# What could/would be wrong with this? Pay "Front Line" public servants relatively more



## thedaras (14 Feb 2011)

Thinking about the state of the country and recognising that some of those in the public service should be paid more than others I thought of a solution that may have no basis for implementing,but here goes!

I think the majority of us recognise that the following workers are "front line"..
Gardai
Nurses,
Ambulance drivers,
Fire men/.women..
Would it be fair to say that these are the front line staff that deserve to be paid more or have their salary's remain as is at least?

If so how do we do this? My solution is ,get rid of the ones who are not needed,ie HR, too many admin staff too many middle management etc and those identified as being surplus to requirements.
(we know already that this should be done,but we also know it wont be )

Then with the money that is saved,those on the frontline at the very least can retain what they are paid or maybe even given an increase.

This would keep the public happy ie; there are no Public servants who are doing nothing and getting paid for it,also those on the frontline are well paid and this will mean they are also happy,it also ups the whole attitute of those in  the PS,as those who remain are not picking up the slack for the dossers.

Anyhow would be interested to hear other views on this.


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2011)

I think the whole "front line staff" line is rubbish. The idea that they are all great and it's those clerks and managers that are the problem is insulting and simplistic. I's suggest that there are as many lazy "front line" staff as there are non-front line staff. I'd also suggest that it's the front line people that are most overpaid.

We have twice as many nurses per head as France. Can the same be said for health service admin staff?


----------



## pinkyBear (14 Feb 2011)

I don't want to get into bashing public sector workers.. However here is my 2 cents.. There is no employment embargo on Social Workers - due to the abuse scandals etc.. In Ireland, each county (and in certain health districts) there are different processes and procedures Social Workers  must follow when addressing certain issues.. (my cousin is a social worker in Dublin and she told me that within districts - there are different standards and procedures) .. 

So if you think of it, no matter how many social workers the HSE employ, children who need help will still fall through the cracks, and are at risk.. When you have a fragmented health system, no amount of money can fix it..
P..


----------



## Chris (14 Feb 2011)

I generally agree with you. Rather than cut the pay of everyone, the surplus requirement should be gotten rid of. And by surplus requirement I mean within departments that are needed and certain services as a whole. Cutting wages dis-incentivises all people, especially those that we are most reliant on and those that work the hardest.



Purple said:


> I think the whole "front line staff" line is rubbish. The idea that they are all great and it's those clerks and managers that are the problem is insulting and simplistic. I's suggest that there are as many lazy "front line" staff as there are non-front line staff. I'd also suggest that it's the front line people that are most overpaid.
> 
> We have twice as many nurses per head as France. Can the same be said for health service admin staff?


Very good point, and I agree that a lot more stringent performance controls are needed. 
Just in relation to the amount of nurses per head compared to France, my wife worked with a French nurse a few years ago, and she said that while France has less nurses they have far more nurse's aids (I think that's what they call them). She said that nurses in France do not perform duties such as changing sheets, feeding patients, washing patients, etc, but rather only focus on the medical care of the patient. That would explain the discrepancy in numbers. This would, however, be a good reason to reduce the amount of nurses and increase the number over lower paid nurse's aids.


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2011)

Same can be said of doctors Chris; in most countries GP's do far more in-surgery work such as minor surgery, stitching etc. Irish GP's act like glorified nurses most of the time.


----------



## Chris (14 Feb 2011)

Purple said:


> Same can be said of doctors Chris; in most countries GP's do far more in-surgery work such as minor surgery, stitching etc. Irish GP's act like glorified nurses most of the time.



Absolutely. Everything should be done to increase the productivity of all elements of all services. 
The analogy of ditch digging comes to mind. You could achieve the same perfect ditch by giving 100 people spoons to dig with or give one person a JCB. Only the latter makes sense to do.


----------



## Caveat (14 Feb 2011)

Chris said:


> Only the latter makes sense to do.


 
Yeah, but you probably run the risk of having the spoon unions on to you.

Or maybe that's the spoonions


----------



## thedaras (14 Feb 2011)

Caveat said:


> Yeah, but you probably run the risk of having the spoon unions on to you.
> 
> Or maybe that's the spoonions


Brilliant!!


----------



## gianni (14 Feb 2011)

Purple said:


> I think the whole "front line staff" line is rubbish. The idea that they are all great and it's those clerks and managers that are the problem is insulting and simplistic.



+1

The OP states that Gardai are Frontline... is that all 14,000 Gardai of all rank? The ones on the street only ? The ones in busy crime areas ? What about the Gardai that sit outside judges/ex-Taoisigh's houses ?

As for the frontline nurses ? Is that the nurses that work on wards only? Or does it include Public health nurses ? Nurses in triage in A&E depts ?

I think it is naive to suggest that any large organisation can function without a good administrative arm to complement it. There are some exceptional individuals working in the area of Public (and Private) administration that are the backbone of their respective organisations.


----------



## ajapale (14 Feb 2011)

Just wondering, would the op consider high court judges to be front line or non front line?

I agree with purple the whole "front line" thing is largely a spurious distinction.


----------



## horusd (14 Feb 2011)

Purple said:


> I think the whole "front line staff" line is rubbish. The idea that they are all great and it's those clerks and managers that are the problem is insulting and simplistic. I's suggest that there are as many lazy "front line" staff as there are non-front line staff. I'd also suggest that it's the front line people that are most overpaid.
> 
> We have twice as many nurses per head as France. Can the same be said for health service admin staff?


 +1 

Anyway Frontline staff (sic)  need backroom staff to function....doesn't this over-simplification and grandstanding, this politics of the quip and oneline solutions, make you bury your head in despair?  A few heads here can see the problems with this in minutes, but the grandees running the show keep trotting out this simplistic piffle.


----------



## thedaras (14 Feb 2011)

"frontline"This is what the unions keep telling us they are.Guards ,nurses, firemen/women etc,this is consistently trotted out by the unions,when there is any talk of job losses or staff cutbacks or pay cuts,the unions say it will affect the frontline staff.For no other reason..I didnt determine who they were, it was the unions..like this among several other examples;

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1206/union.html

It goes without saying that frontline staff need backroom staff,but it is clear they do not need as many as there are at present.

I have no idea about judges and if they are frontline or not, I would imagine it would depend on what the unions say.Is there a union for judges?

As I said in my original post..I think the majority of us recognise that the following workers are "front line"..
Gardai
Nurses,
Ambulance drivers,
Fire men/.women..
If not Who are the "frontline staff" the unions keep mentioning?


----------



## Leper (15 Feb 2011)

Good Man, thedaras, divide and conquer.  The government tried this already and succeeded somewhat.

The general election will be decided within a fortnight.  Time then for another one-day strike and another Beano for the traders in Newry.


----------



## zztop (15 Feb 2011)

horusd said:


> +1
> 
> Anyway Frontline staff (sic) need backroom staff to function....doesn't this over-simplification and grandstanding, this politics of the quip and oneline solutions, make you bury your head in despair? A few heads here can see the problems with this in minutes, but the grandees running the show keep trotting out this simplistic piffle.


 
+2.Simplistic answers to difficult Qs.There IS a lot of room
for surgery in the public service and ig it is done right
everybody( well maybe a vast majority) will be satisfied
including most union members.


----------



## thedaras (15 Feb 2011)

Leper said:


> Good Man, thedaras, divide and conquer.  The government tried this already and succeeded somewhat.
> 
> The general election will be decided within a fortnight.  Time then for another one-day strike and another Beano for the traders in Newry.



I really would like you to clarify that statement re divide and conquer??
Im trying to see things from both sides and looking to see what kind of solution would work that would keep everyone(or at least most ) feeling good!
I dont see what your problem is with me trying to clarify who the "frontline " staff are.( I cant see what else is the issue?)

Remember I mentioned in the OP that as I understood it they were Guards,nurses etc,but that was challenged and fairly so,and why not.

Also "good man" eh Im a woman..
I dont see where the divide and conquer is?


----------



## csirl (15 Feb 2011)

I agree with Purple and Chris on the front line issue.

My opinion on cuts in the public sector is that we should not use the broad brush cut everyones pay approach. We need to go through the book of estimates and look at what services are necessary and what are optional. Staff in unnecessary optional programmes, where funding has already been cut in most cases, should be made redundant. Agenceis which operate these programmes should be shut down. 

I don't agree with the view that "nurses, guards, doctors, teachers etc." are underpaid and overworked. In many cases I would take the opposite view - the unions/interest groups have consistently played the strike card over the years to the extent that politicians have been affraid to take them on. The net result is that they are largely overpaid and underworked in comparison with our EU colleagues. Many also have a bad "it's not my job" attitude to doing some tasks which they consider beneath them.


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> I dont see what your problem is with me trying to clarify who the "frontline " staff are.


 
Are the people who man the phones in the tax office "frontline"?

How about the people in the dole office?

How does it reconcile with your plan that "backroom" IT expertise is in very short supply?

Was it the situation a couple of years ago that the guards were remunerated fairly relative to admin staff?  

If so, why now would you cut one and not the other?

Does it not matter how generous we were in the past i.e. if we'd totally lost the run of ourselves and had increased frontline staff pay to a level far above the current level would you still exempt them from pay cuts?


----------



## thedaras (15 Feb 2011)

Once again....If not Who are the "frontline staff" the unions keep mentioning?
Im not saying who the frontline staff  are,its the unions ..Perhaps the IT staff should get on to the union and mention that along with the Guards,nurses,firemen and women that the IT staff are also front line..
Anyhow at least Im trying to come up with ideas instead of just moaning about all the issues ,we know what the issues are..we need solutions now....it was just an idea!!


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> Once again....If not Who are the "frontline staff" the unions keep mentioning?


 
The unions have a job to do. In the public sector they are fighting a battle in terms of public perception.

The lazy perception is that no one does anything in the public service.

The danger for the unions is that this will ultimately lead to pressure on the government to reduce the size and cost of the public sector.

What do they do? They point out to people that there is obvious work done in the public sector. People deal with nurses, teachers, guards, etc everyday.

It is harder to go out an espouse the merits of someone who is just as useful, if not more so, if neither you nor the general public understand their roles or see what they do on a daily basis e.g. IT resources. 

So the unions just fight the smarter battle by pointing out something that is obvious to everyone (e.g. firemen rescue people) in order to hold back the wave of negative sentiment against the entire public service. 

This has somehow morphed into the idea that people who save lives are infinitely valuable whilst people who work at computers are not.

There are lots of people who would be capable and happy to be teachers, nurses, guards, etc.  There are not lots of people capable of leading a project to designing and implement an efficient HR system for example. This point the most important consideration in determining wages.  There's no point in throwing money at guards, nurses, etc as we have plenty capable people willing to do this work.  Good IT experience on the other hand is maybe something the public service should have paid more for or at least tried somehow to attract better people in the past.


----------



## liaconn (15 Feb 2011)

i agree with most of the replies so far. Just because someone isn't 'out in front' doesn't mean they're not doing essential support work. Very simplistic solution.


----------



## thedaras (15 Feb 2011)

"Pointing out something that is obvious to everyone is the job of the unions" you say..wow..

You say perception is "no one does anything in the public service!,not for a minute do I believe that! That is just not true!

You guys really should take that up with the unions,as apparently they are now to blame for only calling certain jobs "frontline"..when in fact its beginning to look like everyone is frontline..

Is it that when the unions are looking for more,they use the "frontline" argument and now everyone wants to be frontline??
Im not in a union so I dont know who they consider to be frontline,however every single time the union mentions the frontline,they say Guards,nurses etc..they never ,that I can recall mentioned the IT staff..

How about those in the PS tell us who is NOT frontline? Then those who are could be considered as per my original post.


----------



## becky (15 Feb 2011)

There is no agreed list of frontline staff.  This issue arose a few years ago when it was being proposed that non frontline staff should work a shorter week in a bid to save money.  Staff in payroll offices aren't frontline but they facilitate payment to front line staff.  

Staff in Nursing Home Subvention are not front line but without the admin people approving subvention, clients remain in inappropriate settings like an acute hospital, elderly hospital.

In the end the issue was parked,


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> How about those in the PS tell us who is NOT frontline? Then those who are could be considered as per my original post.


Or we could just accept that a "frontline" definition is meaningless when it comes to determining pay


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> Is it that when the unions are looking for more,they use the "frontline" argument .


 
Used to be, now it's a play on people's sympathies to avoid cuts



thedaras said:


> and now everyone wants to be frontline??


 
No, it's a general argument designed to as an initial defence against a blanket public service pay cut



thedaras said:


> Im not in a union so I dont know who they consider to be frontline,however every single time the union mentions the frontline,they say Guards,nurses etc..they never ,that I can recall mentioned the IT staff..


 
IT wouldn't be frontline, they're an example of non-frontline.

Garda & Nurses unions might be happy to make the distinction to save their members for paycuts. The likes of SIPTU would invoke the use of "frontline" to play to people's sympathies towards the entire public service.

You are just being played if you buy into the whole salaries of "frontline" workers should be immune from cuts whilst those of "non-frontline" should not argument


----------



## thedaras (15 Feb 2011)

Ok, thanks for that..


----------



## Deiseblue (15 Feb 2011)

DerKaiser said:


> The unions have a job to do. In the public sector they are fighting a battle in terms of public perception.
> 
> The lazy perception is that no one does anything in the public service.
> 
> ...


 
+ 1 , excellent post.

It is of course an exercise in PR when the unions refer to customer facing employees as the public can emphatise with same and are more likely to sympathise with them rather than equally valuable support staff.

Although unstated the Unions also make it clear to Government and the public alike how dependant we are on Guards , Nurses , Teachers  etc  & the dangers inherent in  possibly provoking industrial action .


----------



## Leper (15 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> I really would like you to clarify that statement re divide and conquer??
> Im trying to see things from both sides and looking to see what kind of solution would work that would keep everyone(or at least most ) feeling good!
> I dont see what your problem is with me trying to clarify who the "frontline " staff are.( I cant see what else is the issue?)
> 
> ...


First, let me apologise for thinking you were male (sorry about that).

Obviously, you know that on many sites like this there is Public V Private sectors debate some which is fair and most which is unfair.  Our government is mainly behind the anti Public Service thought and of course the unions got involved and suddenly the government threw in the Front Line Public Service words. The like of Firemen, Nurses, etc were considered saints of the island and the (let's say) back room people branded as lepers of society.  

Therefore the public service was divided into Front Line V Back-room.  Many of the "front-Line" unions e.g INMO hopped on the bandwagon and there was an intended attack on non fron-line public servants from everywhere.  Unfortunately for the back-room public servants they had to contend with the "Front-Line-Public-Servants" attacking them also.  Merely, I point out that this is a typical situation of dividing and conquering.

Please note the above is loosely meant.  Also, apologies for replying so late in the day.  I dont have access to the internet during normal working hours like many on here.


----------



## thedaras (15 Feb 2011)

Ok,thanks for that clarifaction.
Its a pity that its seems at the moment that there are only two solutions being given any creedence,ie.get rid of the lot of them or they should all stay and be paid.
All im trying to do is look for a logical solution.,
the one i posted is obviously not a runner.
I had no agenda other than recognising the great work that some,and not all the ps do,that by getting rid of the slack,would in effect mean that the "frontline" staff could be better protected.
However that would of course include pay related preformance etc for them.
Ah well, at least i tried,would love to hear other ideas that posters have as a real solution.


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> would love to hear other ideas that posters have as a real solution.



Give the Croke park agreement reasonable time to deliver set savings targets. 

If these aren't met by the people on the ground in the public service, they'll have to accept the uniform slash and burn cuts from outside of their control.


----------



## horusd (15 Feb 2011)

> Give the Croke park agreement reasonable time to deliver set savings targets.
> 
> If these aren't met by the people on the ground in the public service, they'll have to accept the uniform slash and burn cuts from outside of their control.


 

DerKaiser, sorry to piggyback on thedaras post, and great earlier post BTW,  but a lot of reports in newspapers and interviews with politicians over recent months  suggest the Croke park agreement is going nowhwhere fast.  From what I hear the problem is mainly on the management side, with failure to implement plans etc. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Leper (16 Feb 2011)

In the Public Service in most instances promotion is through seniority i.e the longer you are there the more likely that you will be eventually promoted.  You may not want the promotion but your senior colleagues will ensure you accept.  The respective trades union will also insist you accept.  This method ensures that the best person for the job is not necessarily the promoted person.

Some areas of the Public Service have competition for all promotions which can be another method of ensuring the wrong person gets the job.

In both instances above occasionally the right person gets promoted.

However, many promoted people know much less than their colleagues and just accept the promotion and sink into the background instead of bringing new life and new methods into the area in which they are now manageme.


----------



## liaconn (16 Feb 2011)

Leper said:


> In the Public Service in most instances promotion is through seniority i.e the longer you are there the more likely that you will be eventually promoted. You may not want the promotion but your senior colleagues will ensure you accept. The respective trades union will also insist you accept. This method ensures that the best person for the job is not necessarily the promoted person.
> 
> Some areas of the Public Service have competition for all promotions which can be another method of ensuring the wrong person gets the job.
> 
> ...


 
That is not true. The majority of promotions in the Public Service are now done by competition and promotion on seniority is very rare and mainly at junior levels. I agree that competitions are not perfect either, and some people are just good at interviews but crap at the job, but there's really no fairer way of doing it in a huge organisation with hundreds and hundreds of staff. It's just not possible to hand pick people for promotion in that situation and some other method has to be found. Also, in the civil service staff move around between sections and are expected to be generalists so interviewing for specific posts rarely happens. | am currently in a post which required a specific skill and for which there was a targetted interview process but it's not a promotion and, when my contract here is finished I will be thrown back into the general pool and will just have to take up the next vacancy in my 'parent' Department. While it's important to have people who can move around and take up posts anywhere, it might also be worthwhile to have a larger number of people who are recruited because of a specific ability or aptitude and try to develop them in that area alone.


----------



## Bill Struth (16 Feb 2011)

liaconn said:


> That is not true. The majority of promotions in the Public Service are now done by competition and promotion on seniority is very rare and mainly at junior levels. I agree that competitions are not perfect either, and some people are just good at interviews but crap at the job, but there's really no fairer way of doing it in a huge organisation with hundreds and hundreds of staff. It's just not possible to hand pick people for promotion in that situation and some other method has to be found. Also, in the civil service staff move around between sections and are expected to be generalists so interviewing for specific posts rarely happens. | am currently in a post which required a specific skill and for which there was a targetted interview process but it's not a promotion and, when my contract here is finished I will be thrown back into the general pool and will just have to take up the next vacancy in my 'parent' Department. While it's important to have people who can move around and take up posts anywhere, *it might also be worthwhile to have a larger number of people who are recruited because of a specific ability or aptitude and try to develop them in that area alone*.


 +1.

I answer queries all day from staff in grades above me who simply don't know enough about legislation and policy. I've been in the office for nearly ten years, I've picked up knowledge along the way. Grades above me have been parachuted in and don't know a lot of the basics of what we as an office do.


----------



## Leper (16 Feb 2011)

Obviously, it depends on which Department, Section, etc what ways promotion is attained.  I think we all agree that some is by competition (interviews) and some by seniority.

I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of the selection process as both are seriously flawed.  In my time in the public service I have seen dundering idiots promoted and occasionally somebody deserving of promotion getting there eventually.

I have even come across two cases where there was a selection process to compete by interview in which two people were disregarded even before the interview as being unsuitable.  The same two people went on later to attain a Masters Degree each.  So much for some peoples' opinions.


----------



## ajapale (16 Feb 2011)

Does the concept of "Front Line" / "Non Front Line" exist outside the public service?


----------



## horusd (16 Feb 2011)

ajapale said:


> Does the concept of "Front Line" / "Non Front Line" exist outside the public service?


 
Good point. It seems a spurious delineation to me.


----------



## Staples (16 Feb 2011)

Leper said:


> In the Public Service in most instances promotion is through seniority i.e the longer you are there the more likely that you will be eventually promoted. You may not want the promotion but your senior colleagues will ensure you accept. The respective trades union will also insist you accept.


 
This is utter tosh.

If the best person isn't promoted (which wouldn't be preserve of the public service btw) it wouldn't be for the reasons offered above.


----------



## Leper (17 Feb 2011)

Whatever my post is, it is not "tosh" but, promotion through length of service over the length of service of a competitor is dying out. I have no problem with this.

Let's go to Bus Eireann and any driver there will clutch onto "seniority" like Tony Soprano grasped money.  The old seniority situation still holds sway there.  

One bus driver recently pointed out to me that if three drivers went into the toilet and there were only two cubicles the more senior drivers had first call.

It might sound unbelieveable, this was the way it was when I was in the Civil Service.


----------



## Deiseblue (17 Feb 2011)

Leper said:


> Whatever my post is, it is not "tosh" but, promotion through length of service over the length of service of a competitor is dying out. I have no problem with this.
> 
> Let's go to Bus Eireann and any driver there will clutch onto "seniority" like Tony Soprano grasped money.  The old seniority situation still holds sway there.
> 
> ...



OK , let's look at seniority for bus drivers in Bus Eireann.

One bus driver has 30 years service & the other has 1 years service but at the end of the day they are still bus drivers & are not competing for promotion ,so exactly what benefits accrue from " seniority "

As for the toilet story , you are right it does sound unbelievable but nonetheless hilarious.


----------



## thedaras (17 Feb 2011)

ajapale said:


> Does the concept of "Front Line" / "Non Front Line" exist outside the public service?


Very good point..


----------



## Caveat (17 Feb 2011)

liaconn said:


> That is not true.


 


Staples said:


> This is utter tosh.


 
C'mon.

I'm not getting into a public/private thing, but I know for a fact that this still happens.  Fair enough, it's certainly much less common than it was (thankfully) but it's still not exactly rare.

I know a locally based public sector section manager who is barely literate, and presides over 3rd level educated staff, has zero management skills, zero HR skills, but he has been there "a long time".

Some of my inlaws work in the civil and public sectors - this culture still very much exists. In fairness maybe I am experiencing the last of the old school before they retire - I hope so.


----------



## liaconn (17 Feb 2011)

Well, speaking for the Civil Service, it happens incredibly rarely now and is mainly confined to junior grades. Where it does still happen, believe me, it causes as much annoyance to other civil servants as to the public. Many of us have had to work with the senior managers who got promoted this way in the dim and distant past and who didn't exactly deserve it. The removal of promotion on seniority was not exactly greeted with cries of dismay.


----------



## Caveat (17 Feb 2011)

OK fair enough Liaconn.


----------



## Shawady (17 Feb 2011)

Just to follow on from Liaconn's point.
I work in the civil service and I have seen promotions where the longest serving person did not get the job. Only recently, the top job in my section went to a person in their 40s. There were other people in for the job with 20 more years experience.

To be fair, I think there may have been a culture in the past if a promotion came up, someone with a few years left to retirement might get the nod to bump up their pension package but I think those days are (rightfully) gone.


----------



## Staples (17 Feb 2011)

Leper said:


> Whatever my post is, it is not "tosh" but, promotion through length of service over the length of service of a competitor is dying out. I have no problem with this.


 
The notion that people are forced by their unions to take promotions is complete tosh. What you describe above is different.

In the more recent past (15/20 years ago) promotions were made mainly on seniority with some regard to merit. It gradually moved to merit with some regard to seniority. In the last 10 years or so, promotions have been made with regard to merit only with no regard to seniority at all. 

That said, there remain people in the system who were promoted, on seniorty, to positions beyond their level of capability. The ones Caveat refers to probably fall into this category.   It will take a while for these people to work their way out of the system. 

The position regarding bus drivers is a bit of red herring. There are none of these in the public sector.


----------



## ajapale (17 Feb 2011)

topic remineder: What could/would be wrong with this? Pay "Front Line" public servants relatively more


----------



## fizzelina (18 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> As I said in my original post..I think the majority of us recognise that the following workers are "front line"..
> Gardai
> Nurses,
> Ambulance drivers,
> ...


 
I would consider Prison Officers to be frontline staff aswell to be honest. Some of the stuff they deal with is shocking and not many would do it......dirty protests, strip searches etc as well as the stress of dealing with prisoners who may be violent, carrying diseases. Personally I think front line staff should be paid more than a counterparty civil servant in an office.


----------



## Leper (18 Feb 2011)

Talking Frontline, don't forget the army (especially the officers), the navy (especially those ashore), the road maintenance people, county council workers, doctors, public counter assistants, Inland Revenue Investigators, etc etc 

And who arranges for them to take pay, annual leave, queries, back-up, etc? It's the Backroom Staff.


----------



## ajapale (18 Feb 2011)

Are IT workers "frontline" or "nonfrontline"? For example the IT staff who look after the patient administration database in hospitals.


----------



## aonfocaleile (18 Feb 2011)

What about civil servants who negotiate EU legislation in Brussels or represent Ireland at international fora such as the UN or OECD? Are they front line staff?

What about state solicitors who work in the DPP or the Chief State Solicitors Office and represent the state in the courts? Are they front line staff?

What about legal advisors in the Attorney Generals Office who advise the civil servants in government departments on complex legal issues and legislation? Are they front line staff?

What about civil servants who work in the various Ministers offices, dealing both with the ministers and callers from the public? Are they front line staff?


What about public servants who work in agencies like MABS or the Citizens Information Service, advising the public on a variety of issues? Are they front line staff?

What about public servants in places like the EPA, the Food Safety Authority or local authorities who carry out inspections to ensure businesses aren't polluting or breaching safety standards? Are they front line staff?

What about public servants in local authorities who clean the streets? Are they front line staff?

This "front line" nonsense irritates me beyond belief! You'd swear from the way certain commentators and politicians go on that there is no value to the work of any public servants aside from teachers, nurses and guards. Traditionally, teachers and nurses (teachers in particular) are the most vocal complainants, who are quick to play the industrial relations card on issues. The most recent example of this is where members of one of the main teaching unions (can't remember which one) voted this week to block the use of the Fas Work Placement Programme in schools, denying valuable work experience to unemployed graduates. They cite "exploitation" but don't seem to be aware that this scheme has operated for years in the private sector and more recently in other parts of the public sector. The Fas scheme is not an issue with any other trade union, but inexplicably, the teachers have a problem with it.


----------



## Deiseblue (19 Feb 2011)

The Union in question is the INTO.

I would point out that the Student Union in St. Patrick's training college representing 2,500 thousand trainee teachers have also come out strongly against this scheme.


----------



## horusd (19 Feb 2011)

aonfocaleile said:


> What about civil servants who negotiate EU legislation in Brussels or represent Ireland at international fora such as the UN or OECD? Are they front line staff?
> 
> What about state solicitors who work in the DPP or the Chief State Solicitors Office and represent the state in the courts? Are they front line staff?
> 
> ...


 
Excellent post. Couldn't agree more. This spurious frontline business is a nonsense.


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> The Union in question is the INTO.
> 
> I would point out that the Student Union in St. Patrick's training college representing 2,500 thousand trainee teachers have also come out strongly against this scheme.


Unions are there to protect the haves; their members, from the have-nots; anyone who would compete with their members for the supply of labour. Taking this into account they will target the unemployed, the migrant workers, those with the required skills who are not members of a union etc. 
Unions strive to keep the poor poor and the protected protected. They are the enemy of those with nothing that want to earn a little more by their own endeavour. They seek to take from those who have more than their members and use that money to keep those below them in a cycle of perpetual dependence.


----------



## Deiseblue (19 Feb 2011)

A Union's main aim is to protect and advance the interests of it's members in the workplace.

Ireland , unlike most other EC countries , does not legislate for the collective bargaining rights of workers and as such whilst employers must recognise the right of workers to join a Union they ( the employers ) are not obliged to negotiate with that Union.

Therefore there is little or no reason for employees of many firms to join Unions.

Thankfully , both FG , Labour & Sinn Fein have all promised to back legislation which will enshrine collective bargaining rights in Irish Law which will ensure a level playing field for all - employees can join a Union confident in the knowledge that Employers will be obliged to recognise not only the rights of employees to join same but the right of said Union to negotiate on behalf of employees.

It should also be remembered that the employment legislation that provides much protection for all workers , whether unionised or not , was introduced at the behest or in consultation with the Union movement here or with European wide Union bodies.


----------



## Purple (19 Feb 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> A Union's main aim is to protect and advance the interests of it's members in the workplace.


Agreed.  Since open competition is not in the interest of their members they will seek to protect them from it. That means those who would seek to compete with their members are their enemy. That’s the unemployed and poor who want to better themselves.




Deiseblue said:


> employees can join a Union confident in the knowledge that Employers will be obliged to recognise not only the rights of employees to join same but the right of said Union to negotiate on behalf of employees.


I can say with certainty in the case of my own business that if we arrive at the stage where we have to deal directly with a union we will close the business and over 100 people will lose their job.
I can also say that many SME business owners I know would do the same thing.


I am opposed to the conduct of existing Irish unions because they have betrayed everything they were founded to espouse. This is a big issue for me because of the strong involvement that my family had in the foundation of the Irish Union movement.   

Every time I hear Jack O’Connor or his ilk speak I am reminded of Orwell’s Animal Farm.


----------



## Deiseblue (19 Feb 2011)

Talking about open competition , we have the most restrictive Union rights in the EC in that you can join a Union but employers do not have to recognise or negotiate with that Union.

Given this position obviously a rift has arisen between unionised and non-unionised workers , permit me a generalisation - non-unionised workers are envious of the terms & conditions and protection enjoyed by unionised workers particularly when their work is broadly similar & as such a degree of bitterness is only to be expected.

However with the enshrinement of collective bargaining rights in Irish Law as well as the European Charter it will become far easier for prospective members to join and far easier for Unions to recruit .

As for closing businesses because Unions can legally represent employees this seems to be an extreme case of cutting off your nose to spite your face , particularly in the case of your workplace where you have previously maintained that Union involvement would drive down pay costs.

Obviously in instances of such benevolent employers workers may not feel that they require a union to represent them - but with the introduction of new legislation they will now at least have the choice.

I note your families tradition of Trade Union involvement & as you say that you agree with me that any Unions main function is" to protect and advance the interests of it's members in the workplace " then they can hardly be accused of betraying that most basic of Union commandments - can they ?

.


----------



## ajapale (19 Feb 2011)

Topic Reminder: Pay "Front Line" public servants relatively more/or pay "Non Front line" public servants relatively less.

I accept that this discussion needs discussion of the role of Trade Unions but suggest we need to keep the focus on this notion of "front line" public servants. If we dont the thread will surely deteriorate.

aj

mod


----------



## onq (19 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> Thinking about the state of the country and recognising that some of those in the public service should be paid more than others I thought of a solution that may have no basis for implementing,but here goes!
> 
> I think the majority of us recognise that the following workers are "front line"..
> Gardai
> ...




A garda pulling overtime can double his income - it would probably be better practice to employ another garda.

I think the emphasis has to be on education and social mores to restrict self-destructive behaviour to reasonable levels, and that includes over indulging in drink and drugs and cigarettes.
And I think certain sections of the population need to be targetted in a pro-active way to help them address these issues, first by getting them to see the need, and no, I do NOT mean the lower demographics.

Gerry Ryan's death showed us that drug dependency occurs in every social stratum, so the "section" could cover a lot of ground, but this needs to be done, and not in a moralising way.
A simple feedback loop with early intervention in schools showing kids where over indulgence in drink and drugs lead is the best way forward, IMO.

So to return to your question, no, I don't think front line staff should be paid more or increased.
We need more people in the field educating younger people in how to avoid pitfalls that create the need for the level of frontline staff we have.

ONQ.


----------



## Leper (20 Feb 2011)

The word "Frontline" is a misnomer and is just another soundbyte for politicians and other crooks.


----------



## liaconn (21 Feb 2011)

fizzelina said:


> I would consider Prison Officers to be frontline staff aswell to be honest. Some of the stuff they deal with is shocking and not many would do it......dirty protests, strip searches etc as well as the stress of dealing with prisoners who may be violent, carrying diseases. Personally I think front line staff should be paid more than a counterparty civil servant in an office.


 
Very general statement. Not all 'civil servants in an office' are sitting at a desk processing forms and writing up minutes of meetings all day. I totally agree with aonfocaleile's post and am fed up of this lazy stereotyping of people doing desk jobs. Many of them are doing equally or more important work as the people out on the frontline.
Also, are you saying a Prison Officer should be paid more that the Secretary General of a Department????


----------



## Complainer (21 Feb 2011)

Leper said:


> The word "Frontline" is a misnomer and is just another soundbyte for politicians and other crooks.



You've seen Pat Kenny's show then?


----------



## thedaras (21 Feb 2011)

liaconn said:


> Very general statement. Not all 'civil servants in an office' are sitting at a desk processing forms and writing up minutes of meetings all day. I totally agree with aonfocaleile's post and am fed up of this lazy stereotyping of people doing desk jobs. Many of them are doing equally or more important work as the people out on the frontline.
> Also, are you saying a Prison Officer should be paid more that the Secretary General of a Department????



As I have said before,why dont those who feel they are also "frontline",take it up with the unions?
Amazing that the union only mention ,Guards,teachers,nurses etc when they speak about the frontline..


----------



## liaconn (21 Feb 2011)

Why should the PS be divided into 'frontline' and 'not frontline' for pay???  Do you seriously think that the 'frontline' could operate effectively without the backroom staff. Also, why should a teacher or nurse be paid more than someone drafting important legislation or working to encourage foreign direct investment. It is such a totally ridiculous argument, it really is.


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2011)

liaconn said:


> Why should the PS be divided into 'frontline' and 'not frontline' for pay???  Do you seriously think that the 'frontline' could operate effectively without the backroom staff. Also, why should a teacher or nurse be paid more than someone drafting important legislation or working to encourage foreign direct investment. It is such a totally ridiculous argument, it really is.



+1.
The point has been made a number of times so far on this thread.


----------



## thedaras (21 Feb 2011)

Do the unions not know this then?
It is the unions that keep mentioning the frontline.
I can only presume that they want us to believe there is a "frontline"?
Why are other so called non frontline members not taking this up with the unions?


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> Do the unions not know this then?
> It is the unions that keep mentioning the frontline.
> I can only presume that they want us to believe there is a "frontline"?
> Why are other so called non frontline members not taking this up with the unions?



I wouldn't judge all public sector employees by the standards of public sector unions just as I wouldn't judge all English football fans by the standards of the English Defence League.


----------



## fizzelina (21 Feb 2011)

liaconn said:


> I totally agree with aonfocaleile's post and am fed up of this lazy stereotyping of people doing desk jobs. Many of them are doing equally or more important work as the people out on the frontline.
> Also, are you saying a Prison Officer should be paid more that the Secretary General of a Department????


 
Equally or more important work put aside, those desk job employees are not working in a dangerous environment, with the threat of assault, violence,harm or injury (like a guard, prison officer, fire brigade worker) So I am not lazily stereotyping I just have a different opinion than you. I think those desk jobs are different since they don't deal with these issues I mention. 
And where did I say that a Prison Officer should be paid more than the secretary of a department? (only 1 question mark needed)


----------



## thedaras (21 Feb 2011)

Purple said:


> I wouldn't judge all public sector employees by the standards of public sector unions just as I wouldn't judge all English football fans by the standards of the English Defence League.



I see what you mean, however, the point is that as I understand it the majority of the PS are represented by the unions,the very unions that say there are frontline staff.

Also Im saying that if the PS non frontline people had a problem with the unions calling certain people frontline,they should take it up with them.But so far I haven't heard any challenge as to who the frontline staff are.

Perhaps the unions are more out of touch with their members than they realise.


----------



## thedaras (21 Feb 2011)

fizzelina said:


> Equally or more important work put aside, those desk job employees are not working in a dangerous environment, with the threat of assault, violence,harm or injury (like a guard, prison officer, fire brigade worker) So I am not lazily stereotyping I just have a different opinion than you. I think those desk jobs are different since they don't deal with these issues I mention.
> And where did I say that a Prison Officer should be paid more than the secretary of a department? (only 1 question mark needed)



Would you agree that it is not members of the public who are deciding who the "frontline " staff are.,it is in fact the unions who have decided this?


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Feb 2011)

Purple said:


> +1.
> The point has been made a number of times so far on this thread.



I agree completely.

But some people will persist !


----------



## liaconn (21 Feb 2011)

fizzelina said:


> Equally or more important work put aside, those desk job employees are not working in a dangerous environment, with the threat of assault, violence,harm or injury (like a guard, prison officer, fire brigade worker) So I am not lazily stereotyping I just have a different opinion than you. I think those desk jobs are different since they don't deal with these issues I mention.
> And where did I say that a Prison Officer should be paid more than the secretary of a department? (only 1 question mark needed)


 

You said that prison officers should be paid more than civil servants working in an office, and a Sec Gen works in an office.

Why should rates of pay be decided solely on how dangerous an environment is? Surely ability to negotiate on behalf of Ireland at EU working groups, or devise policies to attract multi nationals to set up companies in Ireland, or draw up strategies to assist the socially excluded, or all the other crucially important things that 'desk jobs' entail also need to be taken into account. You seem to have a very old fashioned and limited idea of desk jobs in the public service. Some of those people are carrying out vital work, you know, even if they don't come home in the evening covered in blood.


----------



## thedaras (21 Feb 2011)

Why will those who seem very involved in the unions not answer the elephant in the room question..Why do their unions call only certain members Frontline??


----------



## Leper (21 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> Why will those who seem very involved in the unions not answer the elephant in the room question..Why do their unions call only certain members Frontline??


 
Newsflash guys, the unions are paid to represent their members.  The term frontline originated with the usual stuff from politicians trying to make themselves look good in front of the Gardaí and Nurses etc.  The unions cottoned onto the term also and use it to appease their members.


----------



## daithi (21 Feb 2011)

*frontline staff*

The HSE in their attempt to reduce staff numbers by offering  the redundancy package have  distinguished between front line and non- frontline staff by offering said package to non front line staff only...

daithi


----------



## gianni (21 Feb 2011)

fizzelina said:


> Equally or more important work put aside, those desk job employees are not working in a dangerous environment, with the threat of assault, violence,harm or injury...



How much should the lion tamer in Fossetts circus get paid ?


----------



## DonDub (21 Feb 2011)

Interesting to hear A&E consultant  on Charlie Bird programme this evening - saying that the failure of the the health service is the responsibility of consultants, doctors, nurses,management and other staff. It was refreshing to hear an 'insider' call it as it is. 
The unions representing front line staff are well organised and well resourced - yes, many of these staff work hard, but guess what - hundreds of thousands of workers in the private sector work hard, but without any guarantees on income and job security.
Vested interest groups will generally fight 'tooth and nail' to advance their members interests - regardless of the consequences for others. Therefore, we need government to force the required reforms in the public sector - as no amount of negotiations will lead to any meaningful changes.
Farmers, teachers, nurses, doctors, consultants, dentists, pharmacists, bankers, lawyers, and of course politicians, have consistently demonstrated a willingness to put their 'special interests' ahead of the interests of their fellow citizens, and of the country.


----------



## Complainer (21 Feb 2011)

DonDub said:


> The unions representing front line staff are well organised and well resourced - yes, many of these staff work hard, but guess what - hundreds of thousands of workers in the private sector work hard, but without any guarantees on income and job security.


Just like the hundreds of thousands of public sector staff who work hard and have no guarantees on income or job security.


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2011)

Complainer said:


> Just like the hundreds of thousands of public sector staff who work hard and have no guarantees on income or job security.



try answering the substantive points made.


----------



## DonDub (21 Feb 2011)

Complainer said:


> Just like the hundreds of thousands of public sector staff who work hard and have no guarantees on income or job security.



The day a public sector worker in this state is made compulsory redundant is a day that 'pigs will fly'. In fact, I don't ever recall a PS worker (AT ANY LEVEL) being fired for persistent poor performance - quite remarkable, given that there are  c.350,000 of them.
Oh, and on income - they have the shameful Croke Park deal to protect their earnings. When Jack and the lads emerge from hiding after the election, I'm sure that they will play the old tune again... efficiencies will deliver the required savings......oh wait, I think I saw a pig fly past the window......oh no, it was just another plane load of involuntary emigrants leaving the country......


----------



## Purple (21 Feb 2011)

DonDub, don't be distracted from the main points you made:
_"Interesting to hear A&E consultant on Charlie Bird programme this evening - saying that the failure of the the health service is the responsibility of consultants, doctors, nurses,management and other staff. It was refreshing to hear an 'insider' call it as it is." 

"Vested interest groups will generally fight 'tooth and nail' to advance their members interests - regardless of the consequences for others. Therefore, we need government to force the required reforms in the public sector - as no amount of negotiations will lead to any meaningful changes."_
You are being drawn into a Public V Private sector debate.


----------



## Complainer (21 Feb 2011)

DonDub said:


> The day a public sector worker in this state is made compulsory redundant is a day that 'pigs will fly'. In fact, I don't ever recall a PS worker (AT ANY LEVEL) being fired for persistent poor performance - quite remarkable, given that there are  c.350,000 of them.
> Oh, and on income - they have the shameful Croke Park deal to protect their earnings. When Jack and the lads emerge from hiding after the election, I'm sure that they will play the old tune again... efficiencies will deliver the required savings......oh wait, I think I saw a pig fly past the window......oh no, it was just another plane load of involuntary emigrants leaving the country......



Public sector works are indeed fired for persistent poor performance. I've seen a couple of cases myself, and I've heard of any others.

On income, the public sector is the one and only sector where every single staff member (with a tiny number of exceptions at the most senior level) have taken substantial staff cuts already.

Sorry if the facts don't suit your story - but fire away anyway.


----------



## thedaras (21 Feb 2011)

DonDub said:


> Interesting to hear A&E consultant  on Charlie Bird programme this evening - saying that the failure of the the health service is the responsibility of consultants, doctors, nurses,management and other staff. It was refreshing to hear an 'insider' call it as it is.
> The unions representing front line staff are well organised and well resourced - yes, many of these staff work hard, but guess what - hundreds of thousands of workers in the private sector work hard, but without any guarantees on income and job security.
> Vested interest groups will generally fight 'tooth and nail' to advance their members interests - regardless of the consequences for others. Therefore, we need government to force the required reforms in the public sector - as no amount of negotiations will lead to any meaningful changes.
> Farmers, teachers, nurses, doctors, consultants, dentists, pharmacists, bankers, lawyers, and of course politicians, have consistently demonstrated a willingness to put their 'special interests' ahead of the interests of their fellow citizens, and of the country.


Plus 1..


----------



## becky (22 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> Why will those who seem very involved in the unions not answer the elephant in the room question..Why do their unions call only certain members Frontline??



As a public sector worker who isn't considered frontine, I don't really have a problem with the term. 

It's a term used to bundle together a group of staff like EMT's ED Nurses, etc..  

If we as union members insist on the non use of the term they will just come up with another one.  How about Acute Health - Operational, Critical Health Service Provider.  Then they'll shorten these to AHO's, CHSP's so to be honest I'd sooner stick with frontline.


----------



## thedaras (22 Feb 2011)

becky said:


> As a public sector worker who isn't considered frontine, I don't really have a problem with the term.
> 
> It's a term used to bundle together a group of staff like EMT's ED Nurses, etc..
> 
> If we as union members insist on the non use of the term they will just come up with another one.  How about Acute Health - Operational, Critical Health Service Provider.  Then they'll shorten these to AHO's, CHSP's so to be honest I'd sooner stick with frontline.



The problem is Becky that there are other staff in the PS,who feel they are also frontline..you just have to look through this thread to see how offended some are by the term frontline only applying to Guards,Nurses,etc..


----------



## Shawady (22 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> Why do their unions call only certain members Frontline??


 
I started a thread on AAM last year called Public Sector V Public Sector. The whole issue of Frontline versus Non-Frontline may be part of that. 
The government has made a commitment not to cut core pay for public sector workers. However, there are many public sector workers that receive allowances on top of their core pay. Some of these may be outdated and the government will try cut these. 
The staff that have been considered 'frontline' on this thread are nurses, teachers, guards, which as far as I know receive allowances. So this may be an attempt by their own unions to make the people they represent sound more important than the 'background' staff, which has already been pointed out is not correct anyway.


----------



## liaconn (22 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> The problem is Becky that there are other staff in the PS,who feel they are also frontline..you just have to look through this thread to see how offended some are by the term frontline only applying to Guards,Nurses,etc..


 
No one is offended at not being called frontline thedaras. They are offended at the suggestion that non frontline staff should automatically be paid less than frontline staff and have pointed out the flaws in that proposal.

Do you suggest that shop assistants should be paid more than the store's accounts staff or  PR and marketing people because they're frontline?


----------



## liaconn (22 Feb 2011)

DonDub said:


> The day a public sector worker in this state is made compulsory redundant is a day that 'pigs will fly'. In fact, I don't ever recall a PS worker (AT ANY LEVEL) being fired for persistent poor performance - quite remarkable, given that there are c.350,000 of them.
> Oh, and on income - they have the shameful Croke Park deal to protect their earnings. When Jack and the lads emerge from hiding after the election, I'm sure that they will play the old tune again... efficiencies will deliver the required savings......oh wait, I think I saw a pig fly past the window......oh no, it was just another plane load of involuntary emigrants leaving the country......


 
Out of interest, DonDub, what has this got to do with the subject of the thread???


----------



## csirl (22 Feb 2011)

Should the commerical property loan managers in Anglo Irish who gave out large loans to any self styled 'developer' who walked in off the street now be considered as front line public servants and be paid more?


----------



## Bill Struth (22 Feb 2011)

DonDub said:


> The day a public sector worker in this state is made compulsory redundant is a day that 'pigs will fly'. In fact, I don't ever recall a PS worker (AT ANY LEVEL) being fired for persistent poor performance - quite remarkable, given that there are c.350,000 of them.
> Oh, and on income - they have the shameful Croke Park deal to protect their earnings. When Jack and the lads emerge from hiding after the election, I'm sure that they will play the old tune again... efficiencies will deliver the required savings......oh wait, I think I saw a pig fly past the window......oh no, it was just another plane load of involuntary emigrants leaving the country......


----------



## thedaras (22 Feb 2011)

liaconn said:


> No one is offended at not being called frontline thedaras. They are offended at the suggestion that non frontline staff should automatically be paid less than frontline staff and have pointed out the flaws in that proposal.
> 
> Do you suggest that shop assistants should be paid more than the store's accounts staff or  PR and marketing people because they're frontline?



It is the union representing these people who are leading us to believe that only some staff are frontline.

Should we disregard what the unions are saying?

Are the other PS workers being unfairly treated by the unions representing them?


----------



## liaconn (22 Feb 2011)

But only some staff _*are *_frontline. And of course the unions are going to bang on about them because, in a strike situation, their absence is the one that's most immediately noticed, although long term it would be different.. It's the same in any company. What's being queried is your statement that frontline staff should be paid more, something I haven't seen you justify yet and for which I can't see any long term strategic advantage. Are you saying that nurses and teachers and prison officers should decide on health and education and justice policies entirely on their own??


----------



## Staples (23 Feb 2011)

thedaras said:


> It is the union representing these people who are leading us to believe that only some staff are frontline.
> 
> Should we disregard what the unions are saying?
> 
> Are the other PS workers being unfairly treated by the unions representing them?


 
In my opinion, the unions are not suggesting that frontline staff should be treated more favourably than their back office colleagues.  Nor do I believe that they regard frontline work as having a greater value.  Quite the opposite in fact.

They are making the point that any reduction in public service numbers will have a proportional impact on the extent to which frontline services can continue to be provided.  It challenges the popular belief that there is sufficient waste in the "back office" to accommodate all the required reductions in staff numbers and that we can expect to have the same level of public services delivered by significantly less people. 

The reduction in frontline numbers, which is more apparent to the public, is merely offered as evidence of the extent to which the availability of public services will continue to diminish as a consequence of a reduction in staff numbers.  I've made that point before on this site.  

Sure, there can be greater efficiencies and most staff are only too happy to play their part.  But the notion that this alone will compensate for the proposed redcuction in staff numbers without any impact on services to the public is just wrong.


----------



## liaconn (23 Feb 2011)

Exactly. Most types of organisation have 'frontline' and back room staff. But no one's saying that sales reps should be paid more than the company's human resource staff,  or that the girl who sells you the dress should be paid more than the designer or the dressmaker. It's a very foolish argument in my view.


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2011)

liaconn said:


> Exactly. Most types of organisation have 'frontline' and back room staff. But no one's saying that sales reps should be paid more than the company's human resource staff,  or that the girl who sells you the dress should be paid more than the designer or the dressmaker. It's a very foolish argument in my view.



Yea but if we stopped having foolish arguments there'd be very little to talk about.


----------



## liaconn (24 Feb 2011)

So true.


----------

