# Public Service Allowance Scandal



## cork (19 Sep 2012)

I think the lack of reform in the public sector is not short of a national scandal.

Why is it OK for the vast majority of allowances to remain?

The Minister for Public Sector Reform has not delivered reform.

He has a whole Department at his disposal for this.

Yet this government has no problem cutting the hours of home helps.


----------



## Sunny (19 Sep 2012)

Where have I heard this before......


----------



## Shawady (19 Sep 2012)

As someone that works in the public sector, I'm disappointed by the announcement.
I've no doubt there are allowances that are justified, but the 75 million target was just 5% of the total allowance bill.
I have a family member that works in the garda headquarters and some of the allowances do not seem justified in this day and age.

Brendan Howlin said that 800 business cases were put forward which seems to suggest they were all accepted. I rather see an independent body look at these allowances and decide which are no longer justified.


----------



## TarfHead (19 Sep 2012)

I choose to not post my honest opinion about Brendan Howlin because it would be deleted and I would be banned.

Suffice is to say I believe he has failed as the Minister responsible for public sector reform and should resign. Let someone else do the job, someone who is serious about making the changes needed and realising the savings available.

The target announced for this year will not be achieved. The targets announced for future years cannot be achieved while he remains in office.


----------



## TarfHead (19 Sep 2012)

According to tweets from a Newstalk journalist ..

- Staff in the CSO are paid an allowance to replace the photocopier toner so that the OPW aren't called in.
- Receptionists at the HSA get €2400, on top of salary, to guarantee to answer the phone Mon through Fri, 9am to 5pm
- Staff at the Chester Beatty library get a box-making allowance of €15 to 20 per box.
- Security staff at the National Museum who use a CCTV get a camera allowance
- Staff employed and paid as forklift drivers get paid a forklift allowance

Please let these be mistakes / urban myths / made up  !


----------



## truthseeker (19 Sep 2012)

I found this on another forum - but its all in the link anyway (Ive edited it for clarity).

Top Ten List of allowances received the public service: 

1) Receptionists in the civil service get a franking allowance of €34 a week for stamping the post.

2) Staff employed and paid a salary to be forklift drivers get an additional allowance called 'the forklift allowance'

3) Civil Servants get a footwear allowance of €65 a year. The report doesn't know but 'feels' this doesn't add up to much

4) Staff at the National Museum who work in the yard get a yard allowance

5) Security staff at the National Museum who use a CCTV get a camera allowance

6) Paramedics get a cardiac allowance for using a defibrillator. Dates back to the 80s

7) General ops get an allowance for taking 30 mins lunch on site but MUST work 1.5 hrs each side of the break

8) Staff at Chester Beatty Library get a box making allowance of €15-20 per box

9) Receptionists at the HSA gets €2400 on top of salary to guarantee to answer phone 9-5 Mon - Fri.

10) Staff at the CSO get an allowance to replace the photocopier toner so that the OPW aren't called in.


----------



## DerKaiser (19 Sep 2012)

I'm sure if you went through the list of 1100 allowances the majority of them would appear fair. The trouble is that removing only the obviously unfair ones (the ones you always hear about anecdotally) will not yield much.

The solution? Just suck it up and accept that cost cutting cannot be done without introducing anomalies and a degree of unfairness.

To me an ambition to cut 5% of allowances seemed a pretty low aspiration. I'm with Tarfhead, the fact that the Minister for Reform could only achieve 5% of this unambitious target is unforgiveable. I suspect many public servants would agree. In fact my first thought when I heard this was whether the government are deliberately cocking up on this to make it politically easier to shelve the Croke Park agreement.


----------



## Shawady (19 Sep 2012)

DerKaiser said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with Tarfhead, the fact that the Minister for Reform could only achieve 5% of this unambitious target is unforgiveable.


 
Thats the whole point, he didn't even achieve 5%. The 5% target would have produced a saving of €75 million but the saving will be only €3.5 million.

I am a civil servant and receive no allowances and I think some of the ones mentioned are urban myths but I have heard of some in the garda (particularly plain clothes garda) that seem difficult to justify.


----------



## Firefly (19 Sep 2012)

Shawady said:


> Thats the whole point, he didn't even achieve 5%. The 5% target would have produced a saving of €75 million but the saving will be only €3.5 million.


 
I wonder what the total cost of the excercise was? Probably not too much change from the €3.5 million in savings 



Shawady said:


> I am a civil servant and receive no allowances


 
You should talk to your union 


It seems that a lot of the great defenders of the public sector here on AAM seem to be conspicuously quiet of late...


----------



## shnaek (19 Sep 2012)

There is only one way this country is going. It's inevitable. This scandal sums it up. No country that ever had a house price bubble like ours ever had a soft landing, and no country that raised taxes and failed to cut spending ever came easily out of recession. Mark my words, we'll still be deep in trouble in 5 years time, and people will be wondering why.


----------



## mandelbrot (19 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> It seems that a lot of the great defenders of the public sector here on AAM seem to be conspicuously quiet of late...


 
I hope you don't include me in that bracket (seeing as how I've been like a turkey voting for Christmas on here advocating pay cuts across the PS) - I'm a civil servant too and I don't get any allowances. The only thing I get is travel & subsistence at the civil service rates when I'm required to be out of the office, which is no different than would be the case if I were still working in the private sector.

It's nothing short of a scandal that some of these crazy allowances still exist.

That one about a footwear allowance of €65 a year is definitely not true across the whole civil service, or else nobody knows they should be getting!


----------



## shnaek (19 Sep 2012)

Just popped on to politics.ie and was amazed to see 4 pages of people agreeing on this scandal. Perhaps the people are awake after all. Though I agree with what most are saying - the lack of choice in Irish politics is demoralising.


----------



## truthseeker (19 Sep 2012)

shnaek said:


> the lack of choice in Irish politics is demoralising.



I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## RonanC (19 Sep 2012)

I've never heard of any of the Civil Service allowances nor have I received any in my ten years. I've never even heard of a 'receptionist' in the Civil Service. 

It looks like most of the CS 'perks' appear to relate to Service Officer grades and not to 95% of CS staff. I cannot comment on any other allowances.


----------



## gianni (19 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> 3) Civil Servants get a footwear allowance of €65 a year. The report doesn't know but 'feels' this doesn't add up to much



This should say:_*

Some*_ Civil Servants get a footwear allowance of €65 a year. 
This is how the urban myths start.

In general it would only be Civil Servants who have to wear a uniform (the lowest grade of Civil Servant) that would receive this allowance as they are compelled to wear certain footwear for their job. There are circa 30,000 Civil Servants - less than 200 currently receive this allowance.


----------



## Firefly (19 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> I hope you don't include me in that bracket (seeing as how I've been like a turkey voting for Christmas on here advocating pay cuts across the PS)


 
I certainly wasn't mandelbrot. 

The problem here is that those getting the benefits are organised (unions) whereas everyone else isn't and we are all just moaning about it without any real clout.

Just to add: the really difficult decisions will only be made if/when the ECB/IMF start reducing the lending to us. Without access to the markets, the government of the day will have to cut costs as appropriate.


----------



## truthseeker (19 Sep 2012)

gianni said:


> This should say:_*
> 
> Some*_ Civil Servants get a footwear allowance of €65 a year.
> This is how the urban myths start.
> ...



It should. As I said, I posted it from another forum.

On the footwear allowance. If you follow the link (which I just fixed), and search the page for 'footwear allowance' and then open the pdf you will see:


> It is thought unlikely that there are more than a couple of hundred Service Officers/Attendants who would qualify for this allowance so the cost of the allowance would be small


----------



## liaconn (19 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> I wonder what the total cost of the excercise was? Probably not too much change from the €3.5 million in savings
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Because we are fed up of responding to the continuous threads, the same old arguments, the myths, the exagerations and the downright lies and then seeing yet another thread starting up with the same old, same old. I too am a civil servant who doesn't get any allowances. The only civil servants I do know who get allowances are those who are on call 24 hours a day ie Private secretaries to Ministers and Secretary Generals.
I am sure that there are some public servants who get unjustified allowances and I have no problem with that being reviewed and stopped. It's my tax as well as yours that pays these allowances. But it would be helpful, when posting, if people specified which areas of the Public Sector they are talking about. I can explain, justify or agree with complaints made about the civil service. But the Guards, Prison Officers etc etc are completely and totally different organisations which I support with my taxes but do not belong to. Even within the civil service, as Truthseeker has quite fairly clarified, you can't generalise. But no doubt someone is now rushing around saying all Civil Servants get free shoes.


----------



## liaconn (19 Sep 2012)

TarfHead said:


> According to tweets from a Newstalk journalist ..
> 
> - Staff in the CSO are paid an allowance to replace the photocopier toner so that the OPW aren't called in.
> - Receptionists at the HSA get €2400, on top of salary, to guarantee to answer the phone Mon through Fri, 9am to 5pm
> ...


 
As a civil servant I agree that 1 above sounds ridiculous. 
The rest do not seem to relate to the civil service but more details would need to be given in any case explaining why these allowances were granted before it is possible to give a fair and informed comment. Just throwing out one lliners like that is not really a fair contribution to the debate.


----------



## TarfHead (19 Sep 2012)

liaconn said:


> The rest do not seem to relate to the civil service


 
It's public sector, not civil service. I doubt anyone in receipt of a forklift allowance refers to themselves as a civil servant  !

And if this thread is to become a bashing thread, then it should be a Brendan Howlin bashing one. The Coalition have been in power for 18 months and the time for talking about reform is gone. This is the time for action and he has failed.


----------



## dereko1969 (19 Sep 2012)

As a civil servant in receipt of no allowances I am appalled at the pathetic attempt at "reform" of these allowances.

I would remind all those that their defending of the "frontline" workers (whilst demonising everyone else in the public and civil service) has now come back to bite them on the behind as things like "rental allowance" for Gardai are deemed to be untouchable even though Gardai do not have to provide any proof of actually renting a property to qualify for this allowance.

I do think Howlin has made an absolute mess of this and should look at his position, I say that as a (usually) Labour voter.


----------



## Firefly (19 Sep 2012)

liaconn said:


> Because we are fed up of responding to the continuous threads, the same old arguments, the myths, the exagerations and the downright lies and then seeing yet another thread starting up with the same old, same old. I too am a civil servant who doesn't get any allowances.


 

Hi liaconn, no offence intented and I'm sure only a few receive the allowances listed above, but these seem crazy to me, perhaps the forklift allowance for forklift drivers is the most daft. These are only allowances we are talking about as well. 

Given that we are borrowing to pay these allowances (as well as everything else) at some stage down the road the machine is going to grind to a halt.


----------



## Sim Two (19 Sep 2012)

The one that amused me the most was the "Crime Scene Allowance" !!!!


----------



## Teatime (19 Sep 2012)

Will Brendan Howling be fired for failing, by a very long way, to reach his €75m target?


----------



## truthseeker (19 Sep 2012)

Sim Two said:


> The one that amused me the most was the "Crime Scene Allowance" !!!!



Where are you seeing that?

Even though when you look into it, it appears perfectly legitimate, I did have a snigger at the "Dirty Money Allowance"


----------



## TarfHead (19 Sep 2012)

Teatime said:


> .. failing, by a very long way, to reach his €75m target?


 
I was amused by RTE's description of the €3.5m being '_well short_' of the €75m target. 70% would be well short. Less than 5% is failure.


----------



## One (19 Sep 2012)

liaconn said:


> Because we are fed up of responding to the continuous threads, the same old arguments, the myths, the exagerations and the downright lies and then seeing yet another thread starting up with the same old, same old. I too am a civil servant who doesn't get any allowances. The only civil servants I do know who get allowances are those who are on call 24 hours a day ie Private secretaries to Ministers and Secretary Generals.
> I am sure that there are some public servants who get unjustified allowances and I have no problem with that being reviewed and stopped. It's my tax as well as yours that pays these allowances. But it would be helpful, when posting, if people specified which areas of the Public Sector they are talking about. I can explain, justify or agree with complaints made about the civil service. But the Guards, Prison Officers etc etc are completely and totally different organisations which I support with my taxes but do not belong to. Even within the civil service, as Truthseeker has quite fairly clarified, you can't generalise. But no doubt someone is now rushing around saying all Civil Servants get free shoes.


 
Well said Liaconn. People should specify exactly which areas of the Public Sector they are talking about. I work in the private sector and even I can realise that some of this thread is simply public sector bashing.


----------



## Delboy (19 Sep 2012)

So anyone here really surprised at this result...it's Brendan Howlin after all, of the Labour party, the political wing of the Trade Unions.

The fact that numbers claiming the allowances and the costs involved can't be identified in a lot of the cases, just goes to show what an absolutely terrible job Senior Mgmt, especially in Finance, are doing. You would think out of just even plain curiosity they would have inhouse analysis of this. But no, they all switched their brains off a few years after joining the CS/PS and are on cruise control to Pensions time...so best not to rock the boat in the meantime, attract unwanted attention to 'our Dept.'

And FF across the floor castigating Howlin for not delivering and demanding he call in the Unions and get tough......it's all a joke


----------



## Teatime (19 Sep 2012)

liaconn said:


> Because we are fed up of responding to the continuous threads, the same old arguments, the myths, the exagerations and the downright lies and then seeing yet another thread starting up with the same old, same old. I too am a civil servant who doesn't get any allowances. The only civil servants I do know who get allowances are those who are on call 24 hours a day ie Private secretaries to Ministers and Secretary Generals.
> I am sure that there are some public servants who get unjustified allowances and I have no problem with that being reviewed and stopped. It's my tax as well as yours that pays these allowances. But it would be helpful, when posting, if people specified which areas of the Public Sector they are talking about. I can explain, justify or agree with complaints made about the civil service. But the Guards, Prison Officers etc etc are completely and totally different organisations which I support with my taxes but do not belong to. Even within the civil service, as Truthseeker has quite fairly clarified, you can't generalise. But no doubt someone is now rushing around saying all Civil Servants get free shoes.



Fair enough, point taken, but we are still talking €1.4 Billion in allowances which need to be justified. Nevertheless Howlin's first attempt at reforming them have been a complete disaster.


----------



## Purple (19 Sep 2012)

Are allowance payments part of the wage calculation for pensions in the public sector?


----------



## dereko1969 (19 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Are allowance payments part of the wage calculation for pensions in the public sector?


 
Not as far as I am aware which is why they should have been hit very hard, if core Pay is off the table due to CPA, then this was only angle Govt had to address pay related costs and they bottled it.


----------



## Shawady (19 Sep 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> then this was only angle Govt had to address pay related costs and they bottled it.


 
I agree. The only logic I can see for Brendan Howlin doing this is that the CPA is due to run out well before the next election. For political reasons it might suit the government to say that allowances/overtime/increments are protected under the CPA (which was brought in by FF) but any in new agreement these items are back on the table. Therefore the government might try to argue that a CPA mark 2 is 'tougher' on the public service.


----------



## DerKaiser (19 Sep 2012)

One said:


> I work in the private sector and even I can realise that some of this thread is simply public sector bashing.


 
Howlin is the only one being bashed on this thread.


----------



## Firefly (19 Sep 2012)

DerKaiser said:


> Howlin is the only one being bashed on this thread.


 
+1 

I don't blame anyone for taking an allowance that they are entitled to, just like I have no problem with anyone taking advantage of a tax scheme that's legal. The issue here is that these allowances are available at all.


----------



## Mucker Man (19 Sep 2012)

I appreciate that many PS workers get no allowances but if you divide the €1.4bn across the 280,000 or so PS workers, that is around €5,000 per head. There must be scope somewhere for cuts?
Howlin must go if the Government has any integrity left.


----------



## Deiseblue (19 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> I wonder what the total cost of the excercise was? Probably not too much change from the €3.5 million in savings
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There really is no point in entering into a discussion though is there at this juncture.

The Croke Park Agreement states that core pay is protected , that includes increments , allowances etc . - sure there have been comments that such should not be the case but ultimately the Agreement freely entered into by employers & employees ( via their respective Unions ) states otherwise - the LRC I would warrant would agree with this reading of matters.

Sure CPA 2 , if the Unions can be persuaded to engage , will possibly be a different ball game.


----------



## Purple (19 Sep 2012)

What I find amazing is that an experienced minister has screwed up sp badly. Did he not do his homework before he said he was going to make these cuts? 
It's not as if he needed to do any work, all it required was 3 minutes on the phone.
It would have gone something like this;

Ring-ring
Ring-ring
...

"Hello Brethren, this is Comrade Brendan."

_"Yes Brendan, you may speak"_

"Thank you. I'm looking to cut €75'000'000 in public sector allowances. It that OK?"

(peels of laughter)

_"Good one comrade. Why did you really call?"_

"I was serious; the Blue-shirts and the IMF want us to live within our means and you already told me I couldn't touch the wealthiest demographic in the country; retirees and you told me I couldn't touch core pay for existing staff. I've screwed new entrants about as much as I can but we're still way over budget. What can I do?"

_"That's your problem Comrade but you know you can't touch the untouchables. James Connolly died so that middle-income earners could be protected. Tell that guy with the beard that's not one of the brethren he just has to take more from the sick and the disabled instead."_

“Well I need to save something; I need €3’500’000.”

_“Why’s that Comrade?”_

“Well that’s what I need to spend on advisors and spin-doctors to sell this to the public”

_“OK, you can have that.”_

"Right you are, thanks for your time, sorry for bothering you."


----------



## Teatime (19 Sep 2012)

Do FG not get that they will get destroyed in the next General Election if they let Labour boss them around for the whole term?
The only winners here are SF and to a lesser extent FF.


----------



## shnaek (19 Sep 2012)

TarfHead said:


> I was amused by RTE's description of the €3.5m being '_well short_' of the €75m target. 70% would be well short. Less than 5% is failure.



Absolutely. How can Howlin stand there and claim not to be a failure? 

To go on borrowing for day to day expenses is the road to economic ruin. To stand before us and pretend we're all stupid, well, that should be the road to political ruin.


----------



## Sunny (19 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> What I find amazing is that an experienced minister has screwed up sp badly. Did he not do his homework before he said he was going to make these cuts?


 
Not the first Government minister to go shooting his mouth off before actually doing anything. I think these guys were in opposition for too long where it was easy to sprout populist rubbish every time a camera was pointed at you. A few of them are finding out the realities of being in power. 

This Government are proving to be as spinless as everything that came before them. Why don't we just be done with it and allow the ICTU to run the Country.


----------



## Purple (19 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> Not the first Government minister to go shooting his mouth off before actually doing anything. I think these guys were in opposition for too long where it was easy to sprout populist rubbish every time a camera was pointed at you. A few of them are finding out the realities of being in power.
> 
> This Government are proving to be as spinless as everything that came before them. Why don't we just be done with it and allow the ICTU to run the Country.



It's not called ICTU any more, they are now just referred to as CONGRESS. That's what the public sector broadcaster calls them anyway.


----------



## Delboy (19 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> ....This Government are proving to be as spinless as everything that came before them. Why don't we just be done with it and allow the ICTU to run the Country.



I thought they were already running part of the country and the Troika are now running the other part which was previously run by the Developers/Banks!!!


----------



## becky (19 Sep 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> Not as far as I am aware which is why they should have been hit very hard, if core Pay is off the table due to CPA, then this was only angle Govt had to address pay related costs and they bottled it.


 
I understand that if you pay superan on the allowance you get the benefit. I'm not too sure of the exact rules though.

I was surprised at this climb down but there must have been a reason which will come out in the wash at some stage.

We were informed from corporate HR 'informally mind' that the living out allowance to junior doctors was going for all.

In the HSE no new entrant or re starter receive any allowance unless they had it on 01/02/2012 and there is no break in service. Howlin seem to be making it out that this is only the case now.


----------



## Protocol (19 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Are allowance payments part of the wage calculation for pensions in the public sector?


 
I know only about teachers.

Basic pay
+ degree allowance
+ H.Dip. / postgrad allowance
+ post of responsibility (some teachers)

YES, all part of core pay, and all pensionable.


----------



## Sunny (19 Sep 2012)

Protocol said:


> I know only about teachers.
> 
> Basic pay
> + degree allowance
> ...



Why is a degree allowance part of core pay? Don't teachers who qualify automatically have a degree?


----------



## Protocol (19 Sep 2012)

Historical reasons, I suspect?

Maybe they didn't always have a degree.  I think a lot time ago primary teachers didn't.


----------



## Protocol (19 Sep 2012)

Also, the degree allowance depends on the award.

Pass =  1,842
Honours = 4,918


----------



## cork (19 Sep 2012)

Why is is so easy to cut services so that allowances are maintained?

No effort is being made either to cut waste, cut duplication or protect services.

FG promised the voters that they'll cut quangos.

All talk but zero action.

Government seem to have no problem cutting vital services like home help.


----------



## Purple (19 Sep 2012)

cork said:


> Why is is so easy to cut services so that allowances are maintained?


Because the Unions call the shots and unions are vested interest groups with the sole agenda of protecting their members pay and conditions. They have no social function or broad national agenda. Since the sick and the vulnerable don't pay their dues they are fair game in the battle to protect the haves from the have-not's.


----------



## Purple (19 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> Why is a degree allowance part of core pay? Don't teachers who qualify automatically have a degree?



I agree that a degree allowance is nonsense but as teachers don't have a structure to be promoted through extra allowances have been used over the years as an alternative.


----------



## Sunny (19 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Because the Unions call the shots and unions are vested interest groups with the sole agenda of protecting their members pay and conditions. They have no social function or broad national agenda. Since the sick and the vulnerable don't pay their dues they are fair game in the battle to protect the haves from the have-not's.



And young people! Why would any new entrant join a trade union considering they have been sold down the river to protect existing employees. Got to love 'social solidarity'. 

I think the existing trade union movement have caused themselves huge harm in the long term. There will be a raft of new militant unions starting up because of this.


----------



## Purple (19 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> And young people! Why would any new entrant join a trade union considering they have been sold down the river to protect existing employees. Got to love 'social solidarity'.
> 
> I think the existing trade union movement have caused themselves huge harm in the long term. There will be a raft of new militant unions starting up because of this.



Yea, they were sold down the river by the fat-cats in ICTU/SIPTU, gutted to protect those already paying their dues.


----------



## Knuttell (19 Sep 2012)

Labour will pay dearly for this at the next election and its not true to say that they can rely on the P/S C/S vote,a lot of these workers are as disgusted by Howlins incompetence/unwillingness to tackle this as anyone in the private sector.

My Wife is a Civil Servant and is as annoyed by this as I am...any intelligent person would find this guys attitude remarkable,he really needs to be removed from his job immediately.


----------



## Calico (19 Sep 2012)

I am appalled and disgusted at the protection given to the Public Service via the Croke Park Agreement, and now this allowances fiasco. The early retirement scheme is another absolute disgrace, as is paying new entrants less than colleagues who do the same jobs. The increments system is also ludicrous. 

I never thought I'd say this, but Ireland is seriously lacking a PD-style party right now to give some sort of voice to ordinary people's feelings on all this.


----------



## mandelbrot (20 Sep 2012)

Calico said:


> The increments system is also ludicrous.



You do realise that in most, if not all, countries incremental salary scales operate for public servants? If you want to make Ireland a guinea pig and do away with incremental salary scales, I'd be interested to hear what you propose instead? It's very easy to make a flippant remark like the one above, but ca you back it up with a less ludicrous alternative??

Bearing in mind opportunities for promotion or advancement are fairly limited, do you think people should start at day 1 on "the salary" for their grade, and then continue to work for that same salary for 40 years until they retire? Hint: do you envisage any problems with staff morale / motivation to work hard with no potential financial reward or recognition?

I keep saying it over and over and over  and over again - the problem isn't with incremental scales; they exist all over the world in large organisations, public and private - the problem is adequate performance management, to ensure that only people who have performed get their increment. Carrot AND stick....


----------



## amtc (20 Sep 2012)

I know a a guy in a public sector organisation (Comm SS) who receives a Eating On Route allowance - he's a sales rep based in Dublin City Centre....it's there to boost his salary. 

I also know that all quangos still get personal newspapers.....


----------



## Sunny (20 Sep 2012)

amtc said:


> I know a a guy in a public sector organisation (Comm SS) who receives a Eating On Route allowance - he's a sales rep based in Dublin City Centre....it's there to boost his salary.
> 
> I also know that all quangos still get personal newspapers.....



Lots of people in the private sector get those allowances.


----------



## Purple (20 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> the problem isn't with incremental scales; they exist all over the world in large organisations, public and private - the problem is adequate performance management, to ensure that only people who have performed get their increment. Carrot AND stick....


 Agree 100%.



Sunny said:


> Lots of people in the private sector get those allowances.


I think it would be highly unusual for a business that’s in receivership to hand out free newspapers. The Irish government is in receivership.


----------



## dereko1969 (20 Sep 2012)

amtc said:


> I know a a guy in a public sector organisation (Comm SS) who receives a Eating On Route allowance - he's a sales rep based in Dublin City Centre....it's there to boost his salary.
> 
> *I also know that all quangos still get personal newspapers.....[/*QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## One (20 Sep 2012)

DerKaiser said:


> Howlin is the only one being bashed on this thread.


 
If I was working in the public sector, I would be offended by some of the stuff on this thread. I work in a private sector company that is unpopular with the public. The company gets inaccurately blamed for wrongdoing, and the people who work there like me get insulted and threatened outside of working hours. I am sure bank staff get insulted for what the management of the banks have done. What happens at the top reflects on everyone else who works there. You say it is just Brendan Howlin who is getting bashed. Brendan Howlin doesn't have the time to examine the merit of, the justification for, and the use and abuse of every allowance in the country. Is it not everyone else in his department who is getting bashed by this thread as well? 

I also think if some people who work in the public sector are believed to be getting daft allowances, it is going to reflect badly on them.


----------



## Firefly (20 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> Bearing in mind opportunities for promotion or advancement are fairly limited, do you think people should start at day 1 on "the salary" for their grade, and then continue to work for that same salary for 40 years until they retire? Hint: do you envisage any problems with staff morale / motivation to work hard with no potential financial reward or recognition?
> 
> I keep saying it over and over and over and over again - the problem isn't with incremental scales; they exist all over the world in large organisations, public and private - the problem is adequate performance management, *to ensure that only people who have performed get their increment.* Carrot AND stick....


 
The highlighted bit is so true. Without it the staff morale / motivation that you mention in the first paragraph won't be achieved by giving poor performers (which is what seems to be happening) increments - it tells them they are performing well and tells the performers, "why bother".


----------



## Delboy (20 Sep 2012)

One said:


> If I was working in the public sector, I would be offended by some of the stuff on this thread....



I work in the PS and am not offended by anything on this thread thus far...it's mainly having a go at Howlin and the Unions who have sold their future members down the swanny


----------



## Shawady (20 Sep 2012)

Protocol said:


> Historical reasons, I suspect?
> 
> Maybe they didn't always have a degree. I think a lot time ago primary teachers didn't.


 
I work in a technical grade in the civil service. The minimum entry qualification is a diploma and I know years ago some people with just a cert would have got a job in our organisation. Not anymore. Most people coming in have a masters and a few have phd's but they still start on the first point of the scale.
I went back and did a master's part time a few years ago and did not get bumped up a few increments because of it (nor was i looking too). However this can happen in other grades.
This is part of the problem in the public service, there is no consistency.

I think garda use to start on a higher salary if they had a degree even it it had no relevance to their job but someone can confirm if this is still the case.


----------



## Delboy (20 Sep 2012)

Calico said:


> ....I never thought I'd say this, but Ireland is seriously lacking a PD-style party right now to give some sort of voice to ordinary people's feelings on all this.



The PD's were FF in new clothing...they did'nt do a thing to tackle waste or create efficiencies when in power. I had high hopes for them but they were a serious disappointment. PD's signed off on Benchmarking a few times, various pay agreements, huge PS recruitment drives, near unlimited immigration, etc etc. There was'nt a right leaning bone in any one of them.

The incident that summed them up best for me....the price that McDowell paid for agricultural land in Nth Dub for Thornton Hall prison-it will always stink to high heaven to me and how no journalist ever got to the bottom of it!


----------



## elefantfresh (20 Sep 2012)

I think it has come to the point where its every man for himself. There doesn't appear to be anyone in politics that will do anything except ride the system.


----------



## Calico (20 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> You do realise that in most, if not all, countries incremental salary scales operate for public servants? If you want to make Ireland a guinea pig and do away with incremental salary scales, I'd be interested to hear what you propose instead? It's very easy to make a flippant remark like the one above, but ca you back it up with a less ludicrous alternative??
> 
> Bearing in mind opportunities for promotion or advancement are fairly limited, do you think people should start at day 1 on "the salary" for their grade, and then continue to work for that same salary for 40 years until they retire? Hint: do you envisage any problems with staff morale / motivation to work hard with no potential financial reward or recognition?
> 
> I keep saying it over and over and over  and over again - the problem isn't with incremental scales; they exist all over the world in large organisations, public and private - the problem is adequate performance management, to ensure that only people who have performed get their increment. Carrot AND stick....



I accept your point. Perhaps I should have qualified my post by saying that the increments system as it currently operates is ludicrous which I believe it is. And regardless of whether it ever gets operated properly, paying increments at a time when the country is broke, 15% unemployment (20%+ if it weren't for emigration) and cutting services to those who really need them is not only ludicrous, it is morally repugnant.


----------



## Newbie! (20 Sep 2012)

Delboy said:


> I work in the PS and am not offended by anything on this thread thus far...it's mainly having a go at Howlin and the Unions who have sold their future members down the swanny


 
Same here. If anything, I actually agree with most of it. I work hard in a professional job and for quite an average salary. It annoys the hell out of me to see that allowances to 'open the post' or 'operate AV technology' is still present.  I think when alot of people talk about public service reform, these are the issues that they want rectified. For the most part, majority of public/civil servants do the best they can at their job irrespective of whether they are in public or private service.


----------



## Ceist Beag (20 Sep 2012)

For me the biggest problem with this is (as was mentioned on Newstalk yesterday morning), the report fails in the very first objective of a report. It fails to mention how many people in the PS avail of each of these allowances and how much each allowance costs the state each year. So as things stand now we are none the wiser than we were before how ever many thousands were spent over the last number of months putting together the report. That is abject failure at it's most basic! I don't know how Brendan Howlin had the neck to stand up in the Dail and present this as a report, never mind the complete and utter failure to achieve anything like what he set out to achieve when he started this process. He should resign and I am surprised the opposition aren't making a lot more out of this.


----------



## Protocol (20 Sep 2012)

Calico said:


> I never thought I'd say this, but Ireland is seriously lacking a PD-style party right now to give some sort of voice to ordinary people's feelings on all this.


 
People tended not to vote for the PDs when they existed.

Also, the other parties adopted the PDs low-tax ideas.


----------



## mandelbrot (20 Sep 2012)

Calico said:


> I accept your point. Perhaps I should have qualified my post by saying that the increments system as it currently operates is ludicrous which I believe it is. And regardless of whether it ever gets operated properly, paying increments at a time when the country is broke, 15% unemployment (20%+ if it weren't for emigration) and cutting services to those who really need them is not only ludicrous, it is morally repugnant.


 
I disagree. Cutting pay is the fairest way to achieve across the board savings - I am in favour of cutting pay, preferably in a targeted way via some kind of benchmarking exercise, but across the board if necessary in the interim. 

Simple logic suggests that the most financially comfortable people in the PS are already at the top of their incremental scales, have no motivation to be productive, and would be perfectly happy to see increments frozen as it won't impact on them.

I am subject to PMDS (performance management system) in my job, and I have earned the 4/5 that I got. I can tell you if increments are frozen I will make absolutely sure that I do the bare minimum required of me until such time as my incentive to be productive is restored - even though I take huge pride in the job that I do and the fact that I am good at it. And all my older (less speedy and computer illiterate) colleagues perched on top of salary scales, whose productivity presently benefits from me being enthusiastic and helpful, they'll suffer too...

My point is, freezing increments is more likely to have an adverse effect on the productivity of the most productive people while cosseting the non-productive, whereas a paycut will yield more money and will be felt equally by both productive and non-productive people.


----------



## Calico (20 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> I can tell you if increments are frozen I will make absolutely sure that I do the bare minimum required of me until such time as my incentive to be productive is restored .



I'm sorry, but you have completely lost me with that statement which I'm afraid is symptomatic of a particular mindset which many public sector workers seem to have. Why on earth would you not try and be more productive? Would that be your way of taking revenge against a system for having the temerity to employ you? You can only have that attitude because you know you can't be sacked or demoted, and that the wages will be paid irrespective of your performance.


----------



## Chris (20 Sep 2012)

What surprises me most is that anybody is actually surprised. The government is still spending vastly more than it was before the crisis and that after 4 years of "cuts". All that has happened is that spending has been shuffled around, take a bit here and then add it there. 




mandelbrot said:


> You do realise that in most, if not all, countries incremental salary scales operate for public servants? If you want to make Ireland a guinea pig and do away with incremental salary scales, I'd be interested to hear what you propose instead? It's very easy to make a flippant remark like the one above, but ca you back it up with a less ludicrous alternative??
> 
> Bearing in mind opportunities for promotion or advancement are fairly limited, do you think people should start at day 1 on "the salary" for their grade, and then continue to work for that same salary for 40 years until they retire? Hint: do you envisage any problems with staff morale / motivation to work hard with no potential financial reward or recognition?
> 
> I keep saying it over and over and over  and over again - the problem isn't with incremental scales; they exist all over the world in large organisations, public and private - the problem is adequate performance management, to ensure that only people who have performed get their increment. Carrot AND stick....



Were we not all taught as kids that just because all the other kids did something stupid doesn't mean you should be doing it as well?

I think you are somewhat cortradixting yourself in this post. You first say that we should have increments but then talk about making them performance related. I fully agree with providing performance related pay rises under two conditions (a) they can be afforded and (b) they really are based on observable goals and outcomes on an individual basis.

Every company I have worked for has had some sort of performance evaluation system. Unless you at least met your goals for a year you would not qualify for a pay rise or bonus, and these were the. Also dependent on whether the company made a profit.


----------



## Yachtie (20 Sep 2012)

Chris said:


> Every company I have worked for has had some sort of performance evaluation system. Unless you at least met your goals for a year you would not qualify for a pay rise or bonus, and these were the. Also dependent on whether the company made a profit.



So has every company I ever worked for. The exception being that you had to meet some sort of a target to *keep* your job and if you exceeded the target you got a pay rise or a bonus. 

Also, I have had job descriptions which went on to several pages but have never seen anything like 'if the phone rings, answer it and try to assist the caller' or 'open the post' or 'replace paper / toner if the printer runs out'... If it really is true, it's beyond me why would anyone need to be paid extra to perform tasks which are basic and essential for performing their job. I mean, you can't be a receptionist without answering the phone and opening or logging post so why would you need extra money for that?


----------



## mandelbrot (20 Sep 2012)

Chris said:


> Were we not all taught as kids that just because all the other kids did something stupid doesn't mean you should be doing it as well?


Propose an alternative, or point me to a developed country with a functioning public sector better than ours that has implemented an alternative, and then we have something to talk about. Otherwise we're just talking pie in the sky - you know, like a couple of Socialist Workers Party heads... 



Chris said:


> I think you are somewhat contradicting yourself in this post. You first say that we should have increments but then talk about making them performance related. I fully agree with providing performance related pay rises under two conditions (a) they can be afforded and (b) they really are based on observable goals and outcomes on an individual basis.


I don't see a contradiction TBH. The contract of employment I signed says that my pay increases incrementally over 7 years, with 2 long service increments after 3 & 6 years at the max, all of which are subject to "satisfactory performance", so in theory at least they are already performance related. It's the practical application that's the problem.

To me, this at least makes some semblance of sense - I didn't take the job because the starting salary was good - it was SUBSTANTIALLY less than someone with my experience and qualifications could command in the private sector, even after allowing for pension, flexible hours etc... - I took it because there was clarity as to my progression, provided I keep up my side of the bargain and perform.

The question is how you define satisfactory performance - I'd suggest that what is satisfactory this year shouldn't be satisfactory next year, and to merit increments year on year the worker should be objectively improving their performance year on year. The top of the scale represents someone performing at the highest level expected of someone in that role - I'd argue I'm already there in my job, looking at my colleagues who earn 20k more than me who rely on me for help, but it's going to take me several more years to get there, so the system isn't perfect. But telling me that until further notice no matter what I do I can't close the gap is a hugely demotivating factor, and likely to result in me doing the bare minimum to avoid being hauled in for underperformance, or just leaving to go back to a private sector job where performance is rewarded.



Chris said:


> Every company I have worked for has had some sort of performance evaluation system. Unless you at least met your goals for a year you would not qualify for a pay rise or bonus, and these were then also dependent on whether the company made a profit.



That makes perfect sense, but how do you translate that into the public sector context? Progression up an incremental scale is not a pay rise, it's a person being paid slightly more next year for being slightly better and doing slightly more next year by virtue of experience in the role. A pay rise would be where the entire scale is shifted upwards.

This company making a profit analogy that people keep trotting out; the bottom line is we'd have to cut PS pay to nil to clear the budget deficit, so I maintain, a pay cut (across all points of the scales) is fairer than reneging on people's contracts.


----------



## Delboy (20 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> .... I can tell you if increments are frozen I will make absolutely sure that I do the bare minimum required of me until such time as my incentive to be productive is restored - even though I take huge pride in the job that I do and the fact that I am good at it. And all my older (less speedy and computer illiterate) colleagues perched on top of salary scales, whose productivity presently benefits from me being enthusiastic and helpful, they'll suffer too...



and there you have it folks, all summed up nicely


----------



## mandelbrot (20 Sep 2012)

Delboy said:


> and there you have it folks, all summed up nicely



Not sure if you're being sarky or not...?!

But just to be clear I'm not saying I'd refuse to do the job I'm being paid to do; simply that's all I'd do. Like the work I've brought home to do tonight in order to improve my output for the month, because I spent 2 hours today helping other people, that wouldn't be happening.


----------



## Knuttell (20 Sep 2012)

> Originally Posted by mandelbrot
> .... *I can tell you if increments are frozen I will make absolutely sure that I do the bare minimum required of me until such time as my incentive to be productive is restored *



Essentially you are saying you will work to rule...that attitude would get you sacked within a very short period of time within the private sector,if you're not working at 110% in my Company you're a passenger that others will not carry,regardless of how aggrieved or put upon you feel.


----------



## Calico (20 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> Not sure if you're being sarky or not...?!
> 
> But just to be clear I'm not saying I'd refuse to do the job I'm being paid to do; simply that's all I'd do. Like the work I've brought home to do tonight in order to improve my output for the month, because I spent 2 hours today helping other people, that wouldn't be happening.



No disrespect to you personally, but I think this attitude stinks. You have a permanent job that you cannot be fired from. You will enjoy a pension that is worth far in excess of what you will have personally contributed to it. You enjoy sick pay, paid maternity leave, and a salary that is currently far in excess of what you would receive for a similar job in the private sector. Essentially you have something that a huge amount of people in Ireland today would give their eye teeth for. And yet, despite all this, you say that if the government, in the current economic climate, scrapped increments, that you would stop helping your colleagues? Even though you clearly could if you wanted to? 

Also, you're completely wrong when you say that paying increments is a private sector practice as well. It certainly isn't. In the private sector (i.e. the real world) most people work hard to keep their existing job, or to get a promotion.


----------



## Delboy (20 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> Not sure if you're being sarky or not...?!
> 
> But just to be clear I'm not saying I'd refuse to do the job I'm being paid to do; simply that's all I'd do. Like the work I've brought home to do tonight in order to improve my output for the month, because I spent 2 hours today helping other people, that wouldn't be happening.



no, I was'nt being sarky at all. I just feel your piece summed up exactly the attitude of the average PS worker .....I tell people I work with every day that they don't realise how lucky they are with so much unemployment, emmigration, small businesses closing....they have a secure job with great pay, increments and all of the many other benefits incl some crazy allowances...and the majority of them look at me like I have 2 heads when I say it. 

Most have never worked in the private sector, in say a small company with less than 30 employees where everyone does everything they can or they are asked to do, as a given. They've straight into the PS/CS from school/college and that's the only world they know, bent and isolated from the real world as it is


----------



## mandelbrot (20 Sep 2012)

Delboy said:


> no, I was'nt being sarky at all. I just feel your piece summed up exactly the attitude of the average PS worker .....I tell people I work with every day that they don't realise how lucky they are with some much unemployment, emmigration, small businesses closing....they have a secure job with great pay, increments and all of the many other benefits incl some crazy allowances...and the majority of them look at me like I have 2 heads when I say it.
> 
> Most have never worked in the private sector, in say a small company with less than 30 employees where everyone does everything they can or they are asked to do, as a given. They've straight into the PS/CS from school/college and that's the only world they know, bent and isolated from the real world as it is



I've been employed in some capacity since I was 14, all bar the last 2 years in small businesses (much less than 30 employees) in the private sector. I can guarantee that anyone who ever employed me (and there were only 3, because I was a valued employee anywhere I worked) would tell you I'm a very hard working and obliging person, but I feel very strongly on this particular issue - I've entered the PS at the highest grade my experience & qualifications (degree and a professional qualification) merited, and I'm more qualified and outperforming people at the same grade as me who've been in the grade since I was still in primary school, due to "seniority", AND who earn more than 20k p.a. more than I do. The pay system is flawed but I can live with it as long as I can see a path to parity. 

So you're damn right my motivation would dip if my pay is effectively cut (by the non-honouring of my contract) and theirs isn't, because they've been turning up for long enough that they've no more increments. Anyone whose motivation wouldn't be affected should have their head checked. Thinking about it, I probably wouldn't be able to go through with my one man work to rule, because it just isn't in my nature - if someone asks me a question I can't help but try to find the answer (I'm looking at you Murphaph and the incessant yap about the German tax code), and I like my boss, and the work that we do. I'd probably last about half an hour before I'd forget. 

I'm not a "typical PS worker" with my head buried in the sand. I'm perfectly willing to take a pay cut. And it shouldn't be easy to get an increment.


----------



## Knuttell (21 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> *I'm perfectly willing to take a pay cut*. *And it shouldn't be easy to get an increment.*



Does not compute.

Given where we are right now any talk of incremental pay increases is to most completely and utterly nuts!!

We are in an IMF bail out for Gods sake,Ireland is the equivalent of a beggar on O Connell st without a blanket and yet this sort of nonsense of even suggesting a withdrawal of pay increases to those with secure pensionable jobs is met with work to rule or worse.

This is happening in slow motion,those that think the likes of donkey Howlin will shield the comrades in the Unions forever at the expense of everyone else are deluded,the Troikas velvet glove will come off soon enough and finally deliver a violent coup de grace to this nonsense once and for all..the sooner we have the ability to rule ourselves removed the better...

...our leaders yesterday have finally demonstrated they shouldn't be left in charge of an opened can of royal dutch with fag ends in it.


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Sep 2012)

Calico said:


> No disrespect to you personally, but I think this attitude stinks. You have a permanent job that you cannot be fired from. You will enjoy a pension that is worth far in excess of what you will have personally contributed to it. You enjoy sick pay, paid maternity leave, and a salary that is currently far in excess of what you would receive for a similar job in the private sector. Essentially you have something that a huge amount of people in Ireland today would give their eye teeth for. And yet, despite all this, you say that if the government, in the current economic climate, scrapped increments, that you would stop helping your colleagues? Even though you clearly could if you wanted to?



So many issues with this post...

I don't think my attitude stinks - I have a great attitude and I like my job, and feel lucky to have it. The fact that I'm lucky doesn't mean I have no right to feel aggrieved if my contract isn't being honoured. I can be fired (or I should be able to be fired), albeit not as easily as in the private sector. I'm not talking about doing anything that would get me fired in either the public / private sector - just not breaking my This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language to get things done.

Who knows what my pension will be - if I was retiring in the next couple of years you might be right, but I won't be retiring for 35 years - doubtless if you have your way I'll do well to get back what I put in. I don't expect to retire with the pension entitlement that I presently have accruing to me.

Next, and most annoyingly of all - how do you know how much I could earn for a similar job in the private sector? You don't. However I do know what I do, I know the private sector counterparts I deal with on a daily basis, and I know within a tight range what they earn, and it is a lot more than I do. I also know I took a pay cut of 15-20% to take up my job in the civil service, but I was happy to do so because the job itself, the non-pay benefits, the job security, and the clarity of the incremental pay scale, all appealed to me. Just looking around online, I reckon I could get a job in the private sector commanding a 20-30% higher salary. Indeed I might if increments are frozen - you'll be delighted then no doubt, one less no good civil servant!  Seriously though, the point is beware of crass generalisations, oh and stats published by rag newspapers that start with "the average public sector..."



Calico said:


> Also, you're completely wrong when you say that paying increments is a private sector practice as well. It certainly isn't. In the private sector (i.e. the real world) most people work hard to keep their existing job, or to get a promotion.



Where did I say that, and it's not "completely wrong" - there are lots of private sector organisations that operate incremental payscales. One example: [broken link removed]


----------



## Knuttell (21 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> just not breaking my This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language to get things done.



If you could translate that into Latin it could very well be the motto for the civil service.

Edit.Gave it a go.

_*"Iustus non irritum facient pactum meum asinus impetro res fieri"*_

_Serving Ireland since 1922_


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Sep 2012)

Knuttell said:


> Does not compute.
> 
> Given where we are right now any talk of incremental pay increases is to most completely and utterly nuts!!
> 
> ...



We'll have to agree to disagree Knuttell. You could cut everyone's pay, including current pensioners, who IMHO are the ones who've really gotten off lightly so far, by 1% and save more than you would by freezing increments.

The majority of people receiving increments earn less than 50,000. I think an across the board pay cut of 4-7% (graded based on income) would be much fairer, and save much more money on an ongoing basis, without affecting the incremental nature of pay, which is a fundamental of the employment contract.

And a thing to bear in mind, that someone pointed out to me last week, is that apparently something like 1 in 4 households are dependent to some extent on a public sector wage. There's only a certain amount that PS pay rates can be cut before a tipping point is reached for some of these households, where mortgage defaults and other unpleasantness manifest, and these cost the economy as well.


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Sep 2012)

Knuttell said:


> If you could translate that into Latin it could very well be the motto for the civil service.
> 
> Edit.Gave it a go.
> 
> ...



You're actually really getting my goat up now  talk about a selective quote - not breaking my This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language to get things done, in a hypothetical situation where the financial incentive to break my This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language has been withdrawn by my employer. Even in the private sector only a lickarse of the highest order goes the extra mile when the boss has made it clear I don't care if you kill yourself to get work done; you won't be treated or recompensed any differently than Shamie over there who spends the days picking his nose and eating it.


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 Sep 2012)

.... and so another important thread descends into a public/private row!


----------



## Birroc (21 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> I can be fired (or I should be able to be fired), albeit not as easily as in the private sector.



Having worked in the public sector for many years, I would says its almost impossible to get fired. If you are in the union, there's no chance! You'd have to rob someone on the office floor at gunpoint and even then you'd get a warning. I knew one guy who point blank refused to do any work at all over some silly disagreement about work practices which had gone to mediation but he still didn't accept the decision - he read the paper or surfed or chatted on phone all day every day. My manager said it wasn't worth the hassle with the union reps so they left him alone. When I left that section, he had been doing nothing for 18+ months. The only option open to the manager was to move him on (which often means promotion) to another section.

Looking back I feel that productivity and accountability would improve no end if getting fired was an option.


----------



## zztop (21 Sep 2012)

And not a word about all the elected councillors on boards and
councils getting 30k+ for doing SFA...


----------



## Chris (21 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> Propose an alternative, or point me to a developed country with a functioning public sector better than ours that has implemented an alternative, and then we have something to talk about. Otherwise we're just talking pie in the sky - you know, like a couple of Socialist Workers Party heads...
> 
> 
> I don't see a contradiction TBH. The contract of employment I signed says that my pay increases incrementally over 7 years, with 2 long service increments after 3 & 6 years at the max, all of which are subject to "satisfactory performance", so in theory at least they are already performance related. It's the practical application that's the problem.
> ...


I think you are making some good points, but the issue is that in a lot of instances I hear of there is no review process before an increment is approved. My wife worked as a nurse in the public sector for many years before she had enough and moved to the private sector. She never once had a meeting with a manager to go over performance to see where things could be improved. All she had to do was make a phone call herself to the salaries department of the HSE and ask for the pay to be raised.
Have two friends in the local council offices who have said the exact same thing. You finish another year, make a call to the salaries department and they bump your wage.
That is completely wrong. I fully agree that this years objectives should not be good enough for next year, but when I tell this to people in the public sector they look at me as if I'm crazy, you are very much a lonely voice in this. And I also think that you should be able to make a very good case to be bumped above those people that you are outperforming. I have been in my current job for 5 years, when I started there were people there 4 or more years that had a higher income than me. Through the review process in place I was able to demonstrate within 3 years that I was outperforming and outtasking those people and I am now earning more than them despite being there for half the time. This is the way it should be for you, but unfortunately isn't. I would also say that such a system would paint the public service in a much better picture.



mandelbrot said:


> That makes perfect sense, but how do you translate that into the public sector context? Progression up an incremental scale is not a pay rise, it's a person being paid slightly more next year for being slightly better and doing slightly more next year by virtue of experience in the role. A pay rise would be where the entire scale is shifted upwards.


See I think this is where we maybe have a bit of confusion. In my private sector experience I have never seen situations where everybody automatically got a raise, it was always performance related raises. Companies decide they have extra money to budget for salaries and want incentives for staff to stay. But they never gave everyone a certain percent raise without it being related to performance. If you didn't at least meet your goals you would not be entitled to a raise. What you are referring to increments and pay raises are in my opinion the same thing and should always be performance related.
This is no more difficult in the public sector than it is in the private.



mandelbrot said:


> This company making a profit analogy that people keep trotting out; the bottom line is we'd have to cut PS pay to nil to clear the budget deficit, so I maintain, a pay cut (across all points of the scales) is fairer than reneging on people's contracts.


I think you are a bit off track here. Companies that find themselves in situations where they are making losses first freeze pay, then usually it comes to layoffs. From what I have heard with friends and family pay cuts are usually introduced after layoffs, as you do not want to demoralize the remaining staff even more.
So the analogy to a private company making losses makes perfect sense. I have said it many times before on here that the first thing to do in order to tackle public sect pay is to cut out entire services and departments that are luxuries at best.


----------



## Purple (21 Sep 2012)

I can't disagree with much of what mandelbrot has said. 
Reasonable and logical points.


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> I can't disagree with much of what mandelbrot has said.
> Reasonable and logical points.


 
Phew, I was starting to worry that I've been leftified after only a couple of years in the PS... and before I know it I'd be growing a beard and smoking a pipe! 



(I'm claiming copyright on the word Leftified by the way!)


----------



## Purple (21 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> Phew, I was starting to worry that I've been leftified after only a couple of years in the PS... and before I know it I'd be growing a beard and smoking a pipe!
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm claiming copyright on the word Leftified by the way!)


  I've ceased using the phrase "Bearded Brethren" as it upset some people. Leftied is good though.


----------



## ajapale (21 Sep 2012)

This is an interesting article.

 (pdf doc)


----------



## ajapale (21 Sep 2012)

Chris said:


> My wife worked as a nurse in the public sector for many years before she had enough and moved to the private sector. She never once had a meeting with a manager to go over performance to see where things could be improved.



Out of interest, since your wife joined the private health care sector has she had meetings with her supervisor to see where things could be imporved?


----------



## Chris (21 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> Out of interest, since your wife joined the private health care sector has she had meetings with her supervisor to see where things could be imporved?



Good point, and yes. Now the place she is working in has had a pay freeze for a couple of years, but they have a formal review process. It's not the best I have encountered but it does include goals, training, training in other areas, etc.


----------



## Firefly (21 Sep 2012)

mandelbrot said:


> The top of the scale represents someone performing at the highest level expected of someone in that role


 
Is that really the case though? Is it not that they are in the job for the length of time it takes to accumulate these annual increments?



mandelbrot said:


> - I'd argue I'm already there in my job, looking at my colleagues who earn 20k more than me who rely on me for help, but it's going to take me several more years to get there, so the system isn't perfect. But telling me that until further notice no matter what I do I can't close the gap is a hugely demotivating factor, and likely to result in me doing the bare minimum to avoid being hauled in for underperformance


 
What happens then, say if increments are not touched, and after the requisite number of years you reach the top of your grade? Do you then do the bare minimum until you are promoted? Not having a dig at you by the way, just trying toi understand the logic.


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> Is that really the case though? Is it not that they are in the job for the length of time it takes to accumulate these annual increments?


As I said already elsewhere, the increment should be given only on the basis of improved performance / output / service delivery year on year, or because you are already performing at a level beyond the level expected for the role.
I would say based on any objective view of my performance, output, and contribution to the organisation that I should be getting paid at the top of my scale already - there's no means for that to happen though, so I have to sit, continue to perform, and wait.
I ask again, and no-one has actually offered an alternative, what do you do if you're not going to offer incremental pay scales - how do you manage pay across the PS? And how do you motivate and retain good staff - opportunities for promotion in PS jobs have never been great and are currently nearly non-existent. Bear in mind that the PS needs to be a place where people want to work, not just somewhere they park themselves for a couple of years while waiting for a proper job - that's a certain way to see performance suffer.



Firefly said:


> What happens then, say if increments are not touched, and after the requisite number of years you reach the top of your grade? Do you then do the bare minimum until you are promoted? Not having a dig at you by the way, just trying toi understand the logic.


 
Doing the bare minimum won't, or shouldn't get you promoted, not any more. I'm waiting to hear about a possible promotion at the moment and both the standard of competition and the process itself were very tough.

To me the point of a properly run performance management system would be that in managing people's performance to get them to the top of the scale, it ensures their attitude and mentality are right (otherwise they shouldn't get there!), by which point they should be fully capable and performing very well in their role at the highest level expected of someone in that job.

So they should be more productive and taking on more responsibilities than they were a few years previously, and if they decided to tread water from there they'd still be worth the money they're being paid. But if they want to get promotion they'd have to continue to exceed expectations, as their recent performance would always be a factor. 

I hear what you're saying though, and I actually think salary scales shouldn't be a one way street, there should be decrements as well as increments if people want to take the mickey...


----------



## Deiseblue (21 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> I've ceased using the phrase "Bearded Brethren" as it upset some people. Leftied is good though.



To be fair Purple you have used the phrase again - you old " running dog of capitalism "  - you !


----------



## Deiseblue (22 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> I've ceased using the phrase "Bearded Brethren" as it upset some people. Leftied is good though.



Actually the more I think of it the less happy I am about the use of this phrase.

Presumably there should be no problem using phrases such as " overcharging leeches " with regard to such as doctors , lawyers etc or " chinless , corrupt , tax dodging small business owners " - after all they are simply pejorative , catch all phrases similar to that used by you - & I might say equally false.


I must say that I am somewhat taken aback by your continued reference to the phrase " Bearded Brethren " despite a previous promise not to do so - I thought better of you.


----------



## mandelbrot (22 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> Actually the more I think of it the less happy I am about the use of this phrase.
> 
> Presumably there should be no problem using phrases such as " overcharging leeches " with regard to such as doctors , lawyers etc or " chinless , corrupt , tax dodging small business owners " - after all they are simply pejorative , catch all phrases similar to that used by you - & I might say equally false.
> 
> ...





I'm clearly late to the party on this one, as I haven't seen it used before, but how does "bearded brethren" have a negative connotation equivalent to either of the examples you use above?


----------



## Knuttell (22 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> I must say that I am somewhat taken aback by your continued reference to the phrase " Bearded Brethren " despite a previous promise not to do so - I thought better of you.



You would definitely not want to hear what I call them then...frankly its borderline obscene and would offend both men and women of delicate sensibilities.


----------



## Deiseblue (22 Sep 2012)

Knuttell said:


> You would definitely not want to hear what I call them then...frankly its borderline obscene and would offend both men and women of delicate sensibilities.



The difference being of course that you chose not to post what you call unions.

I have no problem entering into debate on union related issues on this site - I do however have difficulties with annoying , juvenile , derogatory ,incorrect & pejorative phrases.


----------



## ajapale (22 Sep 2012)

I heard a union rep on the radio this morning and he made a few salient points about the public service allowances.

He said that these allowances exist in the private sector as well and cited rain coat allowances for hacks that have to stand out on the steps of Leinster House!

He said that many of these allowances were freely entered into by former governments and up held by labour court determinations over the years. He said that the reasons these allowances developed was because of pay relativities that used to exist and that the allowance was a way to pay extra to a certain category with out affecting the entire service.

Some allowances are pensionable and some are not. In the past some allowances were taxable and some were not. I think revenue have tightened up on this and all such allowances are taxable now. (I remember a telephone allowance for the on call foreman when I worked briefly in payroll in a private company).

In general when annual leave payments are being calculated they are based on basic pay and allowances are not included. Sick pay is calculated in the same way.

My own view is that these allowances are old fashioned and are indicative of endemic poor management.

We have all heard the crazy allowances over the last few weeks but does any one have a list with explanations as to what they mean (and what value they have)?


----------



## Deiseblue (22 Sep 2012)

On a slightly lighter note I knew a guy who worked on relief staff in the Bank.

The Bank paid a set amount for accomodation , meals & petrol - to maximise savings this guy lived out of a tent during the summer months !


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> To be fair Purple you have used the phrase again - you old " running dog of capitalism "  - you !



Did you eat something that disagreed with you between the above the below comments? 



Deiseblue said:


> Actually the more I think of it the less happy I am about the use of this phrase.
> 
> Presumably there should be no problem using phrases such as " overcharging leeches " with regard to such as doctors , lawyers etc or " chinless , corrupt , tax dodging small business owners " - after all they are simply pejorative , catch all phrases similar to that used by you - & I might say equally false.
> 
> ...



Seriously though, no offense meant; apologies for any caused. 
Please don't think better of me; I have a reputation to maintain!


----------



## Deiseblue (22 Sep 2012)

There is a strong possibility that I may have imbibed rather unwisely between the time frame in question that may have had me feeling even rather thinner skinned than usual !

I trust that we can now resume our usual quite well mannered discussions.


----------



## ajapale (22 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> I trust that we can now resume our usual quite well mannered discussions.



Lads, just get back on topic. Thanks


----------



## Delboy (22 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> I heard a union rep on the radio this morning and he made a few salient points about the public service allowances.
> He said that many of these allowances were freely entered into by former governments and up held by labour court determinations over the years.....



The labour court is 1 of the biggest jokes in this whole country. It's 'winning streak' with suits on


----------



## truthseeker (22 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> We have all heard the crazy allowances over the last few weeks but does any one have a list with explanations as to what they mean (and what value they have)?



The link I posted in post #6 on this thread has this information.


----------



## ajapale (23 Sep 2012)

Thanks, here is the link from post #6. 

Agriculture, Fisheries Food
Director of appeals unit allowance
IT Gratuity Allowance
 Livestock allowance
Meat Inspection – BCC Allowance
Regional HEO Allowance
Rendering Allowance TAO
Special Edition Allowance
Pesticide Allowance
Shift Allowance at Airports
Shift Allowance at Ports
Special Investigation Unit Allowance
Farm Manager  Assistant Farm Manager
Harbour Masters Housing Allowance
Harbour Masters On Call Allowance
Shift Allowance
Syncrolift Allowance
Vet and lab allowance business cases (5)
 Teagasc
Teagasc Business Cases (37)
 Marine Institute
Delegates Allowance
Sea Going Payment
 Sea Fisheries Protection Authority
On call allowance
Roster allowance
Sunday Premium allowance
 Attorney General’s Office
Acting Up Allowance
Attorney General Allowance
CO Programmer Allowance
Private Secretaries Allowance
 Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht
Chester Beatty Library
Boxmaking Allowance
Overtime
CBL BC – Post & AV Allowance
Uniform Allowance
 IMMA
Cleaning Supervisor Allowance
Higher Duty Allowance Exhibitions
Higher Duty Allowance Security
 National Library
Early Late Allowance
on call allowance
Science Arts Attendant
 National Museum
Camera allowance
Franking allowance
In charge allowance
IT Allowance
Machine allowance
Saturday allowance
Security allowance
Supervisory allowance
Telephonist allowance
Yard allowance
 Communications, Energy & Natural Resources
Driving Allowance
Flying Managers Allowance
Flying Allowance
Keyholder Allowance
Sea Patrol Allowance
 Inland Fisheries
Eating on Site
Office allowance
Unsocial Hrs & Special Allowance
Unsocial Hrs Allowance Angling Advisor
 Civil Service
Footwear Allowance
Additional hours  shift on call
Delegates Allowance
Directors Allowance
Driving Allowance
Forklift Allowance
Franking Machine Allowance
Keyholder Allowance
Machine Duties Allowance
Nightwatchman Allowance
Paperkeeper Duties Allowance
Private Secretary Allowance
Services Officer Supervisory Allowance
Office Accommodation Allowance
Uniform Allowance
Uniform Cleaning Allowance
Employee Assistance Officer Allowance 
 Central Statistics Office
Bus, Travel & Passenger Card Inquiry Allowances
Coordinator Flexibility Allowance
Extra Duties Allowance
Mobile Phone Allowance
Pricing Liaison Allowance
Uniform Allowance
 Chief State Solicitor’s Office
 Assistant Chief State Solicitor Allowance
CO Programmer
Footwear
Franking Allowance
On-Call
Private Secretary
Special
Tribunal Allowance
 Defence
Aid to Civil Authority Allowance
Air Traffic Controller Allowance
Army Ranger Wing Allowance
Assistant Stores Controller Allowance
Border Duty Allowance
Brigade Duty Officers Allowance
Diving Allowance Annual
Diving Allowance
Allowance for editors of Connect and An Cosantoir
Election Gratuity Allowance
Emergency Medical Officer Allowance
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Duty Allowance
Fire Protection Pay
Fish Monitoring Centre Allowance
Flying Pay Allowance
Foreign Language Proficiency Allowance
Health and Safety Allowance
Incharge allowance, Naval Service
Instructors Allowance
Specialised Instructors Allowance
Integrated Reserve Allowance
Irish Language Teaching Allowance
Isolated Post Allowance
Leading Instrumentalist Allowance
Maintenance of Essential Services Allowance
Mast Riggers_Erectors Allowance
Military Service Allowance
Naval Pay Allowance
NCO Account Holders Allowance
NCO Account Holders Alowance Half Rate
NCO Drivers Reserve Cadre Allowance
Patrol Duty Allowance
Personnel Support Service Allowance
Personnel Support Services Allowance Half rate
Portlaoise Hospital Guard On Call Allowance
Prison Duty Allowance
Search and Rescue Allowance
Security Duty Allowance
Technical Pay Allowance
Overseas Armed Peace Support Allowance
Overseas Peace Support Allowance
Change of Station Allowance
Delegates Allowance
Civilian Clothing Allowance
Daily Course Allowance
Daily Per Diem and Holiday Pay Overseas Missions Allowance
Entertainment Allowance
Reserve Defence Forces Allowance
Initial Uniform Allowance
Messing Allowance
Mileage Allowance
Overseas Financial Support Package
Principal Military Appointments Entertainment Allowance
Ration Allowance Cadets
Special Allowance for holders of certain appointments in RDF
Special uniform Allowance Equitiation School
Subsistence Allowance
Underwear and Night attire allowance
Uniform Replenishment Allowance
Uniform Allowance Cadets
Children’s allowance AWOL
Housekeepers Allowance
 Environment, Communications & Local Government
ECLG Business Cases
 Local Government
Acting Allowance
 Dirty Money allowance
Dual Duties Allowance
Eating on Site Allowance
Ice Case Allowance
On Call Allowance
SFO Rostered On Call Allowance
Tool Allowance
Local Gov BC – Unsocial Hours
Water Caretakers WE Allowance
Water Safety Allowance
Winter Maintenance Allowance
 Education
Teachers Allowances
Universities Allowances
 VEC – IOT Allowances
 Supplementary Allowances
 State Examination Commission
Reproduction Unit Allowance
 Foreign Affairs & Trade
Chief of Protocol Clothing Allowance
Deputy Director of Division Allowance
Diplomatic Duty Officer Allowance
Foreign Service Allowances
Gratuity for Public Holiday Allowance
ICT On-call Allowance
Meal Allowance
Passport Office Cork Duty Officer Allowance
Passport Office Dublin Duty Officer Allowance
Perm Rep Brussels Duty Officer Allowance
Press Officer Allowance
 Finance
Valuation Office
Appeal Officer -Valuation Office
Team Leader -Valuation Office
 Health
HSE
 Acting Allowance 
 Advanced Paramedic Business Case
Assisted Admission Allowance 
Cardiac Allowance 
Clinical Directors Allowance 
Consultants Continuing Medical Education Allowance
Craftworkers Tool Allowance Business Case
GP Trainee Allowance 
Island Inducement Allowance 
Living Out Allowance Business Case
Location Allowance 
HSE – Mental Health Authorising Officer Allowance 
Second Opinion Allowance 
Sleep-In Overnight Allowance 
Specialist Qualification Allowance 
Forensic Psychiatry Out of Hours Allowance
HSE – Student Medical Scientists Allowance
Secure_Unit(High_Support),Child Care Services
Student EHO’s Allowance
 Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation
Industrial Relations Officer
Labour Inspector Allowance
 Enterprise Ireland
Cost of Living Allowance
Hardship Allowance
Local Post Allowance
Overseas Weekend Allowance
 Health & Safety Authority
Call Out Allowance
Receptionist Allowance
 Justice
Business cases for allowances in Justice sector
 Garda Síochána
Garda Pay and Allowances (54)
 Irish Prison Service
Amalgamated Allowances (32)I
Doctors on call Allowance
Detailed Duty Allowances
Industrial Man Allowance
National Head Chaplain Allowance
Work Training (AIS) Allowance
Work Training (IM) Allowance
 Oireachtas
Extra Attendance Allowance
Senior Usher Allowance
 Office of Public Works
Special Duty – M  E
Committee Allowance
Maintenance Co-Ordinator Allowance
Special Duty – District Works Managers
 Revenue Commissioners
Revenue Business Cases (6)
 Social Protection
Call Out Availability Allowance
IS Services On Call Allowance
Special investigation Unit Allowance
Assignment to GNIB Allowance
 State Industrials
Eating on Site allowance
Tool Allowance
 Taoiseach
Department of the Taoiseach Allowances (5)
 Transport, Tourism & Sport
Air Accident Investigation Unit
On call Duty Allowance AAIU
 Fáilte Ireland
Sunday Premium Allowance
Sunday Working Allowance
 IRCG
On call  Availability Allowance
Radio Officers ROIII and ROII Allowance
Shift Allowance
Station Officer Allowance
 Mercantile Marine Office
Superintendent Allowance 
 Marine Survey Office
Surveyor-in-Charge Allowance MSO
 National Transport Authority
Taxi Enforcement Officers Allowance 
 Railway Accident Information Unit
On call Allowance 
 Road Safety Authority
Higher Duty Allowance 
Training Allowance 
Training Officer Allowance 
Atypical Allowance 
Driver Testers Car Allowance RSA
Fixed Car Allowance 
Bus Allowance
Transport Officer Allowance 
Vehicle inspector Allowance RSA
 Railway Safety Commission
On call Allowance 
 Tourism Ireland
Directors Travel Allowance 
Unsocial Hours Allowance


----------



## ajapale (23 Sep 2012)

I don't wish to defend these crazy allowances which bad managers have allowed build up in the public service over the years. Personally, I have worked for many years in the both private sector and the public service and have never received any allowance of any type (no allowances, no overtime, no bonus).

Just a few points:
1)Some of these allowances are for very small amounts of money.
2)Some of these allowances are for very small numbers of employees.
3)Some of these allowances have a very compelling business case associated with them.

I would suggest that If you were top management in the public service you would choose the ground on which to fight the Public Service TU's. You would concentrate on the big ticket items that would deliver big results. (Large Scale Redundancies, Major Pay Cuts, Pension Cuts etc).

The TU's are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospects of bogging down the process fighting about with a multitude of often trivial payments to a tiny number of employees.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> I don't wish to defend these crazy allowances which bad managers have allowed build up in the public service over the years. Personally, I have worked for many years in the both private sector and the public service and have never received any allowance of any type (no allowances, no overtime, no bonus).
> 
> *Just a few points:
> 1)Some of these allowances are for very small amounts of money.
> ...



I totally agree. Its easy to have a snigger at Dirty Money Allowance (as I did) but the information from that link should have been presented properly in some kind of visual format where it is immediately obvious how much is being spent on how many people and highlighted cases that have a compelling business case. (not by you ajapale, on the site the link goes to)


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> I don't wish to defend these crazy allowances which bad managers have allowed build up in the public service over the years. Personally, I have worked for many years in the both private sector and the public service and have never received any allowance of any type (no allowances, no overtime, no bonus).
> 
> Just a few points:
> 1)Some of these allowances are for very small amounts of money.
> ...



What's this nonsense about fighting  the Trade Unions - the Croke Park Agreement is in place - it's a mutually agreed process to deliver quantifiable savings which have been delivered according to the independent report body.

Any areas of dispute were to be referred to the Labour Court - that is what has been mutually agreed between employers & employees via their Unions.

It's  not a question of some sort of battle - both parties signed up to the CPA & both seem determined to honour the Agreement.


----------



## ajapale (23 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> What's this nonsense about fighting  the Trade Unions.


OK so, engaging/negotiating with the trade unions.

If management is going to engage/negotiate with public service trade unions then management should carefully choose the the issues on which they want to win.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> OK so, engaging/negotiating with the trade unions.
> 
> If management is going to engage/negotiate with public service trade unions then management should carefully choose the the issues on which they want to win.



I see no problem with that - however the areas you mentioned - pay cuts , pension cuts do not fall under the bailiwick of the Croke Park Agreement .

Large scale voluntary redundancies continue apace - apparently nearly 500 more teachers than originally envisaged applied for early retirement.


Currently therefore there is no engagement/negotiation due until the expiration of the current Agreement - any disputed areas will be referred to the Labour Court.


----------



## capall (24 Sep 2012)

*allowances*

There is no point being outraged at the spuriousness of these allowances.
They are really part of total salary

It just points to the need for a benchmarking process to bench mark all our public sector salaries to european norms and abolish all but genuine allowances

This would also hugely simplify the administration of Pay and IT systems for payroll in the public sector

What are the chances of that happening ?

So much energy and time is being misppent in the approaches to public sector reform , there is not a reforming bone in this government


----------



## Teatime (24 Sep 2012)

David Begg on radio this morning. He basically said that he was ok with removing allowances as long as the recipients got corresponding salary rises to compensate.


----------



## Shawady (24 Sep 2012)

The head of Impact was quoted in the paper yesterday as saying he was surprised the government had not refered some of these to the Labour court in the same way that they had introduced changes to sick leave arrangments.
I find Brendan Howlin's behavior strange.

Does anyone know if all these allowances were subected to the pension levy and pay cut?


----------



## TarfHead (24 Sep 2012)

Teatime said:


> David Begg on radio this morning. He basically said that he was ok with removing allowances as long as the recipients got corresponding salary rises to compensate.


 
This is more of it. A management who tolerate a situation whereby allowances are allowed to be consider as part of the overall remuneration package.

Up to 2008, there were a number of 'windfalls' that I had come to rely on. Such as share dividends, performance bonus, salary increment, PRSI threshold. All of them disappeared in a relatively short space of time and I had to deal with it.

So I dealt with it.


----------



## NOAH (24 Sep 2012)

Until we deal with  the TD's allowances sham there will be no changes in the PS approach and who can blame. Imagine an allowance for turning up for work, in a word...  disgraceful.  And the media should highlight all the other scams our elected ......  get up to.

noah


----------



## ajapale (24 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> Just a few points:
> 1)Some of these allowances are for very small amounts of money.
> 2)Some of these allowances are for very small numbers of employees.
> 3)Some of these allowances have a very compelling business case associated with them.
> ...



I heard David Begg on the radio this morning and he was all sweetness and light. Of course the trade unions want to engage about these relatively minor allowances while diverting attention from the reallly big issues that must be tackled.

I think Howlin is probably correct (albeit unknowingly) for not falling for this media driven diversion and keeping his powder dry for the real battle - renegotiation of the CPA.


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2012)

NOAH said:


> Until we deal with  the TD's allowances sham there will be no changes in the PS approach and who can blame. Imagine an allowance for turning up for work, in a word...  disgraceful.  And the media should highlight all the other scams our elected ......  get up to.
> 
> noah


I agree with that; they should lead by example.
Everything from travel to leaders allowances should be changed or removed.


----------



## Yachtie (25 Sep 2012)

I fail to understand what part of any of the stuff subject to allowances do people not understand when applying for jobs. I mean, if you trained to be for example a nurse, a garda or a fire fighter, unsociable hours, weekends, etc. are a given. If you apply for a job with the waste disposal or sewage cleaning company, regardless of whether public or private, some nasty dirt is inevitable. If you applied for a traffic warden's job, you should be issued with an uniform and appropriate footwear *procured by your employer by public tender* rather than be given a footware allowance. I can go on forever with examples. Yet the crux of the problem is that many of those allowances are seen as part of annual salary rather than just an allowance which can be withdrawn at any time.


----------



## Purple (25 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> I think Howlin is probably correct (albeit unknowingly) for not falling for this media driven diversion and keeping his powder dry for the real battle - renegotiation of the CPA.



I've come around to that way of thinking as well.


----------



## Knuttell (25 Sep 2012)

> Originally Posted by ajapale
> I think Howlin is probably correct (albeit unknowingly) for not falling for this media driven diversion and keeping his powder dry for the real battle - renegotiation of the CPA.



If he cant manage a few cuts to allowances that even the Unions seem embarrassed over I do not see him locking horns with anyone except the voters in his constituency when he comes a knocking at their door.


----------



## ajapale (25 Sep 2012)

Just watch as the unions lead us on a merry dance as we seek to make savings from these allowances which as I have said before:

1)some of which only apply to a handful of employees
2)some of which are very small annual payments
3)some of which have a strong business rationale.
4)some of which exist in the private sector.

Yes the unions will lead us on a merry dance (negotiations, labour court,parliamentary inquiries) egged on by a tabloid mentality press and with the complicity of Minister Howlin all this will be a diversion and will delay tackling the really big important issues facing the public finances.


----------



## Complainer (25 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> I heard David Begg on the radio this morning and he was all sweetness and light. Of course the trade unions want to engage about these relatively minor allowances while diverting attention from the reallly big issues that must be tackled.
> 
> I think Howlin is probably correct (albeit unknowingly) for not falling for this media driven diversion and keeping his powder dry for the real battle - renegotiation of the CPA.



Howlin is quite happy to leave the allowances on the table, and further fuel the public/private divide that the last Govt started and that this Govt is largely continuing. It is a tactic designed to harden up the public attitudes towards public sector staff, with an eye to what comes after the Croke Park agreement.


----------



## NOAH (25 Sep 2012)

I dont think people will ever forget the way this government is behaving,  its just a bide your time now until next election.  An allowance for turning up for work,  why would a union rep ever give up any of their allowances.

noah


----------



## Purple (26 Sep 2012)

Complainer said:


> Howlin is quite happy to leave the allowances on the table, and further fuel the public/private divide that the last Govt started and that this Govt is largely continuing. It is a tactic designed to harden up the public attitudes towards public sector staff, with an eye to what comes after the Croke Park agreement.


 So Labour have turned on their own? Wow.


----------



## Bronte (26 Sep 2012)

Complainer said:


> Howlin is quite happy to leave the allowances on the table, and further fuel the public/private divide that the last Govt started and that this Govt is largely continuing. It is a tactic designed to harden up the public attitudes towards public sector staff, with an eye to what comes after the Croke Park agreement.


 

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  Would it be good that we paid less to civil servants and had more money for services I wonder.  Maybe we should pay them more and we'd get better services.  Aren't civil servants now delivering more under Croke Park?


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Sep 2012)

I agree that negotiations on CPA 2 are likely to be challenging , to say the least.

It will be extremely difficult , for a start , to persuade Unions to return to the table without first providing assurances on core pay & pensions etc.


----------



## Purple (26 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> I agree that negotiations on CPA 2 are likely to be challenging , to say the least.
> 
> It will be extremely difficult , for a start , to persuade Unions to return to the table without first providing assurances on core pay & pensions etc.



So they will only talk if the government agree not to talk about 80% of the issues?


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> So they will only talk if the government agree not to talk about 80% of the issues?



I believe that the Unions will seek assurances on pay & pensions before agreeing to entering negotiations - that will certainly be their starting position


----------



## Firefly (26 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> I believe that the Unions will seek assurances on pay & pensions before agreeing to entering negotiations - that will certainly be their starting position


 
And how do you propose that current pay & pensions be funded into the future?


----------



## Purple (26 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> I believe that the Unions will seek assurances on pay & pensions before agreeing to entering negotiations - that will certainly be their starting position



What constructive people


----------



## Purple (26 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> And how do you propose that current pay & pensions be funded into the future?



Tax the rich!!!
If only we did that everything would be perfect; no crime, no social problems, no disease, no wars, no child would go hungry, the world would be at peace... It would be like the Star Trek version of Earth but as imagined by Shaggy from Scooby-Doo.


----------



## Firefly (26 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Tax the rich!!!


 
Hot off the press:

The Nevin Economic Research Institute (Neri), which _was set up in March and is funded by trade unions_, said the State could instead shore up €1 billion by increasing taxes on high earners and wealth groups.


[broken link removed] 

So, according to a think-tank funded by the unions, taxing the rich will bring in an extra 1BN a year. Even if that were the case, how do we go about funding the rest of the budget deficit? Anyone?


----------



## Purple (26 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> Hot off the press:
> 
> The Nevin Economic Research Institute (Neri), which _was set up in March and is funded by trade unions_, said the State could instead shore up €1 billion by increasing taxes on high earners and wealth groups.
> 
> ...


Easy; tax the rich more!
See people who choose to work longer and harder than most of us in order to earn more money and/or people who earn more by being really clever and capable are willing to see well over half their marginal income taken away in income tax. 
Just ask people this question; “Would you be willing to sacrifice time with your children and other loved ones so that the state can take away more than half of what you earn?” I’m sure most people would be happy with that.


----------



## Firefly (26 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Easy; tax the rich more!


 
Not arguing with you (as we pretty much sing from the same hymn sheet)..

Applying the law of diminishing marginal returns, if we keep taxing the rich more, we will get less and less of an increase. Assuming that the think-tank estimates are valid (considering the "research" has been funded by the unions, I would think the estimates are optimist), then further taxing the rich would only slightly increase this 1BN figure. The next thing any sane, rich person would do then is to arrange the off-shoring of their assets. However, (as I argued in another thread to Complainer, who didn't answer) say the rich donned the green jersey and sucked this up for the good of the county, we still need to come up with over 12bn to balance the books. I hope that this "research" for once and for all puts to bed the idea that taxing the rich will solve our problems becuase it won't.

There are too many people depending on the *taxpayer *for their livelyhoods - salaries & pensions, dole payments, GP medical card payments, IT service companies, "entrepreneurs" who are trying for all their might to extract money from Enterprise Ireland (and I know a few personally)....the list goes on and on.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Sep 2012)

Firefly said:


> Hot off the press:
> 
> The Nevin Economic Research Institute (Neri), which _was set up in March and is funded by trade unions_, said the State could instead shore up €1 billion by increasing taxes on high earners and wealth groups.
> 
> ...



The Government via the Croke Park Agreement have charged PS management & the Unions with delivering verifiable targetted savings which have delivered impressive savings .

It's , perhaps , time to look now at achieving savings from other areas - such as finally means testing child benefits , the OAP & 3rd level fees/grants  .

Other areas such as the level of Corporation Tax , CGT & the reintroduction of Wealth Tax & the level of private school funding may , perhaps , be looked at again.

And yes the question of a higher tax rate for high earners also bears scrutiny .


----------



## Firefly (26 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> The Government via the Croke Park Agreement have charged PS management & the Unions with delivering verifiable targetted savings which have delivered impressive savings .
> .


 
Do you have a figure for this (less the cost of retiring these workers ie pension payments)?



Deiseblue said:


> It's , perhaps , time to look now at achieving savings from other areas - such as finally means testing child benefits , the OAP & 3rd level fees/grants .
> 
> Other areas such as the level of Corporation Tax , CGT & the reintroduction of Wealth Tax & the level of private school funding may , perhaps , be looked at again.


 
Do you think there is scope to raise 12bn annually in taxes here?




Deiseblue said:


> And yes the question of a higher tax rate for high earners also bears scrutiny .


 
As above - 1BN a year in savings from a union-funded research think-tank. A million miles short of what's needed to balance the deficit. 

IMO, unless pay & pensions, number of workers and dole payments are reduced, we will arrive pretty quickly at a point where the scope for increasing taxes further will be reached. We are extremely lucky that the ECB/IMF are bank-rolling us at the moment but at some point they are surely going to say something along the lines of "OK, you needed 14bn last year to balance the books, this year we are giving you 8bn..go figure". That's when the really tough decisions will be made.


----------



## TarfHead (26 Sep 2012)

Deiseblue said:


> And yes the question of a higher tax rate for high earners also bears scrutiny .


 
What's a high earner ? What constitutes wealth ?

Is someone earning 100K, or more, a high earner ? Or is that a handy figure seized on by attention seekers like Richard Boyd Barrett & Luke Flanagan ?

Is someone earning 200K with a mortgage on the family home of 500K wealthier than someone on 80K with no mortgage ?

I haven't seen or heard any evidence of analysis or understanding over what should constitute 'high earner' or 'wealth'.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Sep 2012)

I have found the implementation body's report of June 2012 to be the most informative source in terms of quantifiable savings made by the CPA , www.impact.ie also is a good source.

I believe that the Government has taken the view that the CPA is delivering & that given the fact that Industrial " Armegeddon " may follow any breach of the CPA then their alternatives lie in targeting areas that should be means tested such as areas outlined in my previous post -a fair approach I would have thought & further tax increases perhaps should be considered - is it my imagination or was there an independent review on the question of our current tax system ?

Interestingly when I refer to the term " Armegeddon " that is a phrase that has been trotted out by the Government & effectively suggests to me that the CPA will continue to be honoured.


----------



## orka (26 Sep 2012)

TarfHead said:


> What's a high earner ? What constitutes wealth ?...


According to the union-sponsored 'think-tank' NERI, those who should be targetted for increased taxation are the top 20% by household income - which is those earning over about 55K per household (so yes, a dual income couple with mortgage and childcare costs earning 27,500 each are 'wealthy'). 

See more discussion of this magnificent piece of work here :Dr Tom Healy of the Nevin Institute being interviewed on Morning Ireland


----------



## Yachtie (1 Oct 2012)

orka said:


> which is those earning over about 55K per household (so yes, a dual income couple with mortgage and childcare costs earning 27,500 each are 'wealthy').


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2012)

orka said:


> According to the union-sponsored 'think-tank' NERI, those who should be targetted for increased taxation are the top 20% by household income - which is those earning over about 55K per household (so yes, a dual income couple with mortgage and childcare costs earning 27,500 each are 'wealthy').
> 
> See more discussion of this magnificent piece of work here :Dr Tom Healy of the Nevin Institute being interviewed on Morning Ireland




The NERI report and what the good Doctor has said afterwards seem at odds with each other. There have been many "I should have been clearer about that" comments.
The term “Trade Union Economist” is an oxymoron.


----------

