reasons.


----------



## InfoSeeker (2 Dec 2008)

No job is currently safe and this will surely apply to the public sector as their employer will struggle to pay them if the costs remain as they are:

[broken link removed]


----------



## markowitzman (2 Dec 2008)

public sector jobs are too safe.....


----------



## aircobra19 (3 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> Why should the public sector not be benchmarked against the SME sector?
> Intel and IBM have massive worldwide revenues and their business spans the globe, the pay and conditions that they offer their employees lean on that worlkwide base, not the local base in Ireland. The SME sector is a truer indicator of what is sustainable in this economy.


 
Those companies don't level pay and conditions globally. They do it locally. In my experience, US, Ireland, India, Japan don't all have the same pay and conditions with the same company. If they did how would take advantage of cheap local labour? From what I've read in the report, and I've just scanned it, not read it in any detail. Benchmarking included the SME sector in pay and conditions including types of leave, sick leave etc. IN my experience the conditions are very similar to what I had in the private sector. Pay is a little less, but hours are less. Bit more security, maybe. If you consider the title of this thread, I don't think jobs in the public sector are as secure as they were. But thats my own area. Its obviously very different in other areas.


----------



## cruchan09 (3 Dec 2008)

I think that the safety of your public sector job relates to the sector that you are in. If you are a ‘pure’ civil servant then I think that your job is slightly more at risk than it was last year, but relative to the private sector its still pretty safe. In the greater ‘public sector’ at large security depends on the nature of your work. I work in a public sector area where there are cutbacks and recruitment freezes but we cannot cease operations as that is not an option. I feel that my job is about as safe as any other in the public sector.

In my experience it is nigh on impossible to get sacked from the public sector. I know of one worker in my workplace who has assaulted fellow staff on more than one occasion but when disciplinary proceedings were attempted his union stepped in and threatened strike action, labour court, etc. Another senior worker I know racially abused a co worker in front of lots of senior people in a meeting and again his union step in to protect him.

The unions are key to some of the problems in the public sector. They have been allowed to garner too much power. A good example is the HSE. I find it laughable that one of the issues the ICTU never speak of with any great conviction is the poor level of service and the high costs associated with the HSE. If they did they would have to agree that the HSE is overstaffed and needs streamlining. I find it amazing that nurses can ask for a reduction in their working hours and claim that this will not affect patient care. To me that means that currently they are working inefficiently. How about working more efficiently but keeping your 39hr week? If necessary pay them more. What would this to for the performance of the HSE? 

There is a bias from the public and some politicians towards treating ‘frontline’ staff as untouchables and blaming the pencil pushers for all of the HSE’s and other departments ills. I think everyone in the public sector needs to look at their own performance and ask are they earning their salary. I have no objection to paying consultants over €200k if they provide a level of service to match the salary. 

As a public sector worker I 'earn' over €100k per annum for a 32 hour week. In reality I work a lot more than that but I still know I have a good deal. Some of my co-workers on similar contracts work as little as possible and still get paid. To be honest it gets me down that I work my ass off and some co workers do feck all and we both get paid the same and both have equal chances of promotion. I think that the poor attitude of some public sector workers does tar us all with a bad name and it’s also like a virus which spreads through their co workers making the situation worse. I think that a ‘root and branch’ review of the entire public service is long overdue. I am confident I give value for money, but if I don’t I have no objections to changing my work practices.


----------



## becky (3 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> A friend who works in the HSE said that she gets a notification from her union rep telling her how many sick days she has left. She said that she is put under low-level pressure to take them.


 
I have worked in the HSE for 19 years and have to say I find this very hard to believe.  The union rep should not have access to any employees record.


----------



## buzybee (3 Dec 2008)

I get 20 days hols a year in the public sector, same as private sector.  However, I can work up flexi days, usually 1.5 a month. These really help to 'keep' my 20 days hols.  In the private sector, I would think twice before taking a half day to sort out something with the house, as I felt I had little hols, and I could use up the 20 days very fast by taking random days.

I got no paid sick leave in the private sector.  I used to get 7 paid sick days when I worked in a financial co. five years ago.  Then I was made redundant. I moved every 6 mos to a year from job to job, trying to get better pay and conditions.  However, all these jobs gave no sick pay.  In fact last year, I got the flu and was off for 3 days with a doctors cert.  I didn't get paid despite working 45 hour week for months coming up to this.  I think the 45 hr plus a week contributed to the flu.

Usually I get the flu or a heavy cold once or twice a year.  I can come into work on the second day of a heavy cold.  I find it hard coming to work on the firstday of a heavy cold as I would have headaches and be dizzy, not good for someone doing accounts.  Sometimes I had no choice but to take the first day of a heavy cold off, even though I wouldn't get paid.


----------



## FutureProof (4 Dec 2008)

Do you get any sort of annual pay rise in public service jobs?


----------



## Yorrick (4 Dec 2008)

From what we have been hearing over the last while the impression is being given that the private sector is  a absolute model of efficiency.
During the boom times how many people were left waiting by builders, tradesmen wtc who have no concept of customer service. They took deposits to hold jobs and then did not turn up or turned up late while running several jobs at the one time.
If instead of being greedy they provided a good service to their customers, many of whom were ordinary people getting refurbishments, extension etc they would continue to be getting steady work.

When you read the list of tax defaulters issued by the Revenue Commissioners there isnt any Clerical Officers on the list.


----------



## PeterGriffin (4 Dec 2008)

Yorrick said:


> During the boom times how many people were left waiting by builders, tradesmen wtc who have no concept of customer service. They took deposits to hold jobs and then did not turn up or turned up late while running several jobs at the one time.


Ring them now and something tells me you might get a better response...what's the area code for Australia again?? 



Yorrick said:


> If instead of being greedy they provided a good service to their customers, many of whom were ordinary people getting refurbishments, extension etc they would continue to be getting steady work.


I think many in the building trade lived by the motto "make hay while the sun shines"....granted others lived by the motto "stand and deliver" but that's a different thing. I basically think there just isn't enough work going around at the moment to keep them all going



Yorrick said:


> When you read the list of tax defaulters issued by the Revenue Commissioners there isnt any Clerical Officers on the list.


Probably cause they're the ones doing up the list 

Ok....I'm being a little cheeky with some of what I'm saying but it really highlights the difference between public & private jobs. When times get bad for a private company...you're gone, if you're not running your company properly....you're gone, the same things don't seem to apply in the public sector. It doesn't matter how inefficient a private company is because if that cost is being passed onto the consumer eventually they'll just shop around, generally we can't do that with our public services


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2008)

Yorrick said:


> From what we have been hearing over the last while the impression is being given that the private sector is  a absolute model of efficiency.
> During the boom times how many people were left waiting by builders, tradesmen wtc who have no concept of customer service. They took deposits to hold jobs and then did not turn up or turned up late while running several jobs at the one time.
> If instead of being greedy they provided a good service to their customers, many of whom were ordinary people getting refurbishments, extension etc they would continue to be getting steady work.
> 
> When you read the list of tax defaulters issued by the Revenue Commissioners there isnt any Clerical Officers on the list.


I agree that the building sector was grossly inefficient (so is the public sector BTW). The SME sector is not much better. The one thing that made us look good through the early and mid 90’s was the multinational manufacturing sector which, somewhat ironically, has been nearly killed by the increase in our cost base driven by wage inflation caused by the building boom and public sector pay bonanza.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2008)

Yorrick said:


> When you read the list of tax defaulters issued by the Revenue Commissioners there isnt any Clerical Officers on the list.


 Not too many of them on the list of people who lose their homes when their businesses fail either.


----------



## Staples (4 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> Not too many of them on the list of people who lose their homes when their businesses fail either.


 
Is there such a list?  Can you provide numbers/stats of such people who lose their homes relative to public servants?

If not, your contention is bogus.


----------



## Staples (4 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> The one thing that made us look good through the early and mid 90’s was the multinational manufacturing sector which, somewhat ironically, has been nearly killed by the increase in our cost base driven by wage inflation caused by the building boom and public sector pay bonanza.


 
Can you explain how public sector pay contributes to a decline in the manufacturing sector?


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2008)

Staples said:


> Is there such a list?  Can you provide numbers/stats of such people who lose their homes relative to public servants?
> 
> If not, your contention is bogus.


 Really? Have a think about it (and how people re-mortgage their home and/or use their life savings to start businesses) and come back to me.


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2008)

Staples said:


> Can you explain how public sector pay contributes to a decline in the manufacturing sector?


The whole  economy is joined up; pay rises for 25% of the workforce cause inflation for the whole economy. This makes the whole country more expensive to do business in and less competitive internationally. It's really very simple (and universally accepted by economists).
In very simple terms if everyone in the country gets a 10% pay increase nobody is really better off, we are just 10% less competitive internationally.


----------



## Staples (14 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> In very simple terms if everyone in the country gets a 10% pay increase nobody is really better off, we are just 10% less competitive internationally.


 
That (may) explain how pay affects competitiveness. You attributed a lack of competiveness to apublic servce to a "public service pay bonanza" which, even it existed, is something quite different.

You clearly have an agenda against the public service which wouldn't be unacceptable if it was moderately well informed. It took the OECD several months with several people to produce an analysis of the Irish civil service. You reckon you can do it quite nicely over a couple of posts with your University of Liveline level of rigour

I work in the public service and have no objection to constructive criticism and acknowledge that taxpayers are entiltled to expect good value for money. However, the tone and content of your regular musings suggests you don't really have a wide enough knowledge of the public service to allow you draw the sweeping conclusions you do. 

Until you actually know what you're talking about, you should really desist.


----------



## Complainer (14 Dec 2008)

Staples said:


> You reckon you can do it quite nicely over a couple of posts with your University of Liveline level of rigour


Class....


----------



## liaconn (17 Dec 2008)

Purple;756768============--------------
The notion of people taking their uncertified sick days as if they were extra holidays is completely alien to me said:
			
		

> I realise I'm coming to this debate late in the day, but I am so sick of this myth going around that public servants treat sick leave like some kind of extension of their annual leave. This is so untrue. The girl I share a room with has taken one days sick leave in the year and a half I have been working with her and I have often seen her coming into work when she is obviously not well. My own boss came into work yesterday after having dealt with her house being completely flooded, handled  a major crisis at work, went for a root canal treatment and  was back at her desk an hour later. A friend of mine has never taken a days sick leave in ten years and always takes annual leave when she is unwell. I spent three days in hospital recently having tests. On the fourth day, after the final test, I headed straight to the  bus stop and came into work. None of us would be considered unusual in the civil service and its really annoying to read all these stupid stories going around. As I  have said before, Yes there are some chancers and lazy soandsos in the Civil Service and nobody would be happier to see them get their comeuppance than their fed up colleagues. But please don't tar us all with the same brush.  Its  lazy and unintelligent and comes across as smug and arrogant.


----------



## z103 (17 Dec 2008)

> That (may) explain how pay affects competitiveness. You attributed a lack of competiveness to apublic servce to a "public service pay bonanza" which, even it existed, is something quite different.


The explanation given certainly does explain how pay affects competitiveness.

Our company is lucky enough to have enough work to hire someone extra. However, the cost of employing an Irish person makes it prohibitive - we wouldn't be able to compete with our international competitors. Instead, we work extra hours, and look at outsourcing the work to other countries. If this is how our small company thinks, imagine how it is for the likes of Dell etc.

The public sector pay bonanza is a root cause to all of this. Inflating wage costs across the board.

In addition, who would want to work for our company when they can get at least double the money and tons of perks in the public sector instead? (doing a similar job)

We also hear today that the national pay deal 'may need a review'
[broken link removed]
lol.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2008)

Staples said:


> That (may) explain how pay affects competitiveness. You attributed a lack of competiveness to apublic servce to a "public service pay bonanza" which, even it existed, is something quite different.
> 
> You clearly have an agenda against the public service which wouldn't be unacceptable if it was moderately well informed. It took the OECD several months with several people to produce an analysis of the Irish civil service. You reckon you can do it quite nicely over a couple of posts with your University of Liveline level of rigour
> 
> ...



Try reading what I have posted and the links that have gone with them.
Once again; _On average, public sector pay in the other EU countries examined was 11,000 lower than in Ireland. An average teacher s salary in Ireland in 2004 was found to be over 48,000 some 35% ahead of that in the UK and 25% higher than Germany. Health and social workers in Ireland earned an average of 46,000, which was nearly double average earnings for the sector in Finland and about 30% ahead of those in the UK.
These were the highest rates in the study. Data also from the EU Commission show that average economy-wide earnings in Ireland are 13% higher than in the euro area. The differential of 30% enjoyed by Irish public sector workers in considerably larger than this and suggests that public sector pay in Ireland has fallen out of sync with that elsewhere in Europe_ Source (from IBECs Danny McCoy quoting OECD and CSO)


----------



## Caveat (17 Dec 2008)

liaconn said:


> I realise I'm coming to this debate late in the day, but I am so sick of this myth going around that public servants treat sick leave like some kind of extension of their annual leave. This is so untrue.


 
In _your_ experience.  In my experience it is very common.

IIRC, it is also the experience of other public sector workers on this very site.


----------



## Sunny (17 Dec 2008)

liaconn said:


> I realise I'm coming to this debate late in the day, but I am so sick of this myth going around that public servants treat sick leave like some kind of extension of their annual leave. This is so untrue. The girl I share a room with has taken one days sick leave in the year and a half I have been working with her and I have often seen her coming into work when she is obviously not well. My own boss came into work yesterday after having dealt with her house being completely flooded, handled a major crisis at work, went for a root canal treatment and was back at her desk an hour later. A friend of mine has never taken a days sick leave in ten years and always takes annual leave when she is unwell. I spent three days in hospital recently having tests. On the fourth day, after the final test, I headed straight to the bus stop and came into work. None of us would be considered unusual in the civil service and its really annoying to read all these stupid stories going around. As I have said before, Yes there are some chancers and lazy soandsos in the Civil Service and nobody would be happier to see them get their comeuppance than their fed up colleagues. But please don't tar us all with the same brush. Its lazy and unintelligent and comes across as smug and arrogant.


 
Nobody is trying to tar the entire public sector with the same brush just like people can't claim that *all *public and civil servants are paid too much. However, all research and reports show that levels of sick leave in the public sector is a lot higher than in the private sector. You can argue over the reasons for this but you can't argue the basic fact. I love the way people in the public sector give out about 'chancers and lazy soandsos' but yet through their Unions fight every attempt to bring in proper performance reviews. Look at the recent talks about trying to root out underperforming teachers.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2008)

becky said:


> I have worked in the HSE for 19 years and have to say I find this very hard to believe.  The union rep should not have access to any employees record.


I'll let her know. AFAIK she's only there about 6 years but having come from the private sector she gets angry as the waste, unions and bad work practices. Maybe it’s because she sees money wasted as money which could have been spent helping sick people. Perhaps after 19 years she’ll play by the rules but I hope not since she went into healthcare to help sick people (idealists; what a strange bunch!).


----------



## mu66 (17 Dec 2008)

Back to my original question: How safe are public service jobs?


----------



## ajapale (17 Dec 2008)

mu66 said:


> Back to my original question: How safe are public service jobs?



Perhaps you could elaborate on what exactly you mean by the question. 

For a minute I thought it was a health and safety question!

I know some temporary nurses in the HSE and some temporary engineers in the local authorities who are being let go in January. So in that case the jobs are not safe at all.


----------



## Complainer (17 Dec 2008)

mu66 said:


> How safe are public service jobs?


I was speaking to an employee of the Combat Poverty Agency a couple of weeks ago. She (amongst some others) is losing her job when the agency in amalgamated back into DSFA. Tell that to Eddie Hobbs the next time he spouts his BIK/security of tenure nonsense.



leghorn said:


> In addition, who would want to work for our company when they can get at least double the money and tons of perks in the public sector instead? (doing a similar job)


Please give just one example of where someone can double their money in a comparable public sector job?



liaconn said:


> I realise I'm coming to this debate late in the day, but I am so sick of this myth going around that public servants treat sick leave like some kind of extension of their annual leave. This is so untrue. The girl I share a room with has taken one days sick leave in the year and a half I have been working with her and I have often seen her coming into work when she is obviously not well. My own boss came into work yesterday after having dealt with her house being completely flooded, handled  a major crisis at work, went for a root canal treatment and  was back at her desk an hour later. A friend of mine has never taken a days sick leave in ten years and always takes annual leave when she is unwell. I spent three days in hospital recently having tests. On the fourth day, after the final test, I headed straight to the  bus stop and came into work. None of us would be considered unusual in the civil service and its really annoying to read all these stupid stories going around. As I  have said before, Yes there are some chancers and lazy soandsos in the Civil Service and nobody would be happier to see them get their comeuppance than their fed up colleagues. But please don't tar us all with the same brush.  Its  lazy and unintelligent and comes across as smug and arrogant.


Just to add some additional context, over the past 3 weeks, I have emails from one colleague from her hospital bed (she is in for cardiac tests) and phone calls from another colleague from his sick bed at home (he tells me his sick leave is a great opportunity to catch up on all those business calls he never gets time to make). One of my kids teachers has had a bad cold for at least four weeks now, and has never missed a day's work.


----------

