# Some 8,000 public jobs face axe



## Sapling (7 Oct 2012)

I read this on the Irish Times a while ago tonight. I wonder does anyone know who this applies to:

I looked up the definition of the public service but I don't really know which groups this might include/exclude especially when you see the sectors advertised on publicjobs.

Thats my first question: who is exempt/included?

Second question is how might this process work: timeline, application or invitation.. age and any other factors that apply.


----------



## gipimann (7 Oct 2012)

My understanding is that the details are being worked out (as in who might be excluded from applying).

If it works as it did in the HSE in 2010, a list of eligible staff grades was made available - if your grade wasn't on the list, you weren't eligible.   

If you were eligible, you logged an expression of interest and HR calculated your redundancy entitlements (which weren't as generous as the headlines suggested), if you were happy with that, you applied and left by the final date (31 Dec if I recall).


----------



## Fiskar (7 Oct 2012)

If it works anything like the redundancy package in this thread there will be no reduction in numbers just a regular FG and Labour golden handshake.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=172406

These guys are setting the country up for a pensions timebomb, you reduce numbers but you have to pay them a lump sum and pensions. No thought what so ever in this at all. Public perception of numbers dropping but no real deal or reduction in pay.


----------



## mandelbrot (7 Oct 2012)

Fiskar said:


> If it works anything like the redundancy package in this thread there will be no reduction in numbers just a regular FG and Labour golden handshake.
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=172406
> 
> These guys are setting the country up for a pensions timebomb, you reduce numbers but you have to pay them a lump sum and pensions. No thought what so ever in this at all. Public perception of numbers dropping but no real deal or reduction in pay.



You really should check things out before letting your mouth (or keyboard) run away with you. The real lack of thought seems to be on your part in conflating 2 very different things.

You've just posted a link to a retirement scheme - this is a redundancy scheme - You do understand the difference between the two I hope??

Read this, compare it with what happened back in February, and come back if you're struggling to see the difference and I'll spell it out for you  [broken link removed]


----------



## ajapale (8 Oct 2012)

Sapling said:


> I read this on the Irish Times.



Link?


----------



## mandelbrot (8 Oct 2012)

ajapale said:


> Link?


 
[broken link removed]


----------



## shigllgetcha (8 Oct 2012)

Fiskar said:


> These guys are setting the country up for a pensions timebomb, you reduce numbers but you have to pay them a lump sum and pensions. No thought what so ever in this at all. Public perception of numbers dropping but no real deal or reduction in pay.


 
These people would have retired eventually anyway. These HSE scheme was limited to 2 years salary or half of what you could earn between now and retirement, which ever is less. so you get people out for less than they can earn before retirement and with a smaller pension than they would have had if they had worked on, win win


----------



## DrMoriarty (8 Oct 2012)

shigllgetcha said:


> win win


_If _those posts are not re-filled, which is presumably the declared intention.

How far do you trust Mr Bruton's promises?


----------



## mandelbrot (8 Oct 2012)

DrMoriarty said:


> _If _those posts are not re-filled, which is presumably the declared intention.
> 
> How far do you trust Mr Bruton's promises?


 
_"The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform said the government had agreed last July to "accelerate" its programme of staff reduction - and discussed the matter at cabinet today._
_*The targeted scheme will be aimed at areas where staff surpluses are identified - the work of identifying those surpluses is still underway*." _
_(http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1002/voluntary-redundancy-scheme-for-public-sector-business.html)_

I don't see how anyone can be equating this with what went on around the retirements in February. Areas with Staff surpluses - pretty clear there won't be any replacements.


----------



## serotoninsid (8 Oct 2012)

DrMoriarty said:


> _If _those posts are not re-filled, which is presumably the declared intention.


Isn't this the crux of it?  That the way the irish political system works, they will rehire - whether in a roundabout fashion - i.e. through agencies - or otherwise...but ultimately they will succumb and re-hire?

The heavy lifting that needs to be done is in regards to the salaries paid at certain grades.  IF they don't have the stomach to tackle this head on, can they at least amend the public sector pay rates for new hires?


----------



## mandelbrot (8 Oct 2012)

serotoninsid said:


> Isn't this the crux of it? That the way the irish political system works, they will rehire - whether in a roundabout fashion - i.e. through agencies - or otherwise...but ultimately they will succumb and re-hire?
> 
> The heavy lifting that needs to be done is in regards to the salaries paid at certain grades. IF they don't have the stomach to tackle this head on, can they at least amend the public sector pay rates for new hires?


 
I'm baffled, it's like nobody is reading what I'm posting...  

They are in the process of identifying areas with staff surpluses. Anecdotally everyone knows these areas exist, and these are what are explicitly being targeted. By definition, they cannot let people become redundant in these areas and then rehire. AFAIK the only areas where rehiring of the type you've outlined has happened have been in areas where people retired resulting in a critical shortage of manpower. 

I'm pretty sure most people can agree that was fairly flawed, but I can't understand how people are blurring the distinction between those retirements and these proposed redundancies...


----------



## DrMoriarty (8 Oct 2012)

serotoninsid said:


> IF they don't have the stomach to tackle this head on, can they at least amend the public sector pay rates for new hires?


They have done, in some areas. New entrants to teaching posts, for example, will get lower core pay, no increments for higher degree qualifications, and diminished pension rights compared to those recruited before last year. They'll also face higher teacher: pupil ratios and dramatically reduced SNA provision. I'm sure there are other big sectors facing similar cuts.

But then that's not as catchy as a headline saying "80,000 public jobs face axe". Populism _abu_!


----------



## shigllgetcha (8 Oct 2012)

DrMoriarty said:


> _If _those posts are not re-filled, which is presumably the declared intention.


 
True but dont throw the baby out with the bathwater just because a fraction of a precentage are re-filled.



serotoninsid said:


> The heavy lifting that needs to be done is in regards to the salaries paid at certain grades. IF they don't have the stomach to tackle this head on, can they at least amend the public sector pay rates for new hires?


 
this has already been done in the HSE


----------



## DannyL (8 Oct 2012)

It's a good news IMO. An interesting statistic about Irish spending on government comparing to other EU member states:







It's 2009/2010 but still.. a country in the middle of recession. How much has changed since then? Not much.


----------



## Leper (8 Oct 2012)

. . .  but still.. a country in the middle of recession. How much has changed since then? Not much.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Middle of a recession, I think we are in the infancy of this recession yet to come . . . unfortunately.


----------



## DannyL (9 Oct 2012)

Iceland is doing very well right now and they were in a real trouble few years back. The difference is they never came up with an idea of rescuing broken corporations with public money.

As their government stated few days ago their deficit will be none as soon as next year! There is a hope.


----------



## Gerbo (9 Jan 2013)

mandelbrot said:


> I'm baffled, it's like nobody is reading what I'm posting...
> 
> They are in the process of identifying areas with staff surpluses. Anecdotally everyone knows these areas exist, and these are what are explicitly being targeted. By definition, they cannot let people become redundant in these areas and then rehire. AFAIK the only areas where rehiring of the type you've outlined has happened have been in areas where people retired resulting in a critical shortage of manpower.
> 
> I'm pretty sure most people can agree that was fairly flawed, but I can't understand how people are blurring the distinction between those retirements and these proposed redundancies...



Agree with you.  Anyone involved knows that real problem in HSE and assume same in other govt depts is that middle line managers block any improvements from above.. Mandarins and just like Sir Henry in Yes Minister.  For my money administration and management in HSE totally overstaffed in most places. I'm sure nit all staff would agree but I know that where I worked 13 staff and could really be done by 4 hard workers.


----------

