# The Difficult task of Public Service reform.



## horusd

The Garda's GRA have begun the probably inevitable attempts to protect their patch and face down Gov't cutbacks/reform. The argument seems to be they cannot endure staff reductions without affecting services. The idea that only staff numbers and not work practices, inefficencies, inadequate management systems, etc impact on services is a complete misnomer. The idea that they should be excluded from staff cut-backs is also an exercise in Me Feinism, muscle flexing & sectional power interests and not at all connected to the realities facing the state. Other powerful sectional interests in the Public Services will likely follow suit. How can such endemic vested interests be reined in?


----------



## Chris

I believe the simple answer is that they can't or won't be reined in unless you remove unions from the equation. 
The problem I have with idea of savings through increases in efficiency is that they will not be immediate enough and will also not provide enough savings. As I have said numerous times before, it makes no sense in cutting back on services that are most essential and fully belong in the obligations of government. I would much rather see the cutting of entire services that can be done without in order to get state spending under control. There is still no real understanding in the public and especially political arena of how serious the state overspend really is and what the consequences will be as interest rates go up.


----------



## Deiseblue

The GRA's comments & the recent Government comments are the first salvoes in what is going to be an ongoing posturing comments led war by both sides prior to the upcoming Croke Park Review & budget - very much par for the course.

We can expect more of the same from all of the Unions representing Public Sector employees , personally I would prefer to see a more unified Union response but given the vast segmented nature of the Public Sector & the number of Unions involved that is probably not going to happen.

I would also contend that one man's endemic vested interest is another man's Trade Union charged with protecting terms & conditions


----------



## csirl

I think the GRA (and other public service unions) are not respecting the fact that we live in a democracy. We elected a government and that government decides what services should be provided and to what standard.

The GRA need to accept the democratic choice to downgrade the service offered by the Gardai (if this is what is happening). They may not like the fact that they are being told that they are not quite as important as they think they are and that there will be certain aspects of their non-core services that will not be delivered or delivered to a lower standard - but that's democracy. The people have the right to make these choices via their government.


----------



## sulo

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1117/publicservice.html

Announcement today sometime!.. Interested as part of one of the Quangos being merged/dispanded!...


----------



## onq

300,000 to  282,500 by 2015?

Too little, too late and no credit to the government.

That works out at under 2% per annum over three years (5.833%)

Annual 2% reduction will be reached by retirement, natural attrition and no replacement of leavetakers.


----------



## Firefly

sulo said:


> http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1117/publicservice.html
> 
> Announcement today sometime!.. Interested as part of one of the Quangos being merged/dispanded!...



I suspect that most of the quangos will just be merged into the relevant government departments with no job loses. Very little change to the bottom line but makes the government look good. As in the real world if services are not needed or more importantly not affordable the staff should be let go.


----------



## shnaek

Voluntary redundancy is like doing surgery with a spoon.


----------



## Shawady

onq said:


> 300,000 to 282,500 by 2015?
> 
> Too little, too late and no credit to the government.


 
You're ingnoring the numbers of PS that have left already. I heard a figure of 35,000 less public servants by 2015. Whatever way it is reached, it is not insignificant.
I'll be more interested in the future of many of the Quangos. I remember Prime Time did a special on these a couple of years ago and the % of people on higher salaries seemed excessive.


----------



## Mpsox

onq said:


> 300,000 to 282,500 by 2015?
> 
> Too little, too late and no credit to the government.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> or better late then never


----------



## Booter

onq said:


> 300,000 to  282,500 by 2015?
> 
> Too little, too late and no credit to the government.
> 
> That works out at under 2% per annum over three years (5.833%)
> 
> *Annual 2% reduction will be reached by retirement, natural attrition and no replacement of leavetakers.*



Why would that matter?


----------



## onq

shnaek said:


> Voluntary redundancy is like doing surgery with a spoon.



(chuckle)

Exactly.

It seems axiomatic that the wrong people go and service is reduced while cost is not reduced.

Last night there was comment that there would be little reduction in overall costs merely by the elimination of the quangos.


----------



## onq

Booter said:


> Why would that matter?



I didn't say it would matter.
I pointed out that's how it would be achieved.
What matters is that we need deeper cuts and quicker to balance the books.
Otherwise we keep borrowing endlessly and foisting it on future generations to pay.


----------



## onq

Shawady said:


> You're ingnoring the numbers of PS that have left already. I heard a figure of 35,000 less public servants by 2015. Whatever way it is reached, it is not insignificant.
> I'll be more interested in the future of many of the Quangos. I remember Prime Time did a special on these a couple of years ago and the % of people on higher salaries seemed excessive.



I wasn't intending to ignore them Shawady.

I was commenting on the figures quoted.


----------



## onq

Firefly said:


> I suspect that most of the quangos will just be merged into the relevant government departments with no job loses. Very little change to the bottom line but makes the government look good. As in the real world if services are not needed or more importantly not affordable the staff should be let go.



That is apparently what's not happening.
Initial comment seems to suggest that this measure will have little effect.
I assumed that when the Quangos were disbanded the personnel would be retired or at least lose any additional remuneration.


----------



## Purple

It should also be remembered that over half of the bodies being “rationalised” were put on the chopping block by the last government. In reality what our new minister has come up with is an additional dozen or so quangos to be cut. 
I suspect that the unions had their hands all over this before it was given to Minister Howlin. Something like ”There you go Brendan, go and read that out, there’s a good lad” and with a pat on the head off he went to the Dail to tell us what SIPTU were doing to reform the Public Service.

I don’t know why Enda is so upset about the Germans reading our budget proposals before he gets to announce it to the public; he should be more concerned about the relationship between the Public Sector unions and his coalition partners.


----------



## Firefly

onq said:


> Annual 2% reduction will be reached by retirement, natural attrition and no replacement of leavetakers.



Just on the retirement thing..I play golf with a university lecturer and was talking to him about this topic last week. Because of the changes to the pension arrangements he has to retire - he doesn't want to and loves his work. He has vast experience and is too young in his book (very early 60s). The result is that he will receive half his current salary and his position will have to be filled...so in effect we will be paying 50% more for the same service. To top it off he has picked up some part time lecturing in another 3rd level institution which is denying someone else a living. I think we all know that cuts have to be made but it seems with these pension changes the most experienced and most expensive workers are being siphoned off...


----------



## Booter

onq said:


> I didn't say it would matter.
> I pointed out that's how it would be achieved.
> What matters is that we need deeper cuts and quicker to balance the books.
> Otherwise we keep borrowing endlessly and foisting it on future generations to pay.



Okay let me ask a different way, do you think it matters? 
If you do, why? 
If you don't, why mention it?


----------



## horusd

shnaek said:


> Voluntary redundancy is like doing surgery with a spoon.



Brilliant line, and very true. I don't get the ethos of embargo's and the voluntary redundancy thing at all. We need flexibility and finesse, these are too blunt. What is the problem with simply saying that public services, by and large, will be run as commerical private businesses contracting to the state, including private pension arrangements. Set that as the target, L.T. and apply proper accountable management structures to achieve it.


----------



## Delboy

horusd said:


> Brilliant line, and very true. I don't get the ethos of embargo's and the voluntary redundancy thing at all. We need flexibility and finesse, these are too blunt. What is the problem with simply saying that public services, by and large, will be run as commerical private businesses contracting to the state, including private pension arrangements. Set that as the target, L.T. and apply proper accountable management structures to achieve it.



nothing wrong with that approach at all....except it won't happen- the unions will not allow it and the Govt won't take them on.
Vol Sev sees the better/more experienced people take the cash and leave- a lot of them can pick up a bit of work elsewhere if need be, as they have the drive, the knowledge, the reputation.
Meanwhile, the wasters stay on the payroll....and public services continue to under perform


----------



## onq

Booter said:


> Okay let me ask a different way, do you think it matters?
> If you do, why?
> If you don't, why mention it?



The government were taking credit for a level of reduction that will happen anyway with a "no recruitment, no replacement" policy in place.


----------



## Complainer

onq said:


> The government were taking credit for a level of reduction that will happen anyway with a "no recruitment, no replacement" policy in place.



You mean they are taking credit for the reduction that came about as a result of the policy they put in place?


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> You mean they are taking credit for the reduction that came about as a result of the policy they put in place?



No, that policy was put in place by the last government. As far as I remember you were against it at the time.


----------



## partnership

It does not make sense to me to get rid of jobs in public sector and put people on the dole.  Yes I agree that people need to reform how they do things, that will mean better and ore services but not sure how much we actually save in getting rid of people with the loss of tax, payment of dole for those who qualify or pensions.


----------



## Sunny

partnership said:


> It does not make sense to me to get rid of jobs in public sector and put people on the dole. Yes I agree that people need to reform how they do things, that will mean better and ore services but not sure how much we actually save in getting rid of people with the loss of tax, payment of dole for those who qualify or pensions.


 
Using that logic, why not give every unemployed person a job in the public sector. Then we wouldn't have to pay them the dole and they would be paying tax.


----------



## partnership

Sunny said:


> Using that logic, why not give every unemployed person a job in the public sector. Then we wouldn't have to pay them the dole and they would be paying tax.


 

First of all the jobs that are currently in the system are required to deliver services that people need.  I am not talking about extra jobs here.  I am not stupid and understand there needs to be a balance of public and private.  The time to let go people from the public service is when there are jobs available in the private sector for them to do so they will not be dependent on the state.  I would like to see a proper analysis of what this saves rather than make people redundent to satisfy the whims of the media driven anti public sector.

Regarding people on the dole - there is an argument to be made that people who get the dole should contribute in some way.  I would welcome a discussion on how to allow people on the dole to contribute perhaps through one day a week volunteering be it helping the elderly, cleaning up, running youth activities etc.  I am not in favour of the internship the way it is set up.  A lot of the jobs advertised are jobs which are of no benefit training wise and are simply a way for businesses to make more profits.  An example was where a major supermarket were offering stacking shelves as an internship.


----------



## Firefly

partnership said:


> First of all the jobs that are currently in the system are required to deliver services that people need.



Why did Enda Kenny announce the closure/merging of 50 quangos last night? What some person wants and what everyone needs are 2 different things.


----------



## Slim

The Public Service/Sector is made up of many parts that deliver what are deemed to be essential and necessary public service, i.e. Gardai, Teachers, Welfare, water and sewerage services, tax collection etc etc. There is a general feeling that these services are overstaffed, particularly in the administration and management areas. Perhaps there are some who could be better deployed than in their current jobs, but we have created a society where high levels of customer service is demanded, quality assurance is a new industry and health & safety a new dictator. To provide these and many more 'add ons' we have to put people in place to deliver them. As times are hard, we look to these 'add ons' for cuts, understandably. But the axe of the cutters is blunt and is focussed on budgets, so we cut the budgets, so we are left short of nurses, teachers, Gardai etc. 

On the other hand, we should only be providing a level of public service that can be paid for out of taxation. Successive governments have failed to plan for this and now we will endure a running down of public services (not just public servants), abrogation of the duty of care back to families along with the cost of third level education, etc.


----------



## frankmac

partnership said:


> It does not make sense to me to get rid of jobs in public sector and put people on the dole. Yes I agree that people need to reform how they do things, that will mean better and ore services but not sure how much we actually save in getting rid of people with the loss of tax, payment of dole for those who qualify or pensions.


 
Personally, I believe cutting jobs is not going to substantially improve things. Its the cost of those jobs and the pensions that is the problem. There needs to be salary and pension cuts comparable to other sectors.

The public sector is financed by the taxpayer. If incomes are dropping in the private sector then the taxes required to fund the public sector are also dropping. Its a no brainer.


----------



## Complainer

frankmac said:


> Personally, I believe cutting jobs is not going to substantially improve things. Its the cost of those jobs and the pensions that is the problem. There needs to be salary and pension cuts comparable to other sectors.
> 
> The public sector is financed by the taxpayer. If incomes are dropping in the private sector then the taxes required to fund the public sector are also dropping. Its a no brainer.



And if earnings are increasing in the private sector, then presumably you'd support comparable increases in the public sector?

From

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023084.shtml



> Over a two year period average hourly earnings in the public sector fell by 3.9% compared with a marginal increase of 0.1% in the private sector.


----------



## orka

Complainer said:


> http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023084.shtml
> Over a two year period average hourly earnings in the public sector fell by 3.9% compared with a marginal increase of 0.1% in the private sector


You can't really tell anything from looking at overall averages. With an average public hourly rate of €28.90 vs €19.33 in the private sector, there's obviously a big variation in the mix of job types, skill levels, qualifications, experience etc. - so overall averages are meaningless. The private sector may have lost proprtionately more lower paid jobs resulting in an increase in the average even while underlying salaries reduce. Or the public sector may have lost higher paid contracters resulting in the decrease in the public average. Could be many explanations for overall average increases or decreases.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> And if earnings are increasing in the private sector, then presumably you'd support comparable increases in the public sector?



Unfortunately, the level of earnings is only half of the story...even if earnings are increasing for some workers in the private sector, there are still over *400* *thousand* *of them unemployed. *That less workers paying taxes to fund public services and more drawing the dole...a double whammy.


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> Unfortunately, the level of earnings is only half of the story...even if earnings are increasing for some workers in the private sector, there are still over *400* *thousand* *of them unemployed. *That less workers paying taxes to fund public services and more drawing the dole...a double whammy.



The private sector don't have a monopoly on dole queues. There are many former public sector staff on the dole as well.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> The private sector don't have a monopoly on dole queues. There are many former public sector staff on the dole as well.



Would those be temorary/contract staff (really working for themselves) or permanent staff?


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> Would those be temorary/contract staff (really working for themselves) or permanent staff?



Does it make any difference? They're still on the dole? Do you take the same dismissive view of any private sector staff who where temporary or on contract?


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Does it make any difference? They're still on the dole? Do you take the same dismissive view of any private sector staff who where temporary or on contract?



I'll gladly answer your question, but how about you answer my question first?


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Does it make any difference? They're still on the dole? Do you take the same dismissive view of any private sector staff who where temporary or on contract?



If I get a painter to paint my house and, after it's done pay him for completing our contract, have I made him redundant?!

No? I didn’t think so.
You’re a smart guy; you know the difference between a contractor and an employee.


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> I'll gladly answer your question, but how about you answer my question first?



Let me rephrase my point then. You claim that "even if earnings are increasing for some workers in the private sector, there are still over 400 thousand of them unemployed". This is factually untrue, as it implies that everybody on the dole was a private sector worker.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Let me rephrase my point then. You claim that "even if earnings are increasing for some workers in the private sector, there are still over 400 thousand of them unemployed". This is factually untrue, as it implies that everybody on the dole was a private sector worker.



There may be many people on the dole who worked in the public sector and they may be listed as "staff", but they are not employees. In fact they are self-employed contractors unless they have written contracts specifying their permanent status. Contractors can be taken on for a myriad of jobs...short term in nature such as a backfill or project requirement or for longer fixed-term contracts. In all cases though these workers are not state employees. They are private sector self-employees providing contract services to a public body (as I myself have done). 

Perhaps, you have examples of permanent employees in the public sector who have lost their jobs because of the current crisis as per all of those in the private sector?

I hope this answers the first question you asked in post 35. As for the latter question...I'm a contractor myself.


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> There may be many people on the dole who worked in the public sector and they may be listed as "staff", but they are not employees. In fact they are self-employed contractors unless they have written contracts specifying their permanent status. Contractors can be taken on for a myriad of jobs...short term in nature such as a backfill or project requirement or for longer fixed-term contracts. In all cases though these workers are not state employees.


Wrong again - there were many people in the public sector on fixed term contracts, typically 2-3 contracts relating to specific roles. As these contracts expired, they ended up on the dole. They were not contractors, and they were employed directly by public bodies. And now they form part of the 400k on the dole. As I said at the outset, the private sector does not have a monopoly of the dole queue.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> Wrong again - *there were many people in the public sector on fixed term contracts*, typically 2-3 contracts relating to specific roles. As these contracts expired, they ended up on the dole. *They were not contractors*, and they were employed directly by public bodies. And now they form part of the 400k on the dole. As I said at the outset, the private sector does not have a monopoly of the dole queue.



I'm confused by this. Either they were contractors or they were employees...which is it? (I think they were contractors, in which case they are self-employed).


----------



## Complainer

You're not confused. You're wrong. They were employees on fixed term contracts, or in some cases fixed purpose contracts. They were direct employees of the public bodies concerned, paying PAYE and PRSI etc. As their contracts expired, they weren't renewed. 

In fact, much of the limited recruitment happening in the public sector today is on this basis of fixed term contracts;


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> You're not confused. You're wrong. They were employees on fixed term contracts, or in some cases fixed purpose contracts. They were direct employees of the public bodies concerned, paying PAYE and PRSI etc. As their contracts expired, they weren't renewed.
> 
> In fact, much of the limited recruitment happening in the public sector today is on this basis of fixed term contracts;



It looks like we disagree on the term "employee" then. To me, I would take it to mean permanent staff and would exclude those on contract (daily rate, fixed term or whatever). For you it seems that both are employees. Is that correct? If so, I'm sure those on fixed term contracts who may not have had their contracts renewed would be very eager for you to show them how they are in fact employees of the state.

The posts you have provided are fixed term contracts which in my book are just that...contracts. In fact, I cannot find any reference to the term "employee" in those links. Perhaps you could highlight for me?

In any case, let me rephrase my original question relating to those who have worked in the public sector who are now on the dole - 


Would those be temporary/contract staff or permanent staff?


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> It looks like we disagree on the term "employee" then. To me, I would take it to mean permanent staff and would exclude those on contract (daily rate, fixed term or whatever). For you it seems that both are employees. Is that correct?


You're clutching at straws now. It's not me you're disagreeing with, it is the rest of the world. The concept of fixed term employees is well established. See http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...full_time_employment/types_of_employment.html



Firefly said:


> If so, I'm sure those on fixed term contracts who may not have had their contracts renewed would be very eager for you to show them how they are in fact employees of the state.


They WERE employees of the State. A quick look at their P60 will confirm this. They are no longer employees of the State.


Firefly said:


> The posts you have provided are fixed term contracts which in my book are just that...contracts. In fact, I cannot find any reference to the term "employee" in those links. Perhaps you could highlight for me?


I can highlight that there is no reference to the term 'employee' is any of the posts I checked on that site - whether permanent or fixed-term. It's a red herring.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> You're clutching at straws now. It's not me you're disagreeing with, it is the rest of the world. The concept of fixed term employees is well established. See http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...full_time_employment/types_of_employment.html
> 
> 
> They WERE employees of the State. A quick look at their P60 will confirm this. They are no longer employees of the State.
> 
> I can highlight that there is no reference to the term 'employee' is any of the posts I checked on that site - whether permanent or fixed-term. It's a red herring.



You may be right on the term employee and I may well be wrong. In fact, I probably am wrong as I have always associated the term "employee" as a permanent employee. It's a bit like some posters saying some people don't pay tax rather that saying Income tax. 

Having said that....you still haven't answered the original question though:

"Would those be temporary/contract staff or permanent staff? 		"


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> "Would those be temporary/contract staff or permanent staff? 		"



I'd imagine that the vast majority of former public sector workers now on the dole would have been fixed term contract employees. Does it make any difference? Do you distinguish between private sector staff who where temporary or on contract?


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> I'd imagine that the vast majority of former public sector workers now on the dole would have been fixed term contract employees. Does it make any difference?



I would go as far as saying all were contract staff unless you could show me where any permanent staff were made involuntarily redundant, but I'm happy to agree that the vast majority were contract staff.

I think it makes a big difference. It seems (as we agree) one section (contract staff) of the public workforce has been adversely affected whilst the other (permanent staff) has not. I'm surprised that given your many posts regarding fairness and equality that I have not seen any posts where you have called for equality here. The question is does it make any difference to *you*?



Complainer said:


> Do you distinguish between private sector staff who where temporary or on contract?



I don't actually (all fairness and equality me). In fact, after several years contracting I am just about to join a company as permanent employee but I may well go back contracting again in the future.


----------



## Chris

partnership said:


> It does not make sense to me to get rid of jobs in public sector and put people on the dole.  Yes I agree that people need to reform how they do things, that will mean better and ore services but not sure how much we actually save in getting rid of people with the loss of tax, payment of dole for those who qualify or pensions.



Reducing the number of public employees through redundancy and paying them the dole will reduce the cost to the state, that is the simple math. There is no loss in income tax as the money public employees pay in income tax, comes out of the tax pool in the first place.
So, if you lay off person A earning gross €35,000 per year, and he then receives €10,000 per year on the dole then that is a saving of €25,000 to the public finances.



Sunny said:


> Using that logic, why not give every unemployed person a job in the public sector. Then we wouldn't have to pay them the dole and they would be paying tax.



The lunacy of socialism summed up in one sentence. It works a treat in Cuba and North Korea, doesn't it?


----------



## Firefly

Chris said:


> The lunacy of socialism summed up in one sentence. It works a treat in Cuba and North Korea, doesn't it?



You forgot about Germany...in which direction did people travel when the Berlin wall came down?


----------



## partnership

Chris said:


> Reducing the number of public employees through redundancy and paying them the dole will reduce the cost to the state, that is the simple math. There is no loss in income tax as the money public employees pay in income tax, comes out of the tax pool in the first place.
> So, if you lay off person A earning gross €35,000 per year, and he then receives €10,000 per year on the dole then that is a saving of €25,000 to the public finances.
> 
> 
> 
> The lunacy of socialism summed up in one sentence. It works a treat in Cuba and North Korea, doesn't it?


 
Maybe I am stupid but if a person earning 35000 is laid off and paid 10,000 it is not a saving of 25000 because the person did not get the 35000 net they might have got 28000 of it so the saving is only 18000, the person on the dole now has 18000 less to spend so the vat and other expenditure the person has is down, they might get rent supplment, mortgage interest, medical card, back to school etc all of which they would not get if they were working and all of which costs the state.  So it is not as simple as you make out.

Also pre-1995 public servants are not entitled to the dole so what do they live on?


----------



## Slim

partnership said:


> ..Also pre-1995 public servants are not entitled to the dole so what do they live on?


 
...and cannot be made compulsorily redundant....yet!


----------



## Firefly

I wonder will my question in post #47 be answered?


----------



## Firefly

Firefly said:


> I wonder will my question in post #47 be answered?



Not looking good there buddy, but I don't think it's the first time...


----------



## Chris

Firefly said:


> You forgot about Germany...in which direction did people travel when the Berlin wall came down?


I actually did, just to see with my own eyes how much damage was done. It was scary, but not as scary as the tales of the people. I remember one kid joining my class who, when asked what his biggest fear was when coming to West Germany, said that it was being sent back!



Firefly said:


> Not looking good there buddy, but I don't think it's the first time...



Have you started answering the voices in your head?



partnership said:


> Maybe I am stupid but if a person earning 35000 is laid off and paid 10,000 it is not a saving of 25000 because the person did not get the 35000 net they might have got 28000 of it so the saving is only 18000, the person on the dole now has 18000 less to spend so the vat and other expenditure the person has is down, they might get rent supplment, mortgage interest, medical card, back to school etc all of which they would not get if they were working and all of which costs the state.  So it is not as simple as you make out.


Thanks for pointing that out, the "gross" should say "net"; as stated before public service employee's taxes are paid for out of money taken from the tax pool itself.

However, on VAT the situation is not as clear cut. The reduction in public expenditure means that ultimately less money has to be take out of the economy, so more money can be spent. There is not net loss to taxation income on other items when public spending is reduced.


----------



## Firefly

Chris said:


> Have you started answering the voices in your head?



I might be better off!

It's funny as I answered the question posed to me by the poster, but the poster seems unwilling to answer the same question himself!


----------



## Complainer

Chris said:


> The lunacy of socialism summed up in one sentence. It works a treat in Cuba and North Korea, doesn't it?


Cuba, North Korea and Eastern Bloc countries have or had little or nothing to do with socialism. We could learn a thing or two from the Cuban health system, which focuses on prevention rather than cure, but that's for another day.


Firefly said:


> I might be better off!
> 
> It's funny as I answered the question posed to me by the poster, but the poster seems unwilling to answer the same question himself!


How do you get 'unwilling' from a 28 hour delay? Strangely enough, the poster has a life outside of AAM and doesn't always have the time or the inclination to respond to nitpicking argumentative posts designed to drag a thread off topic and divert attention from your previous erroneous assumptions.

Your post demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding as to what equality is about if you expect that it requires equal employment conditions for all employees. I've no idea why you seem to distinguish between permanent and contract staff in the public sector, but not in the private sector, other than for the sake of an argument.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> How do you get 'unwilling' from a 28 hour delay?



Below are the times of posts made by you and I since I entered the debate

5th Dec

2 08 pm
2 11 pm
2 20 pm
2 22 pm
2 35 pm
2 53 pm
3 26 pm
3 44 pm
3 49 pm
4 00 pm
4 46 pm
5 01 pm
5 06 pm
5 12 pm
6 14 pm

Then nothing at all until 10.36pm last night.

As you can see we were busy and the posts were pretty much back and forth at a good rate. Then after I asked you to answer the question you asked me nothing at all until late last night. As you were pretty active yesterday I concluded that you were avoiding the question, which you still are (I'll come to that).



Complainer said:


> Strangely enough, the poster has a life outside of AAM and doesn't always have the time or the inclination to respond to nitpicking argumentative posts designed to drag a thread off topic and divert attention from your previous erroneous assumptions.



Indeed many, many threads on AAM do get dragged off topic so I find this a bit deflective on your part particularly when you still haven't answered the question you yourself asked me.

To clarify, I have no problem admitting that I was indeed wrong about my previous assumption and do fully accept that those on contract to the public service (e.g. fixed term employees) were in fact classified as "employees".



Complainer said:


> Your post demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding as to what equality is about if you expect that it requires equal employment conditions for all employees.



I'm at a loss here - can you provide a link to where I have said or conveyed this?



Complainer said:


> I've no idea why you seem to distinguish between permanent and contract staff in the public sector, but not in the private sector, other than for the sake of an argument.



If you read my post 47 again in relation I do make it clear that I don't distinguish between permanent and contract staff in the private sector. 

Just to confirm, I don't think that those in permanent or contract positions in the public sector should be distinguished either. But it seems they are when it comes to those employees from the public sector who are on the dole queue.

So it's back to you now if you don't mind answering the question you yourself asked (which I have answered). I've re-posted my question below.


"It seems (as we agree) one section (contract staff) of the public workforce has been adversely affected whilst the other (permanent staff) has not. I'm surprised that given your many posts regarding fairness and equality that I have not seen any posts where you have called for equality here. The question is does it make any difference to *you*?"

Feel free to take as much time as you like


----------



## shnaek

Complainer said:


> Cuba, North Korea and Eastern Bloc countries have or had little or nothing to do with socialism.


They have as much to do with socialism as the US, Ireland and the UK have to do with capitalism. 
Both socialists and capitalists have been cheated - by politicians. Neither of us have gotten our perfect system. But I would still prefer to live in a failed capitalist society than a failed socialist one.


----------



## Complainer

Firefly said:


> Below are the times of posts made by you and I since I entered the debate
> 
> 5th Dec
> 
> 2 08 pm
> 2 11 pm
> 2 20 pm
> 2 22 pm
> 2 35 pm
> 2 53 pm
> 3 26 pm
> 3 44 pm
> 3 49 pm
> 4 00 pm
> 4 46 pm
> 5 01 pm
> 5 06 pm
> 5 12 pm
> 6 14 pm
> 
> Then nothing at all until 10.36pm last night.
> 
> As you can see we were busy and the posts were pretty much back and forth at a good rate. Then after I asked you to answer the question you asked me nothing at all until late last night. As you were pretty active yesterday I concluded that you were avoiding the question, which you still are (I'll come to that).


Perhaps I missed the memo about some SLA for responding to posts? In the absence of such an agreement, I would respectfully suggest that in the light of  and posting guideline 9, you would refrain from nagging, bumping posts.



Firefly said:


> I'm at a loss here - can you provide a link to where I have said or conveyed this?


Where you said "I'm surprised that given your many posts regarding fairness and equality that I have not seen any posts where you have called for equality here."



Firefly said:


> Indeed many, many threads on AAM do get dragged off topic so I find this a bit deflective on your part particularly when you still haven't answered the question you yourself asked me.
> 
> If you read my post 47 again in relation I do make it clear that I don't distinguish between permanent and contract staff in the private sector.
> 
> Just to confirm, I don't think that those in permanent or contract positions in the public sector should be distinguished either. But it seems they are when it comes to those employees from the public sector who are on the dole queue.
> 
> So it's back to you now if you don't mind answering the question you yourself asked (which I have answered). I've re-posted my question below.
> 
> "It seems (as we agree) one section (contract staff) of the public workforce has been adversely affected whilst the other (permanent staff) has not. I'm surprised that given your many posts regarding fairness and equality that I have not seen any posts where you have called for equality here. The question is does it make any difference to *you*?"



The reason why I haven't answered the question is because it is a nonsensical question. In what context are you talking about 'making a difference to me'? In any scenario of reduction in workforce in public or private sector, those on temporary or fixed term contracts will generally be first to go. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about this. There is no equality issue here.

It's a bit like asking me if chicken or turkey makes any difference to me.


shnaek said:


> They have as much to do with socialism as the US, Ireland and the UK have to do with capitalism.
> Both socialists and capitalists have been cheated - by politicians. Neither of us have gotten our perfect system. But I would still prefer to live in a failed capitalist society than a failed socialist one.



I'd suggest that politicians have been cheated by the capitalist banking community who engineered the 'too big to fail' scenario, whereby Governments were not in a position to let certain banks fail.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> The reason why I haven't answered the question is because it is a nonsensical question. In what context are you talking about 'making a difference to me'? In any scenario of reduction in workforce in public or private sector, those on temporary or fixed term contracts will generally be first to go. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about this. There is no equality issue here.



I am just asking you to answer the question you have asked me so if you think your own question is nonsensical then perhaps you should ask better questions yourself next time.

I agree that what you have said can happen in the private sector, but often it does not. Take for example Xtravision. If they had a branch that either (a) they could no longer afford to keep open or (b) that they no longer needed, I would fully expect them to close that branch rather than keep it open and lay off contract staff in a branch that was performing well and in which they needed. I am not for a second comparing Xtravision with the public service but just outlining how it would work in the private sector. 

The difference with what has happened in the public sector is that those contract employees have been *exclusively* let go rather than "generally" as you put it. As far as I know (and please correct me if I am wrong), there has not been a single permanent employee made involuntarily redundant since the crisis began for cost cutting reasons. Instead those on contract have taken the blunt. My question to you simply is...

do you think this is fair? 

For the record I think it's a disgrace.


----------



## shnaek

Complainer said:


> I'd suggest that politicians have been cheated by the capitalist banking community who engineered the 'too big to fail' scenario, whereby Governments were not in a position to let certain banks fail.


And the people were cheated by putting their faith in politicians who were so easily hoodwinked.


----------



## Chris

Complainer said:


> Cuba, North Korea and Eastern Bloc countries have or had little or nothing to do with socialism. We could learn a thing or two from the Cuban health system, which focuses on prevention rather than cure, but that's for another day.


Communism is a form of socialism, you can hardly argue differently. And Cuba's health system is abysmal despite the likes of Michael Moore portraying it as some mythical success story. 



Complainer said:


> I'd suggest that politicians have been cheated by the capitalist banking community who engineered the 'too big to fail' scenario, whereby Governments were not in a position to let certain banks fail.


It's the other way round, politicians created a system through regulations that made it impossible for small new financial institutions to be created, thus resulting in a small number of companies growing ever larger. And just because a company is large does not mean that it cannot be let fail.


----------



## edbambrick

*trow away the key*

they should lock them all up trow away the key.


----------



## Deiseblue

edbambrick said:


> they should lock them all up trow away the key.



Excellent contribution Ed - pithy & to the point.


----------



## Complainer

Deiseblue said:


> pithy & to the point.


Do you have a lisp, Deise?


----------



## Deiseblue

Complainer said:


> Do you have a lisp, Deise?



Enjoyed that


----------



## celebtastic

Very easy way to save money in the public sector at one fell swoop would be to limit pay increments to the top 25% of performers in any given year.

Also the Croke Park Agreement should be torn up. It's completely unaffordable.

To get a dramatic saving, with no impact on front line services - immediately cut all public sector pay and welfare by at least 10%. With our dole and Old Age Pensions often more than twice the level of the UK, there is no case to keep payout so high.

There are a whole bunch of payments that could be stopped or cut right down - child allowance being the first of them, and all these payments for First Communion outfits.


----------



## mandelbrot

celebtastic said:


> _Very easy way_ to save money in the public sector at one fell swoop would be to limit pay increments to the top 25% of performers in any given year.
> 
> Also the Croke Park Agreement should be torn up. It's completely unaffordable.
> 
> To get a dramatic saving, with _no impact on front line services_ - immediately cut all public sector pay and welfare by at least 10%.



Cutting all public sector workers' pay by 10% and further fundamentally altering the terms of their employment by withdrawing increments from the majority of workers, and you think it won't affect front line services...  Good one!!


----------



## celebtastic

mandelbrot said:


> Cutting all public sector workers' pay by 10% and further fundamentally altering the terms of their employment by withdrawing increments from the majority of workers, and you think it won't affect front line services...  Good one!!



How would it?


----------



## mandelbrot

celebtastic said:


> How would it?



Hmmm, I can't tell if you're being serious or not! Well it's pretty much a certainty that there would be industrial action on a massive scale if such sweeping changes were implemented unilaterally. Strikes and work to rules, which would hugely impact on front line services (whatever these are), and the behind-front-line support services without which there could be no front line services...


----------



## chrisboy

celebtastic said:


> How would it?



Ah no, you're right. I'm sure the whole public sector would just lie down and take it!!


----------



## GDUFFY

chrisboy said:


> Ah no, you're right. I'm sure the whole public sector would just lie down and take it!!


 
No they wont lie down and take it , but IMO they will take it eventually .
Do you agree that anybody who relies on the Public purse for their income is in for some serious cuts in the coming year ?
 I think weather the public vote yes or no to the treaty this is the only certainty.
Public service/welfare reform is not going to be a pleasant process but it is a process that has to be tackled .


----------



## mandelbrot

GDUFFY said:


> No they wont lie down and take it , but IMO they will take it eventually .
> Do you agree that anybody who relies on the Public purse for their income is in for some serious cuts in the coming year ?
> I think weather the public vote yes or no to the treaty this is the only certainty.
> Public service/welfare reform is not going to be a pleasant process but it is a process that has to be tackled .


 
Leaving aside the welfare issue, I agree completely that further reform in the public sector is needed, but people need to be aware of the consequence of tearing up the Croke Park agreement - it would effectively be the end of social partnership.

I'm still the right side of 30 and not politically interested TBH, but my older colleagues in the PS tell me that social partnership effectively sidelined the unions, relative to how things were back in the 70's & 80's.

So if you tear up social partnership, an inevitable consequence will be an even higher level of union activism, more industrial actions, strikes etc... and the creation of a hostile environment where it could become very difficult to implement change.

There would also be a knock on economic effect; presently public sector workers may feel they have some degree of stability (under the CPA). If this is taken away, and wages cut further, with no certainty about whether there'll be yet more cuts still to come, then you'll have another class of people who will stop spending money in the economy and plough all their disposable income into savings... that's more jobs lost in the private sector.

Costs vs benefits... not always as simple to weigh up as you might hope.


----------



## Purple

mandelbrot said:


> There would also be a knock on economic effect; presently public sector workers may feel they have some degree of stability (under the CPA). If this is taken away, and wages cut further, with no certainty about whether there'll be yet more cuts still to come, then you'll have another class of people who will stop spending money in the economy and plough all their disposable income into savings... that's more jobs lost in the private sector.
> 
> Costs vs benefits... not always as simple to weigh up as you might hope.


Yep, there's also be a big increase in mortgage default. Short sharp shocks aren't the answer.
I agree that the Croke Park agreement was and is a disaster but gutting state employees isn't the answer either.


----------



## GDUFFY

mandelbrot said:


> Leaving aside the welfare issue, I agree completely that further reform in the public sector is needed, but people need to be aware of the consequence of tearing up the Croke Park agreement - it would effectively be the end of social partnership.
> 
> I'm still the right side of 30 and not politically interested TBH, but my older colleagues in the PS tell me that social partnership effectively sidelined the unions, relative to how things were back in the 70's & 80's.
> 
> So if you tear up social partnership, an inevitable consequence will be an even higher level of union activism, more industrial actions, strikes etc... and the creation of a hostile environment where it could become very difficult to implement change.
> 
> There would also be a knock on economic effect; presently public sector workers may feel they have some degree of stability (under the CPA). If this is taken away, and wages cut further, with no certainty about whether there'll be yet more cuts still to come, then you'll have another class of people who will stop spending money in the economy and plough all their disposable income into savings... that's more jobs lost in the private sector.
> 
> Costs vs benefits... not always as simple to weigh up as you might hope.


 
I agree alot of what you said will come to pass if the CPA is torn up ,but remember it wont be Government that will tear it up ,it would be political suicide for any party , it will be our paymasters who will insist on it. They will drip feed our exchequer with bailout funds as it is implimented, the government will blame the IMF or ESM second bailout conditions and fiscal stability will be imposed one way or the other,unions and workers will eventually see the futility of their fight and Ireland will bump along the ground for a decade, Growth may eventually bring us back to a surplus which will be swallowed up by our massive interest on debts never mind capital repayments and Ireland will have been put back in its little box and told never to stick its head out again  by Germany and France and we will have voted for it by agreeing to this treaty, will our kids every forgive us giving away our financial sovereignty ?


----------



## chrisboy

GDUFFY said:


> Do you agree that anybody who relies on the Public purse for their income is in for some serious cuts in the coming year ?



No i dont agree. 
i believe a lot of private sector workers, plus a lot of unemployed people wish for cuts to public sector pay, but it wont happen. I think the cpa will see out its time, not sure what will happen then..


----------



## GDUFFY

Well I suppose we will disagree on that point ,but who do you think  will fund the ongoing overspend and on what conditions in 2013 ? Irish citizens through more direct and undirect taxes ? IMF ? ESM ?


----------



## Sunny

GDUFFY said:


> Well I suppose we will disagree on that point ,but who do you think will fund the ongoing overspend and on what conditions in 2013 ? Irish citizens through more direct and undirect taxes ? IMF ? ESM ?


 
Tell me this. If we do what you suggest and vote no, how much will we have to take out the economy to balance our books in 2014 so we don't have to borrow?


----------



## chrisboy

GDUFFY said:


> Well I suppose we will disagree on that point ,but who do you think  will fund the ongoing overspend and on what conditions in 2013 ? *The bailout program, same conditions as we currently have..
> 
> *Irish citizens through more direct and undirect taxes ? *yes
> 
> *IMF ?* yes*
> 
> ESM ? *No, as the bailout covers 2013.*



....


----------



## GDUFFY

Sunny said:


> Tell me this. If we do what you suggest and vote no, how much will we have to take out the economy to balance our books in 2014 so we don't have to borrow?


 

As much as it takes , thats the nature of balancing your books.


----------



## GDUFFY

chrisboy said:


> ....


 
We are funded by loans until the end of 2013 ,these loans all have to be paid back , loans are loans ! 
We will need to source our funds in 2013 for 2014 if we dont close the deficit , so what ? We borrow more billions to keep those people still living in a bubble in this country at the expense of our kids / grandkids future.That really sounds like a plan . Not !
If Spain needs a bailout there wont be enough money in Europe to lend to us anyway , We should take control of our own future by cutting our deficit ASAP and that starts with bloated wages and pensions being paid by our government to state workers and over generous welfare .

*Is Féidir Linn*


----------



## GDUFFY

I'm living and earning and supporting my family in the real economy and not the bubble economy you live in. Well your wake up call is a coming .....


----------



## Sunny

GDUFFY said:


> I'm living and earning and supporting my family in the real economy and not the bubble economy you live in. Well your wake up call is a coming .....



Seriously??? So the discussion has been downgraded to comments like this. And before you ask I too work in the 'real' economy whatever that is.


----------



## Deiseblue

Currently the Croke Park Agreement , whether people like it or not , is the only game in town tasked with reforming the Public Sector & with making savings & all reports to date have indicated that substantial progress has been made - the IMF seem quite content to give the Agreement every chance particularly as the Government must have surely informed them of the putative industrial Armageddon that may follow breaching the Agreement.
So I would say that we will borrow more & I would imagine that taxation both of a capital & income will increase.
It will also be extremely interesting to see what happens when the CPA expires in 2014 but I believe that it would be political suicide to walk away from same before 2014 - Labour in particular cannot surely countenance this scenario


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The posts are getting persona and the discussion doesn't seem to be generating any light. Take a break folks.


----------

