# Time to revisit the benchmarking ATM?



## RoyRover (22 Apr 2011)

Good article on the Irish Indo website on the complete unaffordability of benchmarking:

http://www.independent.ie/national-...enchmarking-atm-still-delivering-2461140.html

It's now almost 10 years since the productivity improvements were promised, but despite this, and the Croke park agreement, the returns just haven't been there.

Any new round of benchmarking should look at closing the gold plated defined benefit scheme, and dramatically reducing the number of holidays, flexi-days, and "travel" days at Easter and Christmas.

Its a step in the right direction for the government to threaten to impose more paycuts if efficiencies promised under the Croke park agreement are not delivered, but something more radical needs to be done.

Sen Joe O'Tooles free ATM needs to be restocked


----------



## Deiseblue (22 Apr 2011)

Interesting to note that that the average pay increase under benchmarking was an average of 8.9% whereas the Government have now taken back an average of 15% !


----------



## aonfocaleile (22 Apr 2011)

The article you refer to is from December 2010 - why start a thread on it now?

A cynic might think that you're attempting to stoke up a public v private argument. This seems to be a favourite topic of yours if the following posts are anything to go by;                                                                              

From 13/2/2011:

_*Scrap the Croke Park agreement* 

It's completely unaffordable, and stops the Government from imposing compulsory redundancies in non-jobs.

*Stop all pay increments for TDs and all public servants for the next 24 months* 

During this time, a major review of pay increases linked to job  performance could be developed to ensure that our top performing public  servants get the pay rises they deserve, while the bottom quartile get  nothing_.

Also from 13/02/2011;

_I don't think that the incoming government will have the luxury of  honouring the generous terms in the Croke Park agreement hammered out  between the cronies in the FF led government and their buddies in the  greedy public sector unions.

Without their Labour Comrades on their back, FG should be in a good  position to scrap the completely unaffordable Croke Park agreement and  start a process of compulsory redundancies at the statuory minimum rates  of payout.         _

Also from 13/02/2011;

_I like their policy to cut the number of underworked back office staff in the civil service:
http://www.thejournal.ie/kenny-fg-wo...rvants-2011-2/_

From 20/2/2011;

_All the more reason why the first thing the new government should do is  revisit the Croke Park agreement, and tell the public sector and  teachers unions that the game is up lads. The ordinary private sector  worker can't subsidise those sort of pensions forever         _

From 24/02/2011;
_
Not just in their 50's. All those who joined the public sector up until  the December budget will benefit from gold plated pensions for decades  to come, paid for by the good old private sector worker and small  business man._


From 25/02/2011;
_I think the "support" for the Croke Park agreement with quickly  evaporate from within Government once the size of the challenge before  the incoming regime becomes clear.

The salaries and pensions of the public sector cannot be sustained._

From 19/3/2011;

_Don't forget the "flexi", and the annual pay increments given out to more  than 95% of staff each year. What private sector company could afford  that? Even if they could, its no motivation to maintain and improve  performance. Increments should ony be offered to the top 50% of  performers         
_
Surely you can find a more recent anti-public sector article in the O'Reilly Daily News? As a civil servant I would LOVE to be benchmarked, for example, my "equivalent" in AIB/BOI, both of which paid out the first round of pay increases under the Towards 2016 agreement. Would increase my salary by the 14% cut I've taken plus 3% on top of that. I agree 100% with your proposal


----------



## Lex Foutish (22 Apr 2011)

RoyRover said:


> Good article on the Irish Indo website on the complete unaffordability of benchmarking:
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/national-...enchmarking-atm-still-delivering-2461140.html
> 
> ...


 


Haven't you just contradicted yourself there? 





aonfocaleile said:


> *The article you refer to is from December 2010 - why start a thread on it now?*
> 
> A cynic might think that you're attempting to stoke up a public v private argument. This seems to be a favourite topic of yours if the following posts are anything to go by;
> 
> ...


 
Really good post, Aonfocaleile. I thought it was just me! 

In answer to your first line, my humble opinion is that there's a wee bit of trolling going on. 

An seanphort céanna, go deo, go deo!!!


----------



## aonfocaleile (22 Apr 2011)

Lex Foutish said:


> In answer to your first line, my humble opinion is that there's a wee bit of trolling going on.



I know, but its a pretty poor attempt at it

As the auld proverb goes _You can always tell a fool, but you can't tell him much_


----------



## onekeano (22 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Interesting to note that that the average pay increase under benchmarking was an average of 8.9% whereas the Government have now taken back an average of 15% ![/QUOTE
> 
> I find this very this figure which is trotted out by Jack O'Connor et al pretty hard to believe - 8.9% over 10 years is nothing like what I was hearing from friends who work in the public service (including Mrs Roy) so I'd love to see the back up data if it is available which I doubt.
> 
> Roy


----------



## onekeano (22 Apr 2011)

actually a quick google search shows 60% is probably a more realistic figure (and Mrs Roy has just confirmed that somewhat reluctantly  ) and that was under the guise of things called PPF  / Benchmarking / Towards 2016 etc etc etc.... all forms of Berties 3 card tricks!! Here's the source http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=...x=130&ty=91&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0

Roy


----------



## Deiseblue (22 Apr 2011)

onekeano said:


> Deiseblue said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting to note that that the average pay increase under benchmarking was an average of 8.9% whereas the Government have now taken back an average of 15% ![/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Apr 2011)

I would also point out that your reference to " towards 2016 " is flawed - PS workers received no increases under that agreement.

Also the data you provided covers the period 1998 to 2008 - subsequent to that latter date unilateral pay cuts were imposed on public sector workers averaging 15 %. - but then again Mrs. Roy probably told you that !


----------



## horusd (23 Apr 2011)

Interesting post guys. I have no interest in public service bashing or ideological arguments_ per se_. I have some friends in the service, and I know they work hard; but I also have a sense that there is a fair few shysters. I know one or two of these too. 

The problem (in my humble op.) seems a combination of very poor management who fail to get the best out of staff, fail to perform and deliver without any accountability and sceloric unions with a "not an inch" mentality. 

Some who argue for the PS to be run along private sector lines blame the workers where the real problem is often the senior management who consistently fail to perform. Fail to lead, fail to inspire, fail to operate accountable systems. I know a top manager in the PS. He hardly breaks his neck working, despite his incredible salary & pension. I would be embarassed to be paid so much and do so little.

I have no problem with the PS being paid well. But I would like to see it managed better, and that needs reform, and the unions need to see this. 

As a by the by, the comparisons for PS wages between IRL and elsewhere seem extraordinary. Why is this so? I'm not making a ideological point here, but it does seem questionable. Again, it seems this is mostly at the top, ie consultants etc.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Apr 2011)

You had me rushing to the dictionary there Horusd - " sceloric unions " ! 

In terms of shysters in the workplace I think that they exist in every sector & whether or not their workplace is unionised or not there seems to be an endemic reluctance to deal effectively with this matter by endeavouring to improve performance by additional training or motivational methods or failing that by disciplinary means.

I would readily admit Irish Trade Union relationships with employers/management have traditionally been quite adversarial in the past on the basis that both sides have employed the old adage " give them an inch & they will take a mile "

However all that I think changed in the last couple of decades with the introduction of National Wage Agreements which largely removed the question of pay from employer/union negotiations & thus provided us with an era on unprecedented industrial peace.

I also think that the Croke Park Agreement shows an acceptance that reform is required , I know that there have been issues regarding privilege days & more recently disturbance money in the Cork area of the HSE  both of which were dealt with by the arbitration process  - the media however I feel would have us think that the Unions are being obstructive by using this agreed process !

As a trade unionist myself ,generally speaking, I have no problem with blaming management  but I don't work in the Public Sector so maybe someone with a more direct involvement will revert on that point.

I would just say that the best manager I had in the Private Sector was a really laid back guy who never worked an hour overtime in his life but his man management skills & general nous moved mountains.


----------



## Yorrick (23 Apr 2011)

Where I live the leisure centre, pool and gym are run by the local authority as are the libraries. Being Ireland and people are off for a long bank holiday they may wish to visit the pool or get some books from the library.
But not to be. All closed from Friday to Tuesday. What a set up !!!


----------



## orka (23 Apr 2011)

There’s no point in debating ‘til the cows come home what increases the PS got and why and how much has been taken away and why...  The fact remains that the country is overspending by 20B per annum (30B in, 50B out) so ALL expenditure has to be looked at again and again and again until the books balance.  Given how large a share of the expenditure it is, it’s hard to see PS pay as a whole remaining untouched.


----------



## aonfocaleile (23 Apr 2011)

Yorrick said:


> Where I live the leisure centre, pool and gym are run by the local authority as are the libraries. *Being Ireland and people are off for a long bank holiday *they may wish to visit the pool or get some books from the library.
> But not to be. All closed from Friday to Tuesday. What a set up !!!



So you want the whole weekend off but you don't want that to extend to others? That said, its a valid point in terms of today (why are they closed today?? - I can't defend that) but I think you'll find that most things are closed on Easter Sunday and lots of businesses and offices would have been closed yesterday and will be closed on Monday also.

Why don't you complain directly to the leisure centre, library and pool and see what response you get.


----------



## onekeano (23 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> You had me rushing to the dictionary there Horusd - " sceloric unions " !
> 
> I also think that the Croke Park Agreement shows an acceptance that reform is required , I know that there have been issues regarding privilege days & more recently disturbance money in the Cork area of the HSE  both of which were dealt with by the arbitration process  - the media however I feel would have us think that the Unions are being obstructive by using this agreed process !



Hi DB - the "arbitration" process is a joke. The issue of privilage days went there an the wise men decided that celebrating some 19th century English monarchs birthday with a privilige day was not appropriate anymore. So what did they do? - The decided to cancel the privilige days and add the same amount to the formal holidays.

And what about the decision by the wise men to make a decision which meant govt researchers were awarded lump sums of €15k for every €10k saved when they claimed they needed to be compensated for loss of overtime - this when the country is bankrupt... it's no wonder the Germans consider the Iris to be shysters.

And while I'm at it - check out the average cost of employing someone in the LRC / Labour Court or EAT - it's hardly in their interests to fthe Govt to take a serious look at PS pay.....

By the way - you comments about all those agreements not being anything to do with benchmarking.........it was all the same Ahern scam - why did Charlie McCreevy insist that all documentation relating to benchmarking be destroyed once the awards were made....

Roy


----------



## thedaras (23 Apr 2011)

I think that there seems to be the perception that its all the fault of management for example;

horsed;





> Some who argue for the PS to be run along private sector lines blame the workers where the real problem is often the senior management who consistently fail to perform. Fail to lead, fail to inspire, fail to operate accountable systems. I know a top manager in the PS. He hardly breaks his neck working, despite his incredible salary & pension. I would be embarassed to be paid so much and do so little.


Ok,so lets say this is the truth,we need to ask why this would be the case,and I would hazzard a guess that they know that if they dared to do so,they would be given short shrift..otherwise what this means is that almost every manager in the PS does not deal effectively with people,does not endeavor to improve performanance, and does not implement discplinary means..that they fail to lead ,to inspire to operate accountable systems..so are you saying that this is the case,are you now saying that there are in fact people who do not do their jobs efectivily and if so why are none of them sacked?

Are there no sanctions to deal with them? 

I would be very interested to hear why you think the managers do not do any of the things you mention..

It is true that most if not all of the managers in the PS are union members.

In the private sector ,managers belonging to a union would be an exception rather than the rule..

So poor performing managers in the public service would be protected by their union and and it goes....


.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Apr 2011)

thedaras said:


> I think that there seems to be the perception that its all the fault of management for example;
> 
> Deiseblue;.
> 
> ...


 
I really would love to help  you out on that one Thedaras but you have incorrectly attributed the quote re PS management to me. 

Perhaps horusd will get back to you.


----------



## aonfocaleile (23 Apr 2011)

onekeano said:


> Hi DB - the "arbitration" process is a joke. The issue of privilage days went there an the wise men decided that celebrating some 19th century English monarchs birthday with a privilige day was not appropriate anymore. So what did they do? - The decided to cancel the privilige days and add the same amount to the formal holidays.
> 
> Roy



In fairness, that was decided back in the 1930's. When the Irish civil service became a seperate entity from the British civil service, the 2 privelige days associated with the kings birthday (or whatever) were re-distributed at Easter and Christmas. The logic behind the move at the time was that civil servants wouldn't have to travel on either Good Friday or St Stephen's Day - they could travel home from the big city on the Thursday before Easter and back to Dublin for work December 27th. Those were different times, when religion was a much bigger factor. Privilege days have been abolished - no Civil Service run office was closed last Thursday or will be closed on Tuesday next as a result. The 2 days leave has been added to the civil servants total leave allocation.

Trying to tackle this was a half-hearted attempt to minimise the twice annual media blitz about civil service "privileges". The unions won the battle because the whole thing was handled badly and inequitably in terms of the impact it would have had across different grades. Levels of annual leave in the civil service are not a big problem. Its the ad hoc arrangements in the local authority sector that are the problem. LAs closing down for the whole of Easter, race week (Galway), Punchestown races (Kildare) and God knows what else, are the real problem. Very few public servants ever benefitted from privilege days - this was limited to the civil service only.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant!


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Apr 2011)

onekeano said:


> Hi DB - the "arbitration" process is a joke. The issue of privilage days went there an the wise men decided that celebrating some 19th century English monarchs birthday with a privilige day was not appropriate anymore. So what did they do? - The decided to cancel the privilige days and add the same amount to the formal holidays.
> 
> And what about the decision by the wise men to make a decision which meant govt researchers were awarded lump sums of €15k for every €10k saved when they claimed they needed to be compensated for loss of overtime - this when the country is bankrupt... it's no wonder the Germans consider the Iris to be shysters.
> 
> ...


 
The Labour Court and the LRC are well regarded independent arbitration bodies who do sterling work , with regards to the the privilege days you are of course right in that the reasons for same were historical & then as a matter of practise & precedent were then subsumed into leave terms & conditions -management clearly failed to prove their case to the labour Court for the removal of same.

National Wage Agreements were initiated in 1987 , very much pre Ahern & McCreevy - the benchmarking process didn't have a major impact on Public Salaries over the 1998 - 2008 period you referred to.

As to the salaries paid to the highly qualified employees who staff the various Labour arbitration bodies I have no problem with same - it must be a hugely difficult & stressful job dealing with increasingly confrontational issues.


----------



## onekeano (23 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> As to the salaries paid to the highly qualified employees who staff the various Labour arbitration bodies I have no problem with same - it must be a hugely difficult & stressful job dealing with increasingly confrontational issues.



But with respect DB, the problem is that the people who are lending the money to us to pay these "highly qualified employees" DO have a problem with the the pay rates - it would be interesting to compare what their packages with the same type roles in Germany. I'm pretty sure you will find it is significantly less in Germany.

Roy


----------



## horusd (23 Apr 2011)

@thedaras. The reports of poor management, and related systems in the PS have been prettily extensively reported in the media. One item related specifically to the failure to implement Croke Park was because management had dittered and fulminated over staff suggestions & recommmendations. I don't know how endemic this is, but_ prima facie_, there seems to be serious failures and little accountability. 

Management set the culture of an organisation, so any reform should start at the top. Eg. Chatting to my neighbour this am. He's on the dole. 300 people queuing at one hatch. Staff walking around in the background. Staff problem or management? I would say the latter. They should open up the hatches for 15 mins, deal with the backlog swiftly and return to work. What did the manager actually do? They sent a staff member out into the public area to organise and fuss around the queue! Pure daft. What time does the "hatch" open? 10am. Why not 9 or 8?

I worked yrs ago on an insurance counter as the manager. Huge rush came in, we knew they would come at lunchtime or whenever, and we planned for it. And if we didn't people would chew me out, and rightly so.


----------



## horusd (23 Apr 2011)

onekeano said:


> But with respect DB, the problem is that the people who are lending the money to us to pay these "highly qualified employees" DO have a problem with the the pay rates -* it would be interesting to compare what their packages with the same type roles in Germany. I'm pretty sure you will find it is significantly less in Germany*.
> 
> Roy


 

I think this is a critical point. We need to review this urgently, and start at the top. Complainer made an excellent point on another post when (s)he said that someone made these contracts and arrangements. This was the responsibility of management, including gov.t.


----------



## thedaras (23 Apr 2011)

I just noticed that i quoted the wrong person deiseblue when it should have been horsed,i will correct that.thanks.
Back to the issue at hand,
can someone answer why ps mangers do not implement what is required? If as horsed said there were many staff behind the counter and the manager did nothing,how come he has not been called into account?

Most if not all ps managers are in unions so perhaps their incompedence is somewhat protected?
So the staff want to open the hatch for example but the manager says eh no you cant do that? why ?
How can thousands of workers stand by and allow this to happen,and how come the managers are allowed to get away with it?
Finally why do you all think the managers dont enforce the rules?
Are they afraid of the reaction they would get?
Are they being told by more senior people to not rock the boat?
There is something fishy going on,when most managers are not prepared to do what is required,my take on it would be that they know better!


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Apr 2011)

Management set the culture of an organisation, so any reform should start at the top. Eg. Chatting to my neighbour this am. He's on the dole. 300 people queuing at one hatch. Staff walking around in the background. Staff problem or management? I would say the latter. They should open up the hatches for 15 mins, deal with the backlog swiftly and return to work. What did the manager actually do? They sent a staff member out into the public area to organise and fuss around the queue! Pure daft. What time does the "hatch" open? 10am. Why not 9 or 8?

I worked yrs ago on an insurance counter as the manager. Huge rush came in, we knew they would come at lunchtime or whenever, and we planned for it. And if we didn't people would chew me out, and rightly so.[/QUOTE]

I can only relate my own experience of signing on over an 18 month period.

From my initial fact finding/form completion  meeting to the monthly signing on process I was treated with the utmost professionalism and importantly understanding & compassion.

Anytime I signed on all available hatches were manned , there was also a process of dealing with claimants on an alphabetical basis over a period of days thus minimising queues - I can honestly say the longest period I queued was for half an hour.

I was lucky enough to be claiming at a time when you could have your benefits credited to your bank a/c , I think this system has changed which allied to perhaps more stringent signing on regulations increased workloads.

Given the tragic level of unemployment I can only imagine that the amount of paperwork to be dealt with by back office staff must be truly frightening.

The Government readily accept that social welfare offices are understaffed & aim to resolve the problem under the transferability clause in the Croke Park Agreement - this process may have already started I believe.


----------



## ashambles (23 Apr 2011)

I'd almost agree now that benchmarking is overstated as the problem, I'll try to dig it out again but I think it was a DoF report into misspending during the boom and they broke down the cost of benchmarking v partnership. Benchmarking was dwarfed in spending increases by partnership.

It was a snowball, from the late 90's onwards you'd 2%-3% partnership increases being doled regularly sometimes barely 6 months apart. I never once remember any single person involved in this process give a hint of being intellectually capable of understanding the principle of compounded increases. With percentage rises 2+2 does not quite equal 4.

Benchmarking started coming late in the boom meaning its increases were compounded on top of the many partnership ones.

The problem with the partnership increases is interesting because here's an area where hypocritical unions who're so worried about progressive taxes (higher tax rates for higher earners) were completely happy giving a 3% rise to someone on 20k and a 3% rise to someone on 120k (like - um well themselves). 

(I seem to remember further back unions used to look for rises such as 10 pound a week for all their members, say in An Post or somewhere. A fairer payrise where the rise isn't performance related) 

As to everybody getting partnership rises - that's like everyone getting increments. They don't, especially the people many in the public sector like to consider their peers - they *really *don't.

Largely in the private sector the partnership rises went to low paid manufacturing workers (their jobs are gone), high paid building workers (their jobs are gone), shops/restaurant workers (many jobs gone), banking workers (many jobs about to go).  

The only area of the private sector where jobs haven't gone in large numbers is those that were able to ignore the partnership process. They had this weird idea of paying or not paying rises based on what the company could afford and without asking David Begg what he thought they should pay.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Apr 2011)

Strange then that the graph provided by Onekeano reflects the fact Private Sector pay rose by approx 72% in the 9 year period between 1999 & 2008 as opposed to approx 63 % in the Public Sector.

As a general rule the majority of Private Sector employers used the increases granted under the various NWAs as a guideline in calculating the rate of pay increases for their employees - indeed many employers exceeded the NWA rates.

One would also get the impression from your post that somehow it was the unions alone who decided on the pay increases - not so , the employers were also represented & the Government kept a weather eye on developments.


----------



## Purple (23 Apr 2011)

Where I work we never paid any of the national wage agreements. In fact there have been no big increases for over ten years (though starting from a high base). In real terms wages have dropped since around 2005. That said we haven't laid anyone off since the crash and at the moment we are busier than ever and hiring people.

I earn more than most publically employed people so I'm not going to comment on their individual rates but it is factual to say that their employer (the state) is bankrupt and can't afford the current wage bill. It is also factual to say that in most cases, even adjusted for cost of living, Irish public employees are well above the average equivalent pay levels of other OECD states.

Should Benchmarking be revisited? Yes, but only in the context of removing the unfair pension levy and replacing it with a flat pay cut so that exiting public sector pensions can be cut. We need to keep cutting ‘till we get to a level that we as a state can afford. That in no way implicates publically employed individuals in our current circumstances. 

I would add that if public sector pay is being cut all payments by the state to private employees should also be cut by at least the same amount. I am thinking in particular about the vast sums paid to doctors (GP’s who have GMS lists) and pharmacists (who are still over paid by the state) and lawyers .
I am sure there are other groups in the same boat that I don’t know about.


----------



## Purple (23 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Strange then that the graph provided by Onekeano reflects the fact Private Sector pay rose by approx 72% in the 9 year period between 1999 & 2008 as opposed to approx 63 % in the Public Sector.
> 
> As a general rule the majority of Private Sector employers used the increases granted under the various NWAs as a guideline in calculating the rate of pay increases for their employees - indeed many employers exceeded the NWA rates.



The gap between public and private sector pay increased over the years of the boom. I wouldn't go down that road if I was you.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> The gap between public and private sector pay increased over the years of the boom. I wouldn't go down that road if I was you.



A road I have travelled down many times ( & will again no doubt ) without trepidation - but thanks for the warning !

What onekeano's graph clearly demonstrates is that the average Private Sector worker benefited slightly more percentage wise from the National Wage Agreements  , either directly or indirectly , than his/her Public Sector counterpart.

My memory may be failing me but I thought that you recently agreed that Public Sector workers had suffered enough in terms of pay reductions & the best way to now progress savings was through job losses ? - something on which I agreed with you on the basis that such redundancies would be of a voluntary nature as per the Croke Park Agreement , you may indeed have a contrary view as to whether such redundancies should be voluntary.


----------



## Shawady (26 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> Where I work we never paid any of the national wage agreements.


 
Purple, just out of interest how much did salaries increase from say the late 90's to the mid 2000's?
There must have been some increase in pay rates.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2011)

Shawady said:


> Purple, just out of interest how much did salaries increase from say the late 90's to the mid 2000's?
> There must have been some increase in pay rates.



We have no collective agreements so rates change on a case by case basis. The top 35% of employees are on a bonus scheme which means that their income can vary by up to 40% from year to year (or month to month) so when things are going well people get paid more and when things are tight we get paid less. 
On average wage rates just about kept ahead of inflation from the late 90’s to the early 00’s. We trade internationally so what happens in the Irish domestic economy had no impact on the price we can charge, it just increases our cost base. If the boom had lasted for another few years it would have put us out of business.


----------



## liaconn (26 Apr 2011)

RoyRover said:


> Good article on the Irish Indo website on the complete unaffordability of benchmarking:
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/national-...enchmarking-atm-still-delivering-2461140.html
> 
> ...


 
Has this debate not been done a thousand times??? There have been many paycuts imposed on public servants in recent years, something you have not bothered to mention.

Also, why do you want to reduce the number of flexi days?  They are not free holidays, they are days worked in advance. Reducing them ie getting rid of flexi time will provide not one cent of savings to the national coffers and would be a pointless move. You seem to be somewhat motivated by spite and not by a genuine desire for efficiencies.


----------



## Sunny (26 Apr 2011)

liaconn said:


> Has this debate not been done a thousand times??? .


 
I agree and yet people continuously respond to it....


----------



## Firefly (26 Apr 2011)

liaconn said:


> There have been many paycuts imposed on public servants in recent years, something you have not bothered to mention.



I agree but:

The employer is broke and 
If benchmarking was fair then it should be fair now so I can't see a reason for a new round not to be performed.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2011)

liaconn said:


> Also, why do you want to reduce the number of flexi days?  They are not free holidays, they are days worked in advance. Reducing them ie getting rid of flexi time will provide not one cent of savings to the national coffers and would be a pointless move. You seem to be somewhat motivated by spite and not by a genuine desire for efficiencies.



An increase in the standard working week for all public employees to 39 hours would result in an increase in capacity with no increase in cost.
Ditto a reduction in the amount of annual leave. 

We have to cut numbers while maintaining services.


----------



## Firefly (26 Apr 2011)

liaconn said:


> Also, why do you want to reduce the number of flexi days?  They are not free holidays, they are days worked in advance. Reducing them ie getting rid of flexi time will provide not one cent of savings to the national coffers and would be a pointless move. You seem to be somewhat motivated by spite and not by a genuine desire for efficiencies.




I think re flexi-days that the point is that if someone is off because they worked up the flexi-leave, then someone else has to be there to cover (be they part time cover or fulltime cover) and this increases the cost of providing the service. If it was a standard 39 hour week then less people would be required resulting in a cost saving.


----------



## Sunny (26 Apr 2011)

I have only ever worked in one organisation that offered flexi time. It wasn't a zero sum game for the company. There is a cost involved. The company simply offered it as a selling point to candidates because they couldn't compete on pure pay rates with other companies in the Industry.

Flexi time was always one of the 'perks' of many public/civil service jobs and I don't have a problem with it but people seem to think there is no value attached to this arrangement. There is. There is a reason why the majority of private companies never ran around offering the arrangement to it's employees.


----------



## liaconn (26 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> An increase in the standard working week for all public employees to 39 hours would result in an increase in capacity with no increase in cost.
> Ditto a reduction in the amount of annual leave.
> 
> We have to cut numbers while maintaining services.


 
Yes, but flexi time isn't a problem. However some people seem convinced its annual leave by another name.


----------



## liaconn (26 Apr 2011)

Sunny said:


> I have only ever worked in one organisation that offered flexi time. It wasn't a zero sum game for the company. There is a cost involved. The company simply offered it as a selling point to candidates because they couldn't compete on pure pay rates with other companies in the Industry.
> 
> Flexi time was always one of the 'perks' of many public/civil service jobs and I don't have a problem with it but people seem to think there is no value attached to this arrangement. There is. There is a reason why the majority of private companies never ran around offering the arrangement to it's employees.


 
How is there a cost involved? If I fit an extra day's hours into my standard month and then take those extra hours off in one day it doesn't cost the company. Also, it means people can work longer on busier days and work shorter hours on less busy days.


----------



## Firefly (26 Apr 2011)

liaconn said:


> How is there a cost involved? If I fit an extra day's hours into my standard month and then take those extra hours off in one day it doesn't cost the company.



Presumably your employer will have to have someone to fill you place when you are taking this time.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Apr 2011)

Although under the Croke Park Agreement there is an arrangement that teachers will work one additional hour per week & changes to shift work patterns will take place in the HSE there is nothing in the Agreement to suggest that the Government are seeking an increase in the standard working week hours.

Nor would the employees thank any Union that didn't protect such hard fought work/life balance hours.

Unfortunately the reality is that given the expected level of voluntary redundancies & retirements ( early or otherwise ) we are going to see a definite downgrading of services.


----------



## orka (26 Apr 2011)

liaconn said:


> Yes, but flexi time isn't a problem. However some people seem convinced its annual leave by another name.





liaconn said:


> How is there a cost involved? If I fit an extra day's hours into my standard month and then take those extra hours off in one day it doesn't cost the company. Also, it means people can work longer on busier days and work shorter hours on less busy days.


 
It's not flexi time per se that's the problem, particularly if it's easy to measure a person's output per hour. However, in companies I've worked in with flexitime, I would observe that the average flexi hour is not the same as an average core hour. There's less supervision outside of core time and there is a definite temptation to give yourself a bit of extra time to have your scone in the morning as a reward for getting in so early and then have time for a cup of tea in the evening because of the strain of staying late. There were always people staying late 'working up their flexi' and unless a manager was staying late too, it was difficult to police what work was getting done. This is not a public v private thing - my observations are all private companies. But I don't believe for a minute that an average flexi hour is the same as an average core hour - therefore it does come at a cost...


----------



## liaconn (26 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> Presumably your employer will have to have someone to fill you place when you are taking this time.


 
No, it's one day. If I'm out sick or on a day's annual leave I don't have to be replaced. Also, you can't just take your flexi day any time you want. If there's something specific happening or its an exceptionally busy period then you wouldn't be allowed take a flexi day and would have to take it another time.


----------



## Sunny (26 Apr 2011)

liaconn said:


> How is there a cost involved? If I fit an extra day's hours into my standard month and then take those extra hours off in one day it doesn't cost the company. Also, it means people can work longer on busier days and work shorter hours on less busy days.


 
Of course there is a cost. Look at the amount of administration the system requires. The cost of keeping and maintaining a proper timekeeping system. Look of the amout of time that has to be spent by managers on staff planning. People also to tend to run up flexi time when things are quiet i.e. they stay late even there is no need for it for no other reason than to be allowed time off when it suits them. 

I don't have a problem with Flexi time but it is not a costless exercise.


----------



## ashambles (26 Apr 2011)

Happy King's day to anyone lucky enough to be off today from our public offices. Hope you're enjoying the privilege day. 

Private companies tend not to let people build up holidays via flexi-time, mainly it's designed so staff can arrange convenient start/end/lunch times. It's seen as a way of turning an 8 hour office into a 12 hour one without paying overtime or asking people to work longer. Very handy when you're dealing with customers or colleagues across time zones.

I used be confused by people saying flexi-time was great, to me it just meant I was never sure when I was going home, I didn't realize until I was talking to public servants that there was a utopian flexi-time that can turn thumb twiddling time into days off.


----------



## Howitzer (26 Apr 2011)

ashambles said:


> I used be confused by people saying flexi-time was great, to me it just meant I was never sure when I was going home, I didn't realize until I was talking to public servants that there was a utopian flexi-time that can turn thumb twiddling time into days off.


I only had that realization a few years back as well. Disheartening.


----------



## liaconn (26 Apr 2011)

ashambles said:


> Happy King's day to anyone lucky enough to be off today from our public offices. Hope you're enjoying the privilege day.
> 
> Private companies tend not to let people build up holidays via flexi-time, mainly it's designed so staff can arrange convenient start/end/lunch times. It's seen as a way of turning an 8 hour office into a 12 hour one without paying overtime or asking people to work longer. Very handy when you're dealing with customers or colleagues across time zones.
> 
> I used be confused by people saying flexi-time was great, to me it just meant I was never sure when I was going home, I didn't realize until I was talking to public servants that there was a utopian flexi-time that can turn thumb twiddling time into days off.


 
I think you will find working up flexi days isn't confined to the public service or to Irish workplaces. Yes, of course some people will abuse it, but there will be lazy chancers in every type of workplace and they are always in the minority.


----------



## Complainer (26 Apr 2011)

ashambles said:


> I didn't realize until I was talking to public servants that there was a utopian flexi-time that can turn thumb twiddling time into days off.


You are still confused. There is no thumb-twiddling. There is a hard limit to the amount of flexi that can be taken - usually 1.5 days per month.


----------



## orka (26 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> You are still confused. There is no thumb-twiddling. There is a hard limit to the amount of flexi that can be taken - usually 1.5 days per month.


Of course there is SOME thumb-twiddling - in both the public and the private sector.  I find it hard to believe that anyone who has worked in a large organisation operating flexitime hasn't seen people staying late for the sake of building up flexitime.


----------



## Complainer (26 Apr 2011)

orka said:


> Of course there is SOME thumb-twiddling - in both the public and the private sector.  I find it hard to believe that anyone who has worked in a large organisation operating flexitime hasn't seen people staying late for the sake of building up flexitime.



I find it hard to believe that people don't seem to understand that Line Managers will Line Manage their staff to make sure these things don't happen.


----------



## Sunny (26 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> I find it hard to believe that people don't seem to understand that Line Managers will Line Manage their staff to make sure these things don't happen.



As a manager of only four people, I would be amazed if the line manager had time to micro manage what people were doing every minute of every day and micro managing peoples flexible working time apart from making sure the correct number of hours are worked. Are you saying nobody works extra hours for no reason other to build up hours to take when they need them? Or they don't spread the work over 9-10 hours when it really could be done in 8? That's certainly wasn't my experience when I operated under flexi time in the private sector. Can't imagine the public sector is any different.


----------



## orka (26 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> I find it hard to believe that people don't seem to understand that Line Managers will Line Manage their staff to make sure these things don't happen.


Every single line manager of every single employee efficiently manages their staff?  Of course that's what should happen and it's possibly what happens most of the time but there's no way it happens ALL the time everywhere.  And a problem with flexitime is that the line manager is unlikely to be there for every available flexi hour.  As I said previously, that's fine if productivity can easily be measured after the event but that's often not the case.

Seriously, you think there is NO time/productivity leakage from flexitime?


----------



## Complainer (26 Apr 2011)

It doesn't take micro-management to know what staff are up to. It just takes a reasonable understanding of their workload, and the time that it will take to complete that workload. It's really not rocket science. Can I give an absolute guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility of any abuse of flexi anywhere in the public sector? Of course not. Can I give an absolute guarantee that there is no systemic 'utopian flexi-time that can turn thumb twiddling time into days off'? Yes, I can.


----------



## orka (26 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> It doesn't take micro-management to know what staff are up to. It just takes a reasonable understanding of their workload, and the time that it will take to complete that workload. It's really not rocket science. Can I give an absolute guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility of any abuse of flexi anywhere in the public sector? Of course not. Can I give an absolute guarantee that there is no systemic 'utopian flexi-time that can turn thumb twiddling time into days off'? Yes, I can.


No-one suggested systemic abuse across the entire public service (although TBH I expect there are small sections/departments with lax management in both the public and the private sector where there is complicit abuse).  But there are problems with policing with flexitime and the problems are a wee bit bigger than your 'no absolute guarantee of absolutely no possibility anywhere' statement.


----------



## Sunny (27 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> It doesn't take micro-management to know what staff are up to. It just takes a reasonable understanding of their workload, and the time that it will take to complete that workload. It's really not rocket science. Can I give an absolute guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility of any abuse of flexi anywhere in the public sector? Of course not. Can I give an absolute guarantee that there is no systemic 'utopian flexi-time that can turn thumb twiddling time into days off'? Yes, I can.



Nobody is talking about systemic abuse. People probably don't even recognise they are doing it. Tell me, do the majority of people not end up with time off to take every month. If they do, it means that there is a problem because either the workload is too great that everyone needs to do overtime or people are using the system to their advantage. Most people would automatically work slightly longer days if it meant getting an extra day off every month. My point is that flexi time where you are allowed 'build up' hours is not a costless exercise as some people seem to think. It's also difficult to manage and doesn't help the identification of problem areas in regards to work flow and staffing levels.


----------



## liaconn (27 Apr 2011)

Of course there will be 'thumb twiddling' at times, but that happens regardless of whether or not there's flexi time. How often have you seen shop assistants standing around talking and ignoring the customer waiting to pay? How much official time do posters on here spend on AAM? The bottom line is whether or not the work is done. A good manager will know that. Believe me, the public service is not full of people looking to do the minimum of work for the maximum of benefit. Most people I know absolutely hate it if they're not being given enough work to do and will complain to their manager and then to Personnel if that happens. Why would any normal person want to sit around thumb twiddling and being bored?


----------



## Complainer (27 Apr 2011)

orka said:


> No-one suggested systemic abuse across the entire public service (although TBH I expect there are small sections/departments with lax management in both the public and the private sector where there is complicit abuse).  But there are problems with policing with flexitime and the problems are a wee bit bigger than your 'no absolute guarantee of absolutely no possibility anywhere' statement.



The problems with policing flexitime are a red herring. Flexitime is just one of many possible reasons for staff to be working while their manager is not physically present. This might be because the manager is on leave, or is sick, or is on training, or is off at a strategic planning workshop, or is in a different office, or in a different building etc. Line management does not generally require the line manager to be sitting over the employee's shoulder. Objectives are set, and if they're not met, the performance management process kicks in. There is of course merit in the manager appearing at the employee's desk from time to time for a whole host of reasons, including immediate supervision.



Sunny said:


> Nobody is talking about systemic abuse. People probably don't even recognise they are doing it. Tell me, do the majority of people not end up with time off to take every month. If they do, it means that there is a problem because either the workload is too great that everyone needs to do overtime or people are using the system to their advantage. Most people would automatically work slightly longer days if it meant getting an extra day off every month. My point is that flexi time where you are allowed 'build up' hours is not a costless exercise as some people seem to think. It's also difficult to manage and doesn't help the identification of problem areas in regards to work flow and staffing levels.



Workload too great? Will ya tell me something I don't know! We're down 20% of staff and with greater demands than ever. Of course the workload is too great. Many staff lose extra flexi time built up over and above the 1.5 day limit each month.

This does not mean that flexi in itself is a problem. It is indeed a costless exercise. It simply allows staff to do the work at a time that suits them. Some people will work early or late to be able to take a Friday or Monday off. The work gets done - it's just a matter of when it gets done. There is no 'difficulty to manage' and no difficulty in 'identification of problem areas'.


----------



## Sunny (27 Apr 2011)

liaconn said:


> Of course there will be 'thumb twiddling' at times, but that happens regardless of whether or not there's flexi time. How often have you seen shop assistants standing around talking and ignoring the customer waiting to pay? How much official time do posters on here spend on AAM? The bottom line is whether or not the work is done. A good manager will know that. Believe me, the public service is not full of people looking to do the minimum of work for the maximum of benefit. Most people I know absolutely hate it if they're not being given enough work to do and will complain to their manager and then to Personnel if that happens. Why would any normal person want to sit around thumb twiddling and being bored?


 
Of course there is thumb twiddling everywhere at times. The difference is if I have to stay late for a hour to make up for the fact that I didn't work as efficiently as I could during the day, I don't get that hour back later in the month. Neither do shop assistants. (And I am not saying that every public sector worker is not working efficiently before that gets thrown back in my face). I saw the system in the private sector and it just didn't work. 

And again pointing out the problems with flexi time is not me saying that everyone in the public sector is looking to do the minimum amount of work for the maximum of benefit. I know plenty of people in the public service who don't have flexi time, don't get paid overtime and work bloody long days. We are simply pointing out that claiming that there is absolutely no loss of productivity or cost to the public service with flexi time is naive. All employees would love to have flexi time. If it is cost neutral, why doesn't every company offer it? It would do wonders for staff morale.


----------



## Sunny (27 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> This does not mean that flexi in itself is a problem. It is indeed a costless exercise. It simply allows staff to do the work at a time that suits them. Some people will work early or late to be able to take a Friday or Monday off. The work gets done - it's just a matter of when it gets done. There is no 'difficulty to manage' and no difficulty in 'identification of problem areas'.


 
So the demand for the service drops on a Friday or Monday does it?

Or do other people have to get your work done which in turn means they are worked off their feet and have to work late so can take next Friday and Monday off. Remind me again how it is costless?


----------



## Complainer (27 Apr 2011)

Sunny said:


> We are simply pointing out that claiming that there is absolutely no loss of productivity or cost to the public service with flexi time is naive.


Can you please explain specifically what extra cost or loss in productivity arises from somebody working one hour extra on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and then taking a half-day on Friday?



Sunny said:


> All employees would love to have flexi time. If it is cost neutral, why doesn't every company offer it? It would do wonders for staff morale.


Perhaps you should ask this question to those who don't offer it?


----------



## orka (27 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> Can you please explain specifically what extra cost or loss in productivity arises from somebody working one hour extra on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and then taking a half-day on Friday?


There is no cost or loss of productivity if the work done in the extra hours Mon-Thurs is the same as the work that would have been done on the Friday afternoon.  However, my observation is that an average 'working up the flexi' hour is less productive than an average core hour.  I have seen many people take advantage of being able to build up time just by being there.  And yes, it's due to lax management - shock - lax management exists!  But it does happen.


----------



## Shawady (27 Apr 2011)

The problem with Flexi Time is that it is suited to some area of work more than others. If you are working at a counter in a bank or social welfare office, you have to work more structured hours. If however, you don't deal with the public and have a quantifiable amount of work, you should be able to work flexible hours to suit you.
On a standard 8-hour day, it would make difference to my productivity if I worked 9-5, 7-3 or 10-6.


----------



## Sunny (27 Apr 2011)

Shawady said:


> The problem with Flexi Time is that it is suited to some area of work more than others. If you are working at a counter in a bank or social welfare office, you have to work more structured hours. If however, you don't deal with the public and have a quantifiable amount of work, you should be able to work flexible hours to suit you.
> On a standard 8-hour day, it would make difference to my productivity if I worked 9-5, 7-3 or 10-6.


 
That's ok but we are talking about the building up of time to take as a day off. Most people I know that have this facility automatically add at least 30 mins on to their standard working day even if they don't need to just in order that they can take a day off later in the month. My point is that for a lot of people (not everyone), they could get the work done in 8 hours instead of the 8.5 hours. And then there would be no need to take time off.


----------



## liaconn (27 Apr 2011)

Sunny said:


> That's ok but we are talking about the building up of time to take as a day off. Most people I know that have this facility automatically add at least 30 mins on to their standard working day even if they don't need to just in order that they can take a day off later in the month. My point is that for a lot of people (not everyone), they could get the work done in 8 hours instead of the 8.5 hours. And then there would be no need to take time off.


 

Actually, most people just take a shorter lunch and still leave at a reasonable time in the evening. Yes, there are some people who are there until seven, a lot of them working, but some of them on the phone or surfing the net. And there are some people in at 8 o clock in the morning, most of them working, but some drinking coffee and having a cigarette. The point is that the majority work up their days legitimately and there will always be people, no matter what the system, that will be lazy chancers - both in the public and private sector.


----------



## Complainer (27 Apr 2011)

Shawady said:


> The problem with Flexi Time is that it is suited to some area of work more than others. If you are working at a counter in a bank or social welfare office, you have to work more structured hours.


Which is why flexi applies at certain locations in certain organisations, and not all.



orka said:


> There is no cost or loss of productivity if the work done in the extra hours Mon-Thurs is the same as the work that would have been done on the Friday afternoon.  However, my observation is that an average 'working up the flexi' hour is less productive than an average core hour.





Sunny said:


> That's ok but we are talking about the building up of time to take as a day off. Most people I know that have this facility automatically add at least 30 mins on to their standard working day even if they don't need to just in order that they can take a day off later in the month. My point is that for a lot of people (not everyone), they could get the work done in 8 hours instead of the 8.5 hours. And then there would be no need to take time off.



The flexi issue is a red herring. If someone is a skiver, and is allowed skive, they will skive for any part of their day, whether they are in core hours or working up flexi. In any environment that I've seen, skiving is managed and addressed.


----------



## Bill Struth (27 Apr 2011)

Back to the trolling expedition that is the OP, anyone tell me where this benchmarking ATM is? I'm skint til friday.

Cheers.


----------



## Firefly (27 Apr 2011)

Bill Struth said:


> Back to the trolling expedition that is the OP, anyone tell me where this benchmarking ATM is? I'm skint til friday.
> 
> Cheers.




Sorry to hear you're skint. Perhaps we need another round of benchmarking


----------



## Bill Struth (27 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> Sorry to hear you're skint. Perhaps we need another round of benchmarking


Just the location of the ATM will do.


----------



## Mpsox (27 Apr 2011)

People should also remember that plenty of people in the private sector got benchmarking awards as well. For example, many bank staff got them, + performance related payrises (and profit share as well). I know of one bank (UB) where in the boom times, staff were getting rises often in excess of 10% per annum.

I'm no defender of the public sector and have often complained about them on here in the past. I fully believe greater efficiencies could be got from them (and seriously wonder what half the quangos actually do that benifits society, but that's a discussion for another post), however, in the interest of fairness, the private sector has hardly covered itself in glory over the last 10 years either


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2011)

Mpsox said:


> People should also remember that plenty of people in the private sector got benchmarking awards as well. For example, many bank staff got them, + performance related payrises (and profit share as well). I know of one bank (UB) where in the boom times, staff were getting rises often in excess of 10% per annum.
> 
> I'm no defender of the public sector and have often complained about them on here in the past. I fully believe greater efficiencies could be got from them (and seriously wonder what half the quangos actually do that benifits society, but that's a discussion for another post), however, in the interest of fairness, the private sector has hardly covered itself in glory over the last 10 years either



Flexi-time is a minor issue. Wasters who avoid work are also a minor issue. Structural inefficiencies, duplication of services and lack of mobility of labour are the main reason for bad value for money/ bad return of investment. 
The above can be said for any large public or private sector organisation.
While Benchmarking was utterly unfair and utterly unnecessary and the greed and hypocrisy shown by the Bearded Brethren who run the unions has been both sickening and breath taking I think all would agree that if the only problems we had were those within the public sector we’d all be happy bunnies right now.


----------



## Firefly (27 Apr 2011)

Mpsox said:


> People should also remember that plenty of people in the private sector got benchmarking awards as well. For example, many bank staff got them, + performance related payrises (and profit share as well). I know of one bank (UB) where in the boom times, staff were getting rises often in excess of 10% per annum.



The banks are as close as you can get in the private sector to the public sector. There is a lot of restructuring going on in the banks at the moment and job losses will I believe occur. Just look at Halifax as an example. 



Mpsox said:


> I'm no defender of the public sector and have often complained about them on here in the past. I fully believe greater efficiencies could be got from them (and seriously wonder what half the quangos actually do that benifits society, but that's a discussion for another post), however, i*n the interest of fairness, the private sector has hardly covered itself in glory over the last 10 years either*



The private sector had in fairness a glorious decade, but equally the long dole queues today show the pain that is being suffered.


----------



## Shawady (27 Apr 2011)

And in the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that although the benchmarking award was 8.9%, this was only an average amount. From memory, the awards ranged from as low as 2% to as high as 25% (ambulance drivers I think). 
If the general concensous was that benchmarking in hindsight was a mistake, it would have been fairer to just reverse the actual awards each grade received.

It is also worth mentioning that retired public sector pensioners also received the benchmarking awards. Yet, when the government first cut pay it was through the pension levy which did not affect pensioners.
It's ironic so that the only people that had held onto the becnhmarking award were the people that no longer worked in the public sector.


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2011)

Shawady said:


> It's ironic so that the only people that had held onto the becnhmarking award were the people that no longer worked in the public sector.



Fully agree. The pension levy is a disgrace. It should have been a cut.


----------



## Deiseblue (27 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> The banks are as close as you can get in the private sector to the public sector. There is a lot of restructuring going on in the banks at the moment and job losses will I believe occur. Just look at Halifax as an example.
> 
> 
> 
> The private sector had in fairness a glorious decade, but equally the long dole queues today show the pain that is being suffered.



During their Celtic Tiger pomp the Banks could not have been more unlike the Public Sector.

The risk taking , which ultimately led to the desperate situation we find ourselves in today , was driven by performance driven pay & bonuses particularly to those of managerial levels & above - the mantra was sell , sell , sell & to hell with what tomorrow brings.

The initial craziness was led by Anglo - the profits they posted were the envy of the Irish Banking system & thus the crazed pursuit of similar profits began - ethics , morals & probity simply went out the window.

Perhaps a more valid comparison for our Banking sector would be with the Alaskan gold rush.


----------



## Latrade (27 Apr 2011)

Good afternoon AAM. 2009 has called and would like its thread back.

I do like how we get an even greater picture of just how and why the economy failed so epically and yet we still retain enough bile to pick up on the odd perk given to the public sector. 

On a side note, I have nothing else to add and I suspect with some introspection I may not be the only one.


----------



## Berni (27 Apr 2011)

Latrade said:


> Good afternoon AAM. 2009 has called and would like its thread back.


http://xkcd.com/875/


----------



## Complainer (27 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> The private sector had in fairness a glorious decade, but equally the long dole queues today show the pain that is being suffered.



There are many former public sector staff on the dole queues. The private sector does not have a monopoly on the dole queues.


----------



## RoyRover (27 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> There are many former public sector staff on the dole queues. The private sector does not have a monopoly on the dole queues.


 
Indeed, but the private sector *does* have a monopoly on compulsory redundancies. 

In a country with a 32% budget deficit (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0426/eurozone-business.html), there absolutely has to be a whole swathe of the public sector removed by compulsory redundancy. Generous voluntary redundancy packages will lead to too few exiting in time to address the crisis. 

It is immoral to keep Terms and Conditions, such as generous "flexi" and Gold plated pensions, while the private sector worker takes the strain and the dole queues lengthen

It is heartening though to see Rory Quinn standing up to the teachers today though (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0427/education.html). Let's see if Labour have the steel to continue to make hard pronouncements when their paymasters in the unions start to rein them in, as they have traditionally done.


----------



## Complainer (27 Apr 2011)

RoyRover said:


> Indeed, but the private sector *does* have a monopoly on compulsory redundancies.


Again, not true. I recall reading about some FÁS staff from a midlands office (Athlone maybe) that were protesting about their redundancy deal when that office closed. And of course, many contract staff were terminated as contracts came up for renewal. But regardless, I don't quite understand this fetish for 'compulsory redundancies'. What is behind this blood lust? Why does the actual method of termination matter so much - surely the numbers and cost of termination is actually the important issue, not the mechanism?


----------



## shnaek (28 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> Why does the actual method of termination matter so much - surely the numbers and cost of termination is actually the important issue, not the mechanism?


It matters because you often lose the people you need. Though it is the most heartless way of operating. 
Often you will lose people who you don't want to lose through voluntary redudancy. 
Those who are most qualified, who can get jobs elsewhere.
Those who are most motivated.
Those who are thinking of emigrating. 
Those who are ready to take a risk. 
You can be left with the people who just want to clock in and clock out, and collect a pay check. 
Voluntary redudancy is a blunt instrument.


----------



## Shawady (28 Apr 2011)

I think if compulsory redundancies were introduced in the public sector, it would prob be done on a "last in, first out" basis, so it could also be a blunt instrument.
In theory, some of the newer more enthuastic employees would be made redundant at the expense of older (possibly demotivated) employees.


----------



## csirl (28 Apr 2011)

In the private sector, if a company has suplus employees, employees doing 'nice to have' but not 100% necessary jobs or employees in divisions that are surplus to requirements - if it is in financial difficulties, the first action taken would be to lay off these categories of staff. And this would be done before going to pay cuts for necessary staff. 

However, in the public sector, it seems to operate the other way around. The unnecessary staff keep their jobs via cutting the pay of the necessary people. Calls to 'reverse benchmarking' are also like this - cutting all employees pay to keep the unnecessary in jobs. 

There have been a lot of programme cuts in the public service over the past couple of years. However, these have not been mirrored by the closing of offices and redundancies of the employees who used to deliver these programmes.


----------



## Complainer (28 Apr 2011)

csirl said:


> In the private sector, if a company has suplus employees, employees doing 'nice to have' but not 100% necessary jobs or employees in divisions that are surplus to requirements - if it is in financial difficulties, the first action taken would be to lay off these categories of staff. And this would be done before going to pay cuts for necessary staff.



Redundancy is not a performance management tool. You cannot legally use redundancy to get rid of people that you don't want. Posts are made redundant, not people.



csirl said:


> However, in the public sector, it seems to operate the other way around. The unnecessary staff keep their jobs via cutting the pay of the necessary people. Calls to 'reverse benchmarking' are also like this - cutting all employees pay to keep the unnecessary in jobs.


Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there have already been huge cuts to the number of staff in the public sector, via the recruitment embargo and the ban on renewal for contract staff.



csirl said:


> There have been a lot of programme cuts in the public service over the past couple of years. However, these have not been mirrored by the closing of offices and redundancies of the employees who used to deliver these programmes.



No, it's generally been the other way round. The employees have been cut through natural wastage/embargo or non-renewal of contract staff, so then the programmes get cut.


----------



## RonanC (29 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> Redundancy is not a performance management tool. You cannot legally use redundancy to get rid of people that you don't want. Posts are made redundant, not people.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there have already been huge cuts to the number of staff in the public sector, via the recruitment embargo and the ban on renewal for contract staff.
> ...


 
Just to back up Complainers post

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/public-service-jobs-fall-by-3000-in-three-months-503108.html


----------



## Firefly (29 Apr 2011)

RonanC said:


> Just to back up Complainers post
> 
> http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/public-service-jobs-fall-by-3000-in-three-months-503108.html




I'd imagine these are the "easy" reductions out of the way (contract staff and voluntary redundancy). It will be interesting to see what the IMF/EU say.


----------



## RonanC (29 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> I'd imagine these are the "easy" reductions out of the way (contract staff and voluntary redundancy). It will be interesting to see what the IMF/EU say.


 
No, I'd imagine most of them are high ranking senior management who are either retiring early or have reached their natural retirement age. 

Thats based on what is happening around me anyway.


----------



## dereko1969 (29 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> I'd imagine these are the "easy" reductions out of the way (contract staff and voluntary redundancy). It will be interesting to see what the IMF/EU say.


 
Did you actually read what Complainer said? Do you understand anything about redundancy law?


----------



## Firefly (29 Apr 2011)

dereko1969 said:


> Did you actually read what Complainer said? Do you understand anything about redundancy law?



The point I am making is that the non replacement of those who retire and non-renewal of contract staff, represents the easy/low hanging fruit option. If there are further reductions required, of a non-voluntary nature, then that's when the real fun will start. I think Complainer is right actually. If non-voluntary redundancies are required they will be done by deeming posts redundant rather than by adressing individual performance. An example of this would be making 1 teacher redundant in all medium/large schools based on a LIFO method. Whilst we would all prefer the more productive staff to remain, it would be a logistical nightmare and open to endless legal issues. Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone to lose their job, but the IMF/EU might think differently.


----------



## RoyRover (15 May 2011)

Been away for a little while, but I am glad to see that this thread has raised a constructive debate on staff numbers and pay levels in the public sector.

From what I can see here, there does seem to be a growing consensus that we need to dramatically cut both.


----------



## Deiseblue (15 May 2011)

RoyRover said:


> Been away for a little while, but I am glad to see that this thread has raised a constructive debate on staff numbers and pay levels in the public sector.
> 
> From what I can see here, there does seem to be a growing consensus that we need to dramatically cut both.



Staff cuts via voluntary redundancies - yes , pay cuts - no .

It's all detailed in the Croke Park Agreement .


----------



## Lex Foutish (15 May 2011)

[[B said:
			
		

> *RoyRover*[/B]]1167727]Been away for a little while, but I am glad to see that this thread has raised a constructive debate on staff numbers and pay levels in the public sector.[/B]
> 
> *From what I can see here, there does seem to be a growing consensus that we need to dramatically cut both.[/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Deiseblue (15 May 2011)

I should have fought my initial reaction to respond to Roy's post !

This thread deservedly came to an end some time ago.


----------



## RoyRover (15 May 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Staff cuts via voluntary redundancies - yes , pay cuts - no .
> 
> It's all detailed in the Croke Park Agreement .


 
Hmmm... I think the CPA now needs to be shelved.

Glad you agree that staff cuts are required. 

I am not so sure that voluntary redundancies or pay cuts are affordable. There is no reason why teachers or nurses should be paid 30-50% more than in Northern Ireland.

We have massively overpaid ourselves over the past 10 years, both in the form of PS pay and conditions and an overgenerous welfare state.


----------



## RoyRover (15 May 2011)

Lex Foutish said:


> I don't think you're going far enough with what you'd like to see done to the Public Service. Could P.S. workers not be rounded up every evening after work also, to be tortured and flogged, to teach them a lesson for bringing down the banks and the Irish economy? They deserve it! Every single one of them!!! And they wouldn't do it again!!!


 
This is not about "punishing" anyone. 

It is about rebalancing the cost base that we have. Running at €30bn income and €50bn outgoings is just not feasible. Why should future generations of Irish citizens pay for the benchmarking ATM?


----------



## Complainer (15 May 2011)

RoyRover said:


> From what I can see here, there does seem to be a growing consensus that we need to dramatically cut both.


It seems that you don't understand the meaning of 'consensus'. From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consensus

con·sen·sus  (kn-snss)
n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: 
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.


----------



## Firefly (16 May 2011)

Benchmarking was great & fair. What we need now is another round....or are they like upward-only-rent-reviews


----------



## liaconn (16 May 2011)

RoyRover said:


> This is not about "punishing" anyone.
> 
> It is about rebalancing the cost base that we have. Running at €30bn income and €50bn outgoings is just not feasible. Why should future generations of Irish citizens pay for the benchmarking ATM?


 
Out of interest RoyRover, what area do you work in? You are constantly griping about public servants but have never stated what you do for  a living.


----------



## Complainer (16 May 2011)

Firefly said:


> Benchmarking was great & fair. What we need now is another round....or are they like upward-only-rent-reviews


Yep, bring it on - provided that it comes with a commitment to frequency of updates, e.g. every 2-3 years, and not leave public servants languishing for decades as happened in the past.


----------



## Firefly (16 May 2011)

Complainer said:


> Yep, bring it on - provided that it comes with a commitment to frequency of updates, e.g. every 2-3 years, and not leave public servants languishing for decades as happened in the past.



I'd be happy with that too (Is this a first?). I would estimate that average earnings in the private sector are down at least 20% taking into consideration pay cuts and also the drop so many are facing due to the dole now being their income. But perhaps Benchmarking would confirm this.


----------



## bullbars (16 May 2011)

Complainer said:


> Yep, bring it on - provided that it comes with a commitment to frequency of updates, e.g. every 2-3 years, and not leave public servants languishing for decades as happened in the past.


 
languishing for decades? Play me another tune. It wasn't a prison sentance, if public servants weren't appy with the pay, they could leave / re-train in other areas or emigrate. Why "languish" for decades instead of move on? - it was secure work, simple as. The recruitment freeze is a smokescreen, numbers need to be cut now. UK police forces are even clearly stating that compulsory redundancies are on the table; wil the same be applied here? 

Nobody would have any issues with committing to frequent updates but the many in the public sector fail to realise this means wages can go down as well as up and redundancies are a fact of life. 30bn in V 50bn out is the black and white of it. We cant afford it so cuts have to be made.


----------



## bullbars (16 May 2011)

liaconn said:


> Out of interest RoyRover, what area do you work in? You are constantly griping about public servants but have never stated what you do for a living.


 
Do I need to submit my C.V. for approval before I voice my opinion as well?


----------



## Purple (16 May 2011)

RoyRover said:


> Hmmm... I think the CPA now needs to be shelved.
> 
> Glad you agree that staff cuts are required.
> 
> I am not so sure that voluntary redundancies or pay cuts are affordable.


  I agree.



RoyRover said:


> There is no reason why teachers or nurses should be paid 30-50% more than in Northern Ireland.
> 
> We have massively overpaid ourselves over the past 10 years, both in the form of PS pay and conditions and an overgenerous welfare state.


By the same token there’s no reason why anyone in the private sector should get paid more than their counterparts in the UK and most of us are.
We have the best paid GP’s in Europe. Professional services in general are still much higher than the UK. Even building trades are still more expensive. 




RoyRover said:


> This is not about "punishing" anyone.


I agree. Job losses and pay cuts in the public sector will have a massive negative impact in the private sector (domestic economy).



RoyRover said:


> It is about rebalancing the cost base that we have. Running at €30bn income and €50bn outgoings is just not feasible.


 I agree.


RoyRover said:


> Why should future generations of Irish citizens pay for the benchmarking ATM?


 Why should they pay for higher than UK spending/costs for anything?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the cost and size of the public sector is too high and needs to reduced but I think everyone would be delighted if that was the only problem we were facing. 

Here’s a national objective once we get out of this mess; keep our inflation rate lower than Germanys.


----------



## liaconn (16 May 2011)

bullbars said:


> Do I need to submit my C.V. for approval before I voice my opinion as well?


 
No, but its a bit one sided to have one person constantly attacking a whole sector while people from that sector cannot compare his criticisms with conditions in his employment.


----------

