# Article by FINTAN O'TOOLE in Irish Times today says it all



## NOAH (2 Nov 2010)

Its worth reproducing every day in every paper for the foreseeable future and maybe just maybe the TD's and others may see the light.  Too many in this country are paid far far more than they are worth.

link

[broken link removed]


noah


----------



## shanegl (2 Nov 2010)

"Only people who earn more than me don't deserve it"

He used to favour capping salaries at 80,000. Must have got himself a payrise.


----------



## Firefly (3 Nov 2010)

Anyone else think that our bond rates would fall if FOT's proposal to cap public salaries at 100k was implemented?


----------



## Complainer (3 Nov 2010)

Why would you limit this to public sector salaries? If we really want to bring prices down, then it should be an across the board cap - maximum salary for everybody. Could be done fairly easily through taxation.


----------



## micmclo (3 Nov 2010)

But why for the private sector?

If you are CEO of a successful exporter like Kerry Group and most of your profits are abroad, who does someone get to dictate your wages?

Dawn Foods signed a 700 million euro contract to supply Subway for Europe and now the top people's salary are too high it seems


----------



## Complainer (3 Nov 2010)

I see, so the only achievements that we recognise and reward are financial achievements by businesses. Achievements in provide excellent public services are not worthy of reward.


----------



## Ceist Beag (3 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> I see, so the only achievements that we recognise and reward are financial achievements by businesses. Achievements in provide excellent public services are not worthy of reward.



Apples and oranges Complainer. Think of it this way, if Glanbia were struggling and making losses, their shareholders would more than likely demand pay cuts at the top. Do you think this should mean that Ryanair who are making profits should also cut the pay of their board? We (as shareholders in the public sector of this country) should be entitled to demand pay caps in the public sector as we contribute towards their pay, but we have no such right to demand anything of private companies.


----------



## shnaek (3 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> I see, so the only achievements that we recognise and reward are financial achievements by businesses. Achievements in provide excellent public services are not worthy of reward.


Where are the excellent public services? 
I do agree though - people should be paid well when they do a good job, and be sacked or demoted when they don't. It's the latter part of the equation that we are missing here.


----------



## DerKaiser (3 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Why would you limit this to public sector salaries? If we really want to bring prices down, then it should be an across the board cap - maximum salary for everybody. Could be done fairly easily through taxation.


 
I presume this is 100% meant to point out how silly salary caps are?

I normally disagree with Tintin O' Fool and reckon he regularly displays gaping holes in his understanding of the subject matter at hand, but I like the spirit of this to an extent.

Let's not have civil unrest, instead, could someone put together a huge petition whereby we the public agree to endure certain cuts subject to say a 25% to 30% cut in the pay of politicians and very senior civil servants.

I agree with the idea that politicians and the most senior public servants should be as capable and well paid as those in the private sector but I just don't see that paying higher salaries has attracted better people over the last 10 years. 

Politics is dominated by dynasties and this is a big hurdle to getting more capable people involved as is the parochial nature of the current structure.

The public service, meanwhile, is not structured like a private enterprise. There is very little performance appraisal and a bigger likelihood of advancement through years experience than capability. Coupled with the fact that it seems difficult for someone who hasn't come up through the ranks to get in, it makes the likelihood of having top civil servants on a par with those in private enterprise lower.

So, yes get the most capable people into politics and the top layers of the public service and pay them their worth. But paying the incumbants salaries comparable to the best in the private sector alone does not attract the most capable. 

Alter the structures to open up politics and the top layers of the public service to the most capable and then pay higher salaries. In the meantime, the incumbants shouldn't expect €100-200k p.a. plus for simply taking over their daddy's seat or steadily working their way through the layers of civil service for 20 years with no great ability.

By the way, there are plenty of examples of less capable people in the private sector top jobs e.g. banks, but I do believe by and large that the private sector tolerates this to a lesser extent


----------



## Firefly (3 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Why would you limit this to public sector salaries?



Because we'd, the taxpayers, can't afford to pay them.


----------



## Complainer (3 Nov 2010)

Ceist Beag said:


> Apples and oranges Complainer. Think of it this way, if Glanbia were struggling and making losses, their shareholders would more than likely demand pay cuts at the top. Do you think this should mean that Ryanair who are making profits should also cut the pay of their board? We (as shareholders in the public sector of this country) should be entitled to demand pay caps in the public sector as we contribute towards their pay, but we have no such right to demand anything of private companies.



Actually, we do - we have the right to demand that private companies pay there fair share of tax for start, which they aren't doing at present. 



shnaek said:


> Where are the excellent public services?


The media aren't that interested in hearing about great public services. They don't report on the 1000's of medical procedures carried out successfully each day. They report on the one that screwed up. They don't report on the 1000's of safety inspections carried out by HSA staff every day. They don't report on the 1000s of tourists that visit the National Museum/National Gallery/Cliffs of Moher each day. There are plenty of excellent public services out there. Don't expect them to hit the headlines.




Firefly said:


> Because we'd, the taxpayers, can't afford to pay them.



But we, the consumers, can afford to pay the exorbitant salaries?



DerKaiser said:


> I presume this is 100% meant to point out how silly salary caps are?
> 
> I normally disagree with Tintin O' Fool and reckon he regularly displays gaping holes in his understanding of the subject matter at hand, but I like the spirit of this to an extent.
> 
> ...



There are certainly some outragous salaries within the public sector, and particularly within some specific agencies. It's a sad day when I find myself agreeing with Shane Ross, but when he pointed out that the head of the Irish Human Rights Commission earns more than the SecGen of the UN, we know that something has gone badly wrong.

Many of your criticisms of the public services are about 10 years out of date. Recruitment at senior level has been open to all, including private sector people for a few years now. We've just seen the Eircom guy taking over as head of HSE, for example. Your points about performance management have been addressed for some years now with PMDS - it's not a perfect system, but it is about as effective as anything I've seen in the private sector. The political dynasties are more a symptom of political interest in families than about families holding onto power. Party members don't suffer fools gladly, and the next generation don't get into party positions unless they are capable.

However, one-sided caps would be a recipe for a disaster. It would drive the best and brightest out of the public sector for a generation. If we don't have great public servants, we won't have great public services.


----------



## Firefly (3 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> But we, the consumers, can afford to pay the exorbitant salaries?



Consumers have where competition exists a choice on what goods/services they buy in the private sector



Complainer said:


> However, one-sided caps would be a recipe for a disaster. It would drive the best and brightest out of the public sector for a generation. If we don't have great public servants, we won't have great public services.



Drive them where exactly...the private sector?


----------



## Ceist Beag (3 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Actually, we do - we have the right to demand that private companies pay there fair share of tax for start, which they aren't doing at present.


Huh? What's that got to do with the discussion on salary caps? You seem to be arguing just for the sake of it today Complainer!


----------



## Complainer (3 Nov 2010)

Ceist Beag said:


> Huh? What's that got to do with the discussion on salary caps? You seem to be arguing just for the sake of it today Complainer!


Fair point- siege mentality!



Firefly said:


> Consumers have where competition exists a choice on what goods/services they buy in the private sector


Indeed - a chose of a whole range of suppliers that all pay exorbitant salaries to their head honchos. Hobson's choice.



Firefly said:


> Drive them where exactly...the private sector?


To the private sector, or to Europe, or the UN, or to retirement. Take your pick.


----------



## Firefly (3 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Fair point- siege mentality!
> 
> 
> Indeed - a chose of a whole range of suppliers that all pay exorbitant salaries to their head honchos. Hobson's choice.



Only because they can...if they're not profitable they can't.



Complainer said:


> To the private sector, or to Europe, or the UN, or to retirement. Take your pick.



Last time I looked there were not too many positions with salaries and benefits like that in the private sector. Europe and the UN - paid by taxpayers somewhere else, retirement - paid by taxpayers here.


----------



## Complainer (3 Nov 2010)

Firefly said:


> Only because they can...if they're not profitable they can't.


Indeed - because they can get away with charging excessive prices, because every one else charges pretty much the same prices.



Firefly said:


> Last time I looked there were not too many positions with salaries and benefits like that in the private sector. Europe and the UN - paid by taxpayers somewhere else, retirement - paid by taxpayers here.



How hard did you look? 

10+ jobs at €100k here; http://jobsearch.monster.ie/Search.aspx?q=€100k&cy=ie&lid=173

EU grade AD11 or higher would exceed €100k pa. 

1 x AD11 post; http://europa.eu/epso/apply/today/spe_en.htm
3 x AD12 posts; http://europa.eu/epso/apply/on_going_compet/hou/index_en.htm
5 x AD12 posts; http://europa.eu/epso/apply/on_going_compet/adm/index_en.htm


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2010)

Fintan has been busy writing his new book (_"Fintan O’Toole will discuss his new book, Enough is Enough , at a public forum in Liberty Hall theatre in Dublin on Thursday at 7.30pm"_) but I didn't think he'd get Vincent Browne to do his homework for him!

BTW, I hope Fintan doesn't claim the artists tax exemption for his books (though if only we all agreed with him we'd be living in a socialist utopia).

Look, the core problem isn't that the people are the top are overpaid. The core problem is that they aren't able to do their job. In that I agree with him but the notion of a pay cap for the sake of it, in the public or private sector, in populist rubbish. Increase income taxes for high earners or whatever but a pay cap is daft.


----------



## Sunny (3 Nov 2010)

I agree purple. I have no problem paying people high salaries but I do have a problem with them not doing their job or having any sort of accountability. Amazing how high salary seems to equate to zero responsibility. It's the one common feature that the public and private sector share.


----------



## RMCF (3 Nov 2010)

I'm fed up with Fintan O'Toole. Never off the bloody radio. All because he has yet another book to sell.

And time Matt Cooper stopped the love-in with Fintan.


----------



## Firefly (4 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Indeed - because they can get away with charging excessive prices, because every one else charges pretty much the same prices.
> 
> How hard did you look?
> 
> 10+ jobs at €100k here; http://jobsearch.monster.ie/Search.aspx?q=€100k&cy=ie&lid=173



*14 jobs* (6 of which are based in Riyadh) - whoopee. The Irish ones are all "upto" 100k also - headline rates.


----------



## Yorrick (4 Nov 2010)

People say that we are fed up with the politicians, the same old faces for years.
Surely doesn't that apply to journalists as well, O Toole, Ruane, Browne, Duffy  etc.
At least we can vote out the politicians


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2010)

Well said Yorrick; the media golden circle. They invite each other onto their radio and TV shows and plug each other’s books etc. Cronyism at its best.


----------



## Chris (4 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> Actually, we do - we have the right to demand that private companies pay there fair share of tax for start, which they aren't doing at present.


So let's cut off the hand that feeds the mouth. Private companies are providing more than their fair share to society by providing employment. And while their profits are taxed at quite a low rate in this country, that is not the end of taxation, as shareholders have to pay tax on their income as well, which comes from the companies' profits.



Complainer said:


> The media aren't that interested in hearing about great public services. They don't report on the 1000's of medical procedures carried out successfully each day. They report on the one that screwed up. They don't report on the 1000's of safety inspections carried out by HSA staff every day. They don't report on the 1000s of tourists that visit the National Museum/National Gallery/Cliffs of Moher each day. There are plenty of excellent public services out there. Don't expect them to hit the headlines.
> 
> However, one-sided caps would be a recipe for a disaster. It would drive the best and brightest out of the public sector for a generation. If we don't have great public servants, we won't have great public services.


But this argument assumes (a) that these services would not be provided by private enterprises if government didn't have the monopoly and (b) if they were provided by private enterprises that the services would not be better and/or cheaper.
All of the services monopolised by government cannot be judged in any meaningful way, as there is no alternative to compare them to. Maybe the service is good, but that doesn't mean that the money spent on it is well or efficiently spent, including wages. I don't think the question should revolve around only how much senior civil servants are paid, but more importantly, is there any need for the services and civil servants in the first place. Merely assuming that everything government does, and sets out to do, is necessary and money well spent, has led to the mess this country is in.



Complainer said:


> Indeed - because they can get away with charging excessive prices, because every one else charges pretty much the same prices.


They can only charge prices that consumers are willing to pay. Prices are set by supply and demand, and unless there is sufficient demand at a certain price a company will not remain profitable. 
This argument has zero merit, and ignores the fact that, in regards to prices, there is a market equilibrium, where prices tend to the same level. Using such arguments, private enterprises could never win in the public eye: 
(1) If a company is large and resourceful and can charge significantly less than all others, then this is bad because they are "unfairly" bullying out competitors.
(2) If a company starts charging way more than competitors, this is bad as the company is ripping off the public.
(3) If a company charges the same as everyone else, this is bad as it is a price cartel.

At the same time, prices charged go up the more difficult it is for competition to enter the market. The most obvious examples of uncompetitive areas of the economy are medical services (GPs, Pharmacies), financial services and energy providers.
Let's look at parts of the economy where government doesn't directly meddle in, and ask yourself when you last heard someone complain about rip-off prices *without* having a cheaper alternative available here or abroad:
(1) clothing, yes we are charged more here for certain branded products than abroad, but you can buy extremely cheap clothes here and abroad
(2) food, with thanks to especially two German retailers the cost of food has been driven down significantly
(3) kitchen appliances and consumer electronics, yes a Miele integrated dishwasher or an iPod are not cheap, but there are very good and cheaper alternatives available




Sunny said:


> I agree purple. I have no problem paying people high salaries but I do have a problem with them not doing their job or having any sort of accountability. Amazing how high salary seems to equate to zero responsibility. It's the one common feature that the public and private sector share.


Not doing the job is certainly one serious problem. The other problem is doing a job that is completely unnecessary, or could be provided cheaper and/or better by a private competitive industry. I think there is too much focus on reducing wages and not enough focus on reducing numbers.


----------



## TarfHead (4 Nov 2010)

Not so much what he had in his newspaper opinion piece, but what he refers to in his new book, as reported in the weekend's Irish Times.

In summary he thinks we need less TDs and for them to give up on the local clientilism.

A couple of days earlier, the same paper printed a photo of 3 Healy-Raes 'triumphantly' walking along the new Castleisland bypass.

It's all very well for a '_leftie liberal media elite_' like FOT to demand new things of TDs, but for every one of him, there are a hundred others in places like Castleisland who demand that their TD delivers locally.

And a book or an opinion piece or a meeting in Liberty Hall won't change that any time soon.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2010)

While we have our current electoral system and our current political system nothing will change. 
We need to get rid of the single transferrable vote as it gives the balance of power to local lobby groups and extremists.
We need to separate our legislature from our government.
Until we do both of the above we will have glorified county councillors running the country.


----------



## Protocol (4 Nov 2010)

TarfHead said:


> In summary he thinks we need less TDs and for them to give up on the local clientilism.
> 
> A couple of days earlier, the same paper printed a photo of 3 Healy-Raes 'triumphantly' walking along the new Castleisland bypass.
> 
> ...


 ...


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Nov 2010)

As if to prove your point Protocol here's the latest from Healy Rae. But you can bet he will be voted in again by all those who only care about what their TD does for themselves at a local level!


----------

