# SOS IRELAND - Public Sector Pay Cuts!



## joejoe (17 Nov 2008)

Is the government building up to public sector reform, starting with pay cuts? The news coming from public commentators is yes and seems to be around the 10% mark.

How much over the average private sector job, does the public sector earn and how much is reasonable to take back of them?

If there are any public sector employees reading this, how willing are you to take a pay cut and how much?

Joejoe


----------



## csirl (17 Nov 2008)

I think that getting rid of the surplus 40k administrators in the HSE would be a better way to tackle the public sector pay bill.


----------



## starlite68 (17 Nov 2008)

start by taking away the "state pension"......everyone in the real world has to pay for their own pension!


----------



## Protocol (17 Nov 2008)

Most workers will receive a State pension.

More private sector workers (1.5m+) will receive State pensions than public sector workers (approx 300k).


Maybe you mean public service occupational pensions?

By the way, public servants contribute towards their pensions, in the same way as some private sector workers contribute to theirs.


----------



## limerickboy1 (17 Nov 2008)

yes but public sector workers are guaranteed a set ammount in their pension regardless of how the pension fund is actually performing in the markets


----------



## jhegarty (17 Nov 2008)

Protocol said:


> By the way, public servants contribute towards their pensions, in the same way as some private sector workers contribute to theirs.



Public sector works may contribute, but not in the same way as private works do....


----------



## Humdinger (17 Nov 2008)

limerickboy1 said:


> yes but public sector workers are guaranteed a set ammount in their pension regardless of how the pension fund is actually performing in the markets


 
So are private sector workers with DB plans

Most of the public sector do a good job, are not paid excessively and are not in a position to take big cuts.


----------



## csirl (17 Nov 2008)

Humdinger said:


> So are private sector workers with DB plans
> 
> Most of the public sector do a good job, are not paid excessively and are not in a position to take big cuts.


 
Over 50% of private sector pensions in Ireland are DB. May not apply to many employees hired in recent years as trend is towards DC.

The big issue with transferring the public sector to DC would be the hidden costs to the state of:

(i) allowing them to claim contributory old age pension - public service doesnt currently get this even though since mid 90s, they pay Class A PRSI.

(ii) the cost to the State of the employers contribution to the DC, which, like most private sector DC schemes, would have to match or come close to the basic employees contribution.

These 2 alone could increase the bill to the state considerably.

As I've pointed out on other threads in the past, while public service pensions are very generous for the management level grades, due to poor pay and the fact that they dont get the contributory OAP, pensions are very poor for clerical workers who are the majority of public servants.


----------



## Protocol (17 Nov 2008)

i_) allowing them to claim contributory old age pension - public service doesnt currently get this even though since mid 90s, they pay Class A PRSI._

Public servants hired since April 1995 do pay full-rate PRSI and will receive an OACP.


_(ii) the cost to the State of the employers contribution to the DC, which, like most private sector DC schemes, would have to match or come close to the basic employees contribution._

A movement to a funded scheme would force the State to make explicit contributions to a fund.

Unlike the PAYG schemes that currently exist.

This would mean higher expenditure now, but with lower future liabilites.

It is an intergenerational issue.


----------



## Protocol (17 Nov 2008)

limerickboy1 said:


> yes but public sector workers are guaranteed a set ammount in their pension regardless of how the pension fund is actually performing in the markets


 
There is no fund in public sector pension schemes.  They are not funded.

They are PAYG scheme (Pay-As-You-Go).

Current contributions of 6.5% of pay are used to finance current pensions.


----------



## Protocol (17 Nov 2008)

jhegarty said:


> Public sector works may contribute, but not in the same way as private works do....


 
Public servants contribute 6.5% of gross pay to their pensions.


----------



## csirl (17 Nov 2008)

> i_) allowing them to claim contributory old age pension - public service doesnt currently get this even though since mid 90s, they pay Class A PRSI._
> 
> Public servants hired since April 1995 do pay full-rate PRSI and will receive an OACP.


 
This isnt true. Public Servants, even those with Class A PRSI cannot claim the contributory old age pension in addition to their work pensions.


----------



## Protocol (17 Nov 2008)

Public servants who joined since 1995 have what is known as an intergrated or co-ordinated pension.

They will receive 2 pensions - the State OAP at age 65/66 and an occupational pension.


See here:

[broken link removed]

See page 201 of the Green Paper on pensions:


----------



## Protocol (17 Nov 2008)

Or see page 104 /105:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/psp/part2.pdf

From the ASTI website:


Co-ordination is a common feature of public sector pension schemes and most private sector schemes where employees are on full
rate PRSI. The purpose of co-ordination is to ensure that the aggregate of the occupational and Social Welfare pensions approximates
to the occupational pension payable to a person who is not on full rate PRSI. The lump sum payable under the occupational scheme is
not affected by co-ordination because there is no equivalent under the Social Welfare code.​


----------



## Protocol (17 Nov 2008)

The occupational pension will be reduced due to the integration.


Here is an example, say a person on 50k, with 40 years service. We assume OACP of 12k pa:

*Non-integrated*

Pension = 50% = 25k pa

*Integrated*

Pension = (0.50) (50k-2*12k) = (0.50) (26k) = 13k

13k work pension + 12k OACP = 25k pa.


----------



## csirl (17 Nov 2008)

I think we're on the same page here, just coming at it from different angles - your figures are correct. As things stand a public servant gets 50% of salary including COAP, but not 50% of salary plus COAP.


The point I'm trying to make is that while a defined benefit scheme can be coordinated, a defined contribution scheme cant, so if the public sector moved to defined contribution, then it would have to pay the COAP on top of the DC pension. I reckon that this could end up more expensive for the majority of public sector employee as due to their low salaries, they do not currently get any value for money for the 6.5% contribution they make as the COAP has eroded the % of the final pension that this pays for. From an acturial point of view, I reckon the government makes a profit out of these contributions in net present value terms. 

You take a low paid public servant who received 50% of salary of 30k per annum = €15k. The COAP is 12k, so they pay 6.5% of their annual salary for 40 years i.e. 78k in total, in order to get only 3k net in return. They would need to live for 26 years post retirement for the government not to make a profit out of them. As life expectancy in this country is c.78 i.e. 12 years post retirement, the government is in profit out of these contributions. 

If these contributions went into DC scheme, the Government would not make a profit out of the clerical staff pension scheme and would probably also have to match the contribution thus resulting in an even greater loss to the exchequer.


----------



## gradgrind (17 Nov 2008)

An important problem here is that the COAP is considered to be a fixed amount of the pension. Here 12k of a guaranteed 15k. In reality the COAP can be expected to shrink from relative to earnings from now on. Even now PRSI no longer covers SW pensions and will over the next couple years burn through reserves.

Let's say the COAP was only 6k or even 6c, would the public sector retiree on 15k care, no because he'll still get his 15k.

The idea that the taxpayer is making a profit on public sector PRSI+pension contributions is - ahem - interesting. And really only can be reached by assuming that COAP pensions will stay as relatively high as they currently are for the long term (I wish they would but sadly expect them to make a negligible contribution to my retirement income) - and are actually really funded by PRSI contributions, also handily ignores real world pension life expectancy at 65 estimates and cost of widow(er)s pensions and early retirement programs.

The 30k example is also not typical, for one thing I seem to remember a recent figure of something like 72% of public servants earn over 48k. Even ignoring that, with public sector salary structures public servants close to retirement are on their highest income. If public sector workers were only earning 30k typically, then the public finances might look a little healthier.


----------



## Guest103 (17 Nov 2008)

starlite68 said:


> start by taking away the "state pension"......everyone in the real world has to pay for their own pension!


 
We pay for our pension like everyone else!!!!


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Nov 2008)

joejoe said:


> Is the government building up to public sector reform, starting with pay cuts? The news coming from public commentators is yes and seems to be around the 10% mark.
> 
> How much over the average private sector job, does the public sector earn and how much is reasonable to take back of them?
> 
> ...


 
Who knows that the govt will do. They seem to act first and think later. Why 10% why not 50%? Why just the public sector. Who is willingly going to take a pay cut, especially considering the poor judgement the govt has shown, not just in policy, but in their own pay cuts and salaries. Taking a 10% hit when you're on a big salary is entirely different to being on an average wage.


----------



## joejoe (18 Nov 2008)

Protocol said:


> Most workers will receive a State pension.
> 
> More private sector workers (1.5m+) will receive State pensions than public sector workers (approx 300k).
> 
> ...



They just get unbelievable value and return for there investment.

Joejoe


----------



## joejoe (18 Nov 2008)

pension is only one element of the public sector employee costs, what about the other costs, expenses and such like?

Joejoe


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Nov 2008)

joejoe said:


> pension is only one element of the public sector employee costs, what about the other costs, expenses and such like?
> 
> Joejoe


 
For example? Can you be more specific?

I wonder what the cost is of all the increased T&S for travel due to the decentralised locations.

Reduce the services, and you'll reduce the wage bill. Thats the way its going.


----------



## Protocol (18 Nov 2008)

_You take a low paid public servant who received 50% of salary of 30k per annum = €15k. The COAP is 12k, so they pay 6.5% of their annual salary for 40 years i.e. 78k in total, in order to get only 3k net in return. They would need to live for 26 years post retirement for the government not to make a profit out of them. As life expectancy in this country is c.78 i.e. 12 years post retirement, the government is in profit out of these contributions. _

Csirl,

a low paid public servant on 30k *would not pay 6.5% on all salary*.

How it works is as follows:

They pay class A PRSI, same as everybody else, and will get a OACP.

Then they pay *a contribution* towards their occupational pension, as follows:

1.5% of gross for lump-sum = 37.50 pm = 450 pa
5% of adjusted gross = (0.05)(30000-24000) = 25pm = 300pa

So they would pay *750pa* towards their occupational pension.

Over 40 yrs they pay 30k.

Why they pay so little is due to the integration.

*The benefits*

Lump-sum = 45k.
Pension = (0.50)(6000) = 3000pa + 12k OACP = 15k

So they pay PRSI + 30k in pension contributions, and receive 45k + 15k pa.


*Overall point: with an integrated pension, both your contribution and your benefit is reduced, due to the OACP*


----------



## csirl (18 Nov 2008)

Protocol said:


> _You take a low paid public servant who received 50% of salary of 30k per annum = €15k. The COAP is 12k, so they pay 6.5% of their annual salary for 40 years i.e. 78k in total, in order to get only 3k net in return. They would need to live for 26 years post retirement for the government not to make a profit out of them. As life expectancy in this country is c.78 i.e. 12 years post retirement, the government is in profit out of these contributions. _
> 
> Csirl,
> 
> ...


 

Not true. Contributions arent reduced due to coordination. I remember this coming up before and asking a neighbour who is a civil servant (who also is an expert in public sector pensions having worked in this area). He showed me his payslip and the full % of the contribution was coming off gross salary. 

Possible that contribtutions are reduced in some private sector coordinated pensions, but this is not a feature of the civil service scheme.


----------



## Protocol (18 Nov 2008)

http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/SuperannuationHandbookandGuidanceDec20061.pdf

See section 10, page 30.


10.​*CONTRIBUTIONS *_Return to Contents page_​_
_
10.1 Officers appointed prior to 6 April 1995 do not pay explicit employee
contributions in respect of their main scheme benefits. Officers appointed on or after
that date pay the following contributions

(a)​*1.5% *of *gross remuneration *(i.e. basic salary plus any pensionable
allowances)

(b) *3.5% *of *net remuneration *(i.e. gross remuneration - as indicated at 
(a) above – less twice the annual rate of the maximum Contributory State
Pension (CSP) currently payable by the Department of Social and Family
Affairs to a single person without dependants).

Part-time or worksharing staff pay contributions on a pro-rata basis. For a
member who works on a ½ time basis, the contribution at (b) above would be
calculated as follows:
(Gross notional full-time salary minus 2 x CSP) x 3.5% x 50%

10.2 All officers who are members of the Spouses’ and Children's Pension Scheme
pay contributions in respect of the benefits provided by that Scheme - see Section 16
below.​


----------



## orka (18 Nov 2008)

crossed with protocol


----------



## Protocol (18 Nov 2008)

Post 95 civil and public servants pay as follows:

1.5% of gross for lump sum

1.5% of gross for spouses and children

3.5% of net adjusted gross salary, i.e. salary - 2*OACP.



My sums earlier may not be 100% correct, but I stand by what I said:

*Due to integration, you pay in less and receive less.*


----------



## Protocol (18 Nov 2008)

Read either superannuation handbook:


http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/superAnnHBs.asp


----------



## Protocol (18 Nov 2008)

I just did an analysis of my payslip.

I used

1.5% of gross for lump sum
1.5% of gross for spouses and children

3.5% of gross-2*OACP

It worked out spot on, compared to my pension contribution of 268.39.


----------



## sue_flaherty (18 Nov 2008)

regarding t&s my department is already trying to limit the amount spend on this - by hodling more meetings by video conferencing so that no one needs to travel to them.


----------



## D8Lady (18 Nov 2008)

How much is factored in for the fact (up until now) that they will never lose their jobs?


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Nov 2008)

D8Lady said:


> How much is factored in for the fact (up until now) that they will never lose their jobs?


 

How would you factor that? 
How would you factor the risk of losing your job?


----------



## podgerodge (18 Nov 2008)

D8Lady said:


> How much is factored in for the fact (up until now) that they will never lose their jobs?



Did you factor this in when you chose to work in the private sector?  During the good years when private sector salaries exceeded public sector salaries?  Or were you happy to take the benefits that the private sector (at that time) provided?  I took the lower paid public service job and never heard a hoot from any friends about my job security back in those days.


----------



## MOB (19 Nov 2008)

Hi podge rodge,

Did you leave a higher paid private sector job to take a lower paid public sector job?   Or are you just saying that you joined the public sector instead of going for a higher paid job in the private sector?  Because I rather suspect that there is a perception of higher average private sector pay which was never actually true across the board, and possibly only true in a relatively restricted number of sectors.


----------



## csirl (19 Nov 2008)

Protocol said:


> Post 95 civil and public servants pay as follows:
> 
> 1.5% of gross for lump sum
> 
> ...


 
Ok, maybe neighbour didnt know as much as he claimed.



> How would you factor that?
> How would you factor the risk of losing your job?


 
Didnt the benchmarking report cost this as a % of salary?


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Nov 2008)

If thats true, why did benchmarking increase (in general) public sector wages? In theory another round of benchmarking now should reduce wages. Of course you'd have to reduce it like it was increases. A few % over many years. I suspect though, it will be like the reverse of banks being slow to drop mortgage rates but quick to apply increases. Increases in public sector pay were slow, probably most sectors not getting their full amount awarded yet. But they'll likely decrease the wages much faster. That said I think most public sector workers realise thats par for the course, and most, at least those at 50k+ will accept a cut. Those struggling on lesser wages won't be so happy. Benchmarking did factor pensions too. So that was something. 

Theres an element of the hare and the tortoise here. People want the pros of being both and the cons of neither. 

I never anaThe Govt has squandered the boom, failed to save for a rainy day and its now raining. The real problem is the decreasing tax take. Which is a catch 22 problem.


----------



## Sunny (19 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> I never anaThe Govt has squandered the boom, failed to save for a rainy day and its now raining. The real problem is the decreasing tax take. Which is a catch 22 problem.


 
Well they have saved €20 billion but that has to pay for the ever increasing index linked public sector pension liability!


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Nov 2008)

Well its the Govt own pension, so they have a vested interest in doing so. 

Where did you get 20 billion figure from? 

Why historically does the public sector have a govt funded pension anyway?


----------



## j26 (19 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Where did you get 20 billion figure from?
> 
> Why historically does the public sector have a govt funded pension anyway?


I'm interested where that figure comes from too.  Especially since the total public pay bill (for pay and pensions) for 2008 is €18.8bn, or in or about 40% of current public sending, i.e. not including the capital budget.

Who knows why, but my guess is that it's an employers pension, in much the same way as employers used to do in the private sector.  The move to defined contribution pensions is a relatively recent phenomenon, and in much the same way as the state indemnifies itself for insurance, the state presumably decided to provide the pension itself rather than give it to a private company.


----------



## Sunny (19 Nov 2008)

The State has saved €20 billion over the good years and has it sitting in the pension fund. I wasn't saying the State had a €20 billion pension bill per year.


----------



## ashambles (19 Nov 2008)

There's a bit of mixing up between the first and second round of benchmarking.

The first round of benchmarking which was effectively a free for all did not consider pensions, or pretty much anything else such as job security. This was the round for which the economist Jim O'Leary quit the benchmarking body due presumably due it being a farce and for which they destroyed all the documents explaining the salary increases afterwards. (History will be unkind to this and the people involved)

The second round did consider pensions but even then only in an advantageous way for the public sector, i.e they only compared to private sector workers getting a pension and even then only to the more generous of the private sector schemes.


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Nov 2008)

Sunny said:


> The State has saved €20 billion over the good years and has it sitting in the pension fund. I wasn't saying the State had a €20 billion pension bill per year.


 
Do you have links to this. I never really read about that. How much was in the pot before the "good years". Has none of the €20 billion come from the public sector employees?


----------



## ashambles (19 Nov 2008)

> Do you have links to this


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Nov 2008)

Am I meant to trawl the whole website or something?


----------



## shanegl (19 Nov 2008)

Read the report for 2007. Or 3rd quarter 08 update, net assets dropped to 18bn due to state of the markets. The home page of the website tells me that the fund was set up in 2001. Took me all of 2 minutes.


----------



## extopia (20 Nov 2008)

joejoe said:


> Is the government building up to public sector reform, starting with pay cuts? The news coming from public commentators is yes and seems to be around the 10% mark.
> 
> How much over the average private sector job, does the public sector earn and how much is reasonable to take back of them?
> 
> ...



Jaysus joejoe, are you Joe Duffy in disguise?


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Nov 2008)

I'm thinking it would been easier just to have said that in the first place. anywayz....

So its not 20 billion but 18 billion, also its to pay for both public sector AND social welfare pension. But the fund started with 10 billion. So they saved, 8 billion. I'm not clear how much the fund earned itself vs the "Govt savings". Govt contributions in 2007 were 1.6 billion. The other years, I dunno. Maybe its somewhere else on that website or in the PDF's.


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> If thats true, why did benchmarking increase (in general) public sector wages? In theory another round of benchmarking now should reduce wages. Of course you'd have to reduce it like it was increases. A few % over many years. I suspect though, it will be like the reverse of banks being slow to drop mortgage rates but quick to apply increases. Increases in public sector pay were slow, probably most sectors not getting their full amount awarded yet. But they'll likely decrease the wages much faster. That said I think most public sector workers realise thats par for the course, and most, at least those at 50k+ will accept a cut. Those struggling on lesser wages won't be so happy. Benchmarking did factor pensions too. So that was something.
> 
> Theres an element of the hare and the tortoise here. People want the pros of being both and the cons of neither.
> 
> I never anaThe Govt has squandered the boom, failed to save for a rainy day and its now raining. The real problem is the decreasing tax take. Which is a catch 22 problem.


Very fair post.


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> I'm thinking it would been easier just to have said that in the first place. anywayz....
> 
> So its not 20 billion but 18 billion, also its to pay for both public sector AND social welfare pension. But the fund started with 10 billion. So they saved, 8 billion. I'm not clear how much the fund earned itself vs the "Govt savings". Govt contributions in 2007 were 1.6 billion. The other years, I dunno. Maybe its somewhere else on that website or in the PDF's.


 
€18 billion is the NAV of the fund not the nominal value but its not really the point. 

There will nothing left in the pot for social welfare pensions because the bill for public sector pensions is rising at such a pace. While there is an argument over the true cost, it is estimated that the pension fund deficit for public sector workers is €75 billion.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1013333.shtml

No-one can argue that it is sustainable to continue with this.


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Nov 2008)

Then what was all this about then?



Sunny said:


> The State has saved €20 billion over the good years and has it sitting in the pension fund. I wasn't saying the State had a €20 billion pension bill per year.


 
It all comes down to the poor financial planning and control by the Govt during the boom years. Its like they never expected the boom would eventually slow or stop. Like I said originally. They never planned for the rainny day. Or winter for that matter. 

They are going to have to cut non essential services that where created in the boom years, and implement a pay cut, and change the way the pensions are funded. Also look for better value for money for existing services. I'll expect they make a mess of all that (par for the course at this point) and we can expect a lot of U-turns and industrial action of the next few years.

Of course when you've some of the best paid politicians in the world, (why is that) who won't take decent pay cuts themselves what hope is there. They need to lead by example. So far the example is do as I say not as I do, and look out for number one.


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Then what was all this about then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You said the Government didn't save anything during the good years. I was simply pointing out that they were saving 1% of GNP each year which is a significant sum. Unfortuantely this saving is more than eaten up by the ballooning public sector pension bill. I agree with all your points.


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Nov 2008)

Fair enuff...maybe I should have said didn't save enough...


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Fair enuff...maybe I should have said didn't save enough...


 
It's never enough! To be fair to them, they probably would have been criticised for putting money away instead of spending it on health, education infrasrtucture etc. The problem with it all is they completely forgot about the concept of value for money. They didn't achieve one bit of public sector reform despite throwing billions of euro into it in the form of higher wages. Benchmarking was a scam but to be fair was supposed to lead to changing work practices within the public sector in exchange for pay increases. Seven years later, they are still talking about the inflexibility in the system. Its a joke.


----------



## rabbit (20 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> It all comes down to the poor financial planning and control by the Govt during the boom years. Its like they never expected the boom would eventually slow or stop. Like I said originally. They never planned for the rainny day. Or winter for that matter.
> 
> They are going to have to cut non essential services that where created in the boom years, and implement a pay cut, and change the way the pensions are funded. Also look for better value for money for existing services. I'll expect they make a mess of all that (par for the course at this point) and we can expect a lot of U-turns and industrial action of the next few years.
> 
> Of course when you've some of the best paid politicians in the world, (why is that) who won't take decent pay cuts themselves what hope is there. They need to lead by example. So far the example is do as I say not as I do, and look out for number one.


 
Great post.  The irish govt made the problem worse by continually extending the section 23 / section 27 tax relief schemes beyond their quoted deadlines during the boom years.


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Nov 2008)

Sunny said:


> It's never enough! To be fair to them, they probably would have been criticised for putting money away instead of spending it on health, education infrasrtucture etc. The problem with it all is they completely forgot about the concept of value for money. They didn't achieve one bit of public sector reform despite throwing billions of euro into it in the form of higher wages. Benchmarking was a scam but to be fair was supposed to lead to changing work practices within the public sector in exchange for pay increases. Seven years later, they are still talking about the inflexibility in the system. Its a joke.


 
It was the Govt failure not to make benchmarking effective. Just like creating the HSE achieved little. What ever way you look at these problems, its one Govt failure after another. I don't think you can be fair to them. If they'd actually spent it on health and education instead of wasting it, as you said failing to achieve value for money, at least there'd be something to show for it, instead of an army of over paid/well heeled crony advisors.


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Nov 2008)

Sunny said:


> Benchmarking ... to be fair was supposed to lead to changing work practices within the public sector in exchange for pay increases.



To paraphrase Eamonn Dunphy, it was in its...


----------



## Slim (20 Nov 2008)

D8Lady said:


> How much is factored in for the fact (up until now) that they will never lose their jobs?


 
Perhaps the fact that public sector pensions (pre 1995 officers) are calculated on the basis of 50% of final salary max. and not 66% of final salary as pertains in a private sector pension, Defined Benefit?

Also, is the private sector pension not index linked? i.e. subject to national salary increases as per partnership?


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> To paraphrase Eamonn Dunphy, it was in its...


 

Only said that was the publicised justification for it! Already said it was a scam!


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Nov 2008)

Sunny said:


> Only said that was the publicised justification for it! Already said it was a scam!



You're right there! Actually, the "justification" for it as some sort of productivity bonus was discredited from the start. Remember Sen. Joe O'Toole's boast that it was an "ATM machine" for teachers?


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Nov 2008)

Its a pity because on paper it looks useful. I guess all the vested interests never made it a runner.


----------



## orka (20 Nov 2008)

Slim said:


> Perhaps the fact that public sector pensions (pre 1995 officers) are calculated on the basis of 50% of final salary max. and not 66% of final salary as pertains in a private sector pension, Defined Benefit?


Public sector pension is 50% final salary PLUS a lump sum of 1.5 times final salary. Private sector pensions are generally 66% of final salary - with an option to take a 1.5 times lump sum in return for a reduced pension. These two structures about equivalent.


Slim said:


> Also, is the private sector pension not index linked? i.e. subject to national salary increases as per partnership?


 No. It depends on the rules of the scheme but increases are usually discretionary and subject to a maximum - e.g. discretionary CPI increases subject to a maximum of 5%. Whereas public service pension could get a 10% inflationary increase (if inflation is 10%) PLUS any grade increases that their retirement grade might have got that year.


----------



## Slim (20 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> You're right there! Actually, the "justification" for it as some sort of productivity bonus was discredited from the start. Remember Sen. Joe O'Toole's boast that it was an "ATM machine" for teachers?


 
well, that has proved not to be the case. Relatively modest rises were granted in Benchmarking I and BM II was disappointing for most in the public sector. It has been and will be far from an ATM for any public servants.


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2008)

Slim said:


> well, that has proved not to be the case. Relatively modest rises were granted in Benchmarking I and BM II was disappointing for most in the public sector. It has been and will be far from an ATM for any public servants.


 
Relatively modest rises were granted in Benchmarking 1. Are you serious?


----------



## csirl (20 Nov 2008)

To be realistic, no public sector employee is going to volunteer for a pay cut or accept an imposed pay cut.

To tackle the public pay bill you have to look at reducing the number of employees in areas where there is gross over staffing and in areas of programme expenditure.

The elephant in the room is the health service. Most of our major hospitals are privately owned by trusts, religious orders etc. There is no reason why the public service should be taking responsibility for the HR management of these hospitals or any pay and pension risks. The Government should tender for all the services it needs and pay the hospitals on the basis of contracted work fulfilled. Let the hospitals manage their own staff. Would eliminate the crazy stuff we have been hearing lately about hospitals not performing operations as they've run out of money. These private organisations are effectively ripping off the State - if the State has paid them a particular amount of money for a specified service, the State should get the full service. If not, it shouldnt have to pay the full bill.

As well as getting rid of the employee risks and getting better service for the public, you could also disband the HSE and all its admin staff. Dept. of Health should do the tenders full stop.


----------



## Complainer (22 Nov 2008)

csirl said:


> Most of our major hospitals are privately owned by trusts, religious orders etc. There is no reason why the public service should be taking responsibility for the HR management of these hospitals


The hospitals generally have their own HR departments.


csirl said:


> The Government should tender for all the services it needs and pay the hospitals on the basis of contracted work fulfilled. Let the hospitals manage their own staff.


Tendering isn't a panacea. This isn't about buying widgets. There are many medical services that aren't easy to measure. How would you put a fixed price tender around rehab services for peope with spinal cord injuries? Would you put a fixed price tender around treatment of mental health issues, or alcoholism?

When hospitals are operating under fixed price tenders, will you be confident that decisions about treatment will be in the best interests of the patient, as opposed to the best interests of the accountants.


----------



## joejoe (22 Nov 2008)

csirl said:


> To be realistic, no public sector employee is going to volunteer for a pay cut or accept an imposed pay cut.
> 
> To tackle the public pay bill you have to look at reducing the number of employees in areas where there is gross over staffing and in areas of programme expenditure.
> 
> ...



Totally agree, we would then see value for money and a more efficent system.

Joejoe


----------



## Nermal (23 Nov 2008)

csirl said:


> To be realistic, no public sector employee is going to volunteer for a pay cut or accept an imposed pay cut.
> 
> To tackle the public pay bill you have to look at reducing the number of employees in areas where there is gross over staffing and in areas of programme expenditure.



Csirl, what would be your opinion on index-linking all public sector pensions - those currently being paid and those to be paid in future - to HICP instead of wages? What would it save, and would it be politically feasible?


----------



## Mouldy (24 Nov 2008)

The public sector have a pay freeze until next September. I believe it would be appropriate, assuming a worsening of the public finances, for the government to call the partners back in to agree a deferment of any pay increases for a further 12 months in the public sector, subject to growth figures. If the country is in a recession then there should be no delivery of agreed pay rises until the country is no longer in a recession ie we have 2 successive quarters of positive growth.

The conditions for a pay cut are also favourable, since inflation is coming down, along with intrest rates and oil prices. Its likely that a modest pay cut across the board would be, to a degree, cost neutral for the employees concerned.

There might actually be some appetite within the public sector for this, but not while there is a clearly orchestrated hate campaign in the media against this sector. The afore mentioned Jim Power in particular is popping up almost daily telling the government "wield the knife" etc while journalists in the Indo write absolute drivel about the sector in their columns. 

M


----------



## Tom123 (25 Nov 2008)

There is a simple instrument available that would level the playing pitch - tax Security of Tenure as a BIK at the marginal rate. If company cars are taxed at 30% of their OMV, all public sector salaries should be given a similar rate and taxed at bthe marginal rate of tax. A public sector worker already getting a gilt edged pension which adds at least 20% to the basic, could be taxed at their marginal rate on 30% of basic pay. So a higher earner on 100k pays 41% of 3ok per year, that's 12.3k.


----------



## Complainer (26 Nov 2008)

Tom123 said:


> There is a simple instrument available that would level the playing pitch - tax Security of Tenure as a BIK at the marginal rate. If company cars are taxed at 30% of their OMV, all public sector salaries should be given a similar rate and taxed at bthe marginal rate of tax. A public sector worker already getting a gilt edged pension which adds at least 20% to the basic, could be taxed at their marginal rate on 30% of basic pay. So a higher earner on 100k pays 41% of 3ok per year, that's 12.3k.


If you want to go down this road, the first think you'll have to put 'security of tenure' into the contracts. I'm a public servant, and I don't have any written clause in my contract about security of tenure.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I'm a public servant, and I don't have any written clause in my contract about security of tenure.



Great; that means that the government should pay no more than statutory redundancy for all job cuts required in the public sector. There should be no voluntary redundancy package; cuts should be made based solely on the best interest of the organisation in question. (Ask the people in Citibank who get the boot what terms they are getting)


----------



## csirl (26 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> The hospitals generally have their own HR departments.
> 
> Tendering isn't a panacea. This isn't about buying widgets. There are many medical services that aren't easy to measure. How would you put a fixed price tender around rehab services for peope with spinal cord injuries? Would you put a fixed price tender around treatment of mental health issues, or alcoholism?


 
If hospitals have their own independent HR departments, how come it is the government who is negotiating with e.g. nurses, consultants etc. on issues like pay and conditions? If these hospitals had genuine HR departments, then they would set their own pay rates and negotiate with their own staff. I think you've just identified a bunch of people who are drawing a salary from the state, but do no meaningful work 


Tendering isnt a panacea? - I think you've got what is called "we're special" syndrome. Normal rules do not apply to your area 

If tendering isnt the solution, then how come more than 50% of the working population in Ireland tender on an individual basis to procure their own private or semi-private health insurance? These people are putting more faith in the procurement of their own health care as opposed to relying on the HSE. Services that are directly paid for get delivered. There is absolutely no comparison in the level of care and outcome between privately procured medical treatment, even for the most difficult cases, and public treatment.




> When hospitals are operating under fixed price tenders, will you be confident that decisions about treatment will be in the best interests of the patient, as opposed to the best interests of the accountants


 .

Try telling this to the patients who have to go without operations between now and the end of the year because certain HSE funded hospitals have run out of money. Who's putting the accountants ahead of the best interests of the patient?


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2008)

csirl said:


> If hospitals have their own independent HR departments, how come it is the government who is negotiating with e.g. nurses, consultants etc. on issues like pay and conditions? If these hospitals had genuine HR departments, then they would set their own pay rates and negotiate with their own staff. I think you've just identified a bunch of people who are drawing a salary from the state, but do no meaningful work
> 
> 
> Tendering isnt a panacea? - I think you've got what is called "we're special" syndrome. Normal rules do not apply to your area
> ...


 Excellent post.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2008)

csirl said:


> I think you've got what is called "we're special" syndrome.


God I love that line...


----------



## Towger (26 Nov 2008)

OK. I was listening to the news. Have I got this right? The government are going to setup a group/task force/quango in six months time. This ‘body’ is going to start looking at cost cutting measures and redundancies in the public sector. So, by the time they setup and come to a decision (report) it will be 5 years later, the rest of the world will have come out of recession, but Ireland inc will only be starting her cut backs, the government will have borrowed enough to make Bill Gates blush and the country will be banjaxed for another 20 to 30 years?


----------



## Complainer (26 Nov 2008)

csirl said:


> If hospitals have their own independent HR departments, how come it is the government who is negotiating with e.g. nurses, consultants etc. on issues like pay and conditions? If these hospitals had genuine HR departments, then they would set their own pay rates and negotiate with their own staff. I think you've just identified a bunch of people who are drawing a salary from the state, but do no meaningful work


I'm not quite sure that I follow your logic here. It appears that you are suggesting that because you personally have no idea what hospital HR depts do, therefore they must be doing nothing. This is obviously such a ludicrous conclusion that I must have misunderstood. Perhaps you'd like to clarify.

If you don't know what hospital HR depts do, perhaps you need to do a little research before jumping to wild conclusions.




csirl said:


> Tendering isnt a panacea? - I think you've got what is called "we're special" syndrome. Normal rules do not apply to your area


I note with interest that you don't have any answers to the difficult challenges that I outlined around tendering for services that are inherently unpredictable in nature. Perhaps you'd like to go back and review these questions again and educate us all on the possible solutions instead of coming up with catch (yet meaningless) cliches.



csirl said:


> If tendering isnt the solution, then how come more than 50% of the working population in Ireland tender on an individual basis to procure their own private or semi-private health insurance? These people are putting more faith in the procurement of their own health care as opposed to relying on the HSE. Services that are directly paid for get delivered. There is absolutely no comparison in the level of care and outcome between privately procured medical treatment, even for the most difficult cases, and public treatment.


Comparing an individual purchase of health insurance with tendering for a hospital is like comparing my little black & white pussycat with a wild Siberian tiger. There is indeed a certain family resemblance, but if you get the two mixed up, someone is going to get badly hurt. 

Buried underneath all that guff about tendering, you actually make an interesting point about the reliance on private health insurance.  If I recall correctly, about 50% of Irish people buy private health insurance, whereas about 10-15% buy it in the UK. I've heard Harney claim the high level of private health insurance as a badge of honour, whereas it should be a badge of shame. Many people (like me) buy private health insurance as the only way to ensure that my family won't die waiting in a queue. Wouldn't it be just great if private health insurance was about getting the nice hospital room with the flat-screen TV? Unfortunately, we're a long way from that.


csirl said:


> Try telling this to the patients who have to go without operations between now and the end of the year because certain HSE funded hospitals have run out of money. Who's putting the accountants ahead of the best interests of the patient?


This is indeed a huge problem, and is evidence of the failure of Harney's HSE. It is screamingly obvious to anyone that no particular hospital has any significant control over the demand for services. Therefore, lump sum budgeting is by definition going to end up with either overestimating or underestimating. The money needs to follow the patient, not the building. I can only assume that the HSE agenda (set by the political appointees on the board) is to ensure that the public health services are a disaster, to force all those who can afford it into the private sector. Those who can't afford can (as happens today) just die, and hopefully won't make too much fuss in the media to embarrass the Minister.

If you do have any constructive suggestions to improve the health service, I'd be interested in hearing them. Knee-jerk reactions driven by a political agenda are not going to save lives.


----------



## ashambles (26 Nov 2008)

> OK. I was listening to the news. Have I got this right?


That's what they said but it may be a smokescreen to cover actual plans. They can't be taking the OECD report seriously I'd hope - or at least they won't once they've read it. The report was commissioned by the government, looked over by our civil service, and neatly sidestepped salary costs (apart from a mention of hospital consultants being paid 80% more here than in Germany).

The reason I say it may be a smokescreen is because I've read a few articles by Colm McCarthy who's leading it up. Seems I'm not the only one still harping on about benchmarking one. I doubt he's the kind of person who'll be just shuffling the deckchairs on the Iretanic.

[broken link removed]



> "The conclusion is inescapable that the first benchmarking body, which did far less pay research than this one and published none of it, got it badly wrong. There was no justification for the average 9 per cent hike awarded last time round.
> 
> The report should also induce some red faces at the review body, which recently reported on pay for top public officials, including ministers. Large awards all round was the verdict, subsequently deferred for ministers but approved for over 1,000 others. Many senior officials in Ireland are now paid well - in excess of their counterparts in other jurisdictions.
> 
> ...


My hope is that they'll start pushing the pay-cut line. There'll be a signifigant militant hardcore who'll fight it tooth and nail but new hires in the last 10 years or so would be more supportive (at least the ones I know would). It could be done quickly and relatively painlessly. It's never been done before but the benchmarking farce was a once off as well.

  Widespread public sector redundancies are probably the last thing the economy needs right now.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I'm not quite sure that I follow your logic here. It appears that you are suggesting that because you personally have no idea what hospital HR depts do, therefore they must be doing nothing. This is obviously such a ludicrous conclusion that I must have misunderstood. Perhaps you'd like to clarify.
> 
> If you don't know what hospital HR depts do, perhaps you need to do a little research before jumping to wild conclusions.
> 
> ...


Yes csirl, stop talking guff. There's nothing wrong with anything in the public sector or at least if there is it's not for the likes of you to ask ANY questions about it... it's far to complex you see; leave it to the experts in the, er, public sector to sort it out...


----------



## Towger (27 Nov 2008)

ashambles said:


> Widespread public sector redundancies are probably the last thing the economy needs right now.


 
Good post and very true. Apart from these people appearing on the dole, a number of them will reappear as highly paid consultants, doing the exact same job. I know of one account who took redundancy last time this happened in the 80's. Got his few bob and pension. The following week he was back in the same place doing the same job! Except this time he was invoicing them per hour.


----------



## limerickboy1 (27 Nov 2008)

my g/f is a teacher and she is getting a 2% pay increase in december. this comes at a time when thousands of private sector workers are losing their jobs and the rest have a pay freeze (a real pay freeze not the public sector imaginary one).  the public sector is the employer of choice in this country when it should be the opposite. we have increased VAT and opted out of the EU wide stimulus package. this country is dead.


----------



## csirl (27 Nov 2008)

> I note with interest that you don't have any answers to the difficult challenges that I outlined around tendering for services that are inherently unpredictable in nature. Perhaps you'd like to go back and review these questions again and educate us all on the possible solutions instead of coming up with catch (yet meaningless) cliches.


 
Very very simple. If you dont look after these cases well, then you dont get paid and you dont get the lucrative contract when it is up for renewal. 

You neglect to point out that the HSE currently has a terrible track record in dealing with these cases, yet there is no remedy. There doesnt appear to be any incentive for HSE hospitals to do a good job - they dont get paid any more if they do. What incentive do HSE paid staff have to go the extra mile with a difficult case?


----------



## Complainer (27 Nov 2008)

csirl said:


> Very very simple. If you dont look after these cases well, then you dont get paid and you dont get the lucrative contract when it is up for renewal.


That's simplistic rather than simple. Try defining 'well' in terms of looking after these cases. Come up with a definition that will stand up in a court case involving a disputed provider. 

Your proposal about contract renewal is probably illegal and misguided. Renewal is tomorrow. If the provider is not providing the service, it needs to be addressed today. Tomorrow is no good to today's patients.

When the tender comes up for renewal, all tenderers have legal entitlements to equal treatment, whether or not they are already providing the service.




csirl said:


> You neglect to point out that the HSE currently has a terrible track record in dealing with these cases, yet there is no remedy.


Do you have a source for this 'terrible track record'. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many people get excellent service from HSE, once they manage to get through the waiting list and get in the door. 



csirl said:


> You neglect to point out that the HSE currently has a terrible track record in dealing with these cases, yet there is no remedy. There doesnt appear to be any incentive for HSE hospitals to do a good job - they dont get paid any more if they do. What incentive do HSE paid staff have to go the extra mile with a difficult case?


Strange as it might seem, the primary incentive for staff (particularly medical staff) is not money. If money was their primary incentive, they probably wouldn't be working there in the first place.

The current situation is extremely difficult. Knee jerk implementation of rushed and ill-thought out solutions will make it a whole lot worse.


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Strange as it might seem, the primary incentive for staff (particularly medical staff) is not money. If money was their primary incentive, they probably wouldn't be working there in the first place.


You must be joking; 
Nurses:  Strikes for pay rise a few years back and this year a threatened strike for an even shorter week and the pay rise which amounted to a 25% increase in their hourly rate.
Consultants: years (maybe a decade) of negotiations for a new contract held up by their astronomical pay claims and massive subsidy of their private practice by the state.
GP’s: Earning in excess of €150k a year on average in private practice with an additional €100k plus from medical card patients (if they are lucky enough to be in the golden circle of GP’s that can get a medical card list) plus grants from the HSE, plus payments for vaccines that the practice nurse administers.

Not in it for the money? Take your head out of the clouds!




Complainer said:


> The current situation is extremely difficult. Knee jerk implementation of rushed and ill-thought out solutions will make it a whole lot worse.


 I agree, it would be almost as bad as doing nothing or listening to those who only offer reasons why things can’t be changed.


----------



## Towger (27 Nov 2008)

Purple said:


> Not in it for the money? Take your head out of the clouds!


 
I don' think Complainer has any medical people in the family. BTW you left out the HSE's Mileage allowance... Very important... That is...
To be honest is sickens me when I hear the nurses going on about 'Our basic pay is only 28k etc'. I don't see them showing us their payslips, so we can tot up all the half dozen or so extra allowances on top of that 'basic rate'.


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> If money was their primary incentive, they probably wouldn't be working there in the first place.



Ah yes, the old "we need benchmarking" argument


----------



## Complainer (27 Nov 2008)

I suppose it was fairly predictable (and fairly sad) that a few AAM heads would explode at the idea that not everyone's primary motivation in their career is money.



Towger said:


> I don' think Complainer has any medical people in the family.


Several, as it happens, between family, close friends and neighbours, both in public sector and private practice. Mostly nursing and paramedics, rather than docs.



Towger said:


> BTW you left out the HSE's Mileage allowance... Very important... That is...


Left it out of what? I didn't make any reference to remuneration, so I'm confused as to why you think I left out one particular allowance. But do feel free to share more details about it. Presumably it applies to those staff who use their personal cars on HSE business - right?



Towger said:


> To be honest is sickens me when I hear the nurses going on about 'Our basic pay is only 28k etc'. I don't see them showing us their payslips, so we can tot up all the half dozen or so extra allowances on top of that 'basic rate'.


Sickens me too, the way they expect to be paid a bit extra for working weekends or the night shift. Bloody parasites eh?
Hint:I'm being sarcastic here.



ubiquitous said:


> Ah yes, the old "we need benchmarking" argument


Well, not really, but feel free to keep dragging up old arguements if you like.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Well, not really, but feel free to keep dragging up old arguements if you like.



Benchmarking is not an "old argument" but a serious contributor to our current public finances problem. You must think we have the memories of goldfish.


----------



## Complainer (28 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Benchmarking is not an "old argument" but a serious contributor to our current public finances problem. You must think we have the memories of goldfish.


I'd be happy to have a balanced debate with you about benchmarking anytime, but I don't see that it is particularly relevant to my point about motivation. 

Funny how the simplistic solutions about tendering just dissappear into the mist when a few tough questions are posed!


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Funny how the simplistic solutions about tendering just dissappear into the mist when a few tough questions are posed!



Ah yes, the "wall of questions about the details" answer that is trotted out by those who resist change for the sake of it; reject the idea because the details are not worked out, not accept that the idea is worth looking at and then seek to work out the details. Well done.

The details will not be worked out here but it remains true that duplication of services and rack of focus on core competencies is a problem in the public sector and needs to be looked at.


----------



## aircobra19 (28 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Ah yes, the old "we need benchmarking" argument


 
I don't see the connection between benchmarking and people choosing to work in the public sector. A lot of people I know in the sector like the fact that they are working not to generate profit, but to help people. Obviously not everyone. But still theres a large element of truth in that. They might forget that once they are rise to the top, I dunno. 

The problem with benchmarking was not benchmarking which in itself is a valid idea. IMO. It was the very poor implementation of it that was the problem. In theory it should reduce wages too.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> The problem with benchmarking was not benchmarking which in itself is a valid idea. IMO. It was the very poor implementation of it that was the problem. In theory it should reduce wages too.


I agree, but then it was only ever about buying off the public sector unions.


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Nov 2008)

How do you mean "buying off"?

If you mean appeasing, how else in times of boom would you appease the unions?


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> how else in times of boom would you appease the unions?


 You don't appease them, you do what is in the natonal interest. Benchmarking came into existence not because of some vague perception (which turned out to be completely false) that the public sector was under paid; it came into existence because nurses and Garda couldn’t afford a house. Instead of taking the heat out of the property market (and not letting the banks get into the state they are in now) the government increased pay levels so that nurses and Garda could buy at bubble prices. The whole thing was a disaster for the economy.


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Nov 2008)

How do mean "buying off"?

If you don't negotiate with unions you'll have industrial disputes all the time. Effectively union busting. Thats what you were advocating for 1992? 

Are you claiming benchmarking overheated the economy?  

The evil public sector, with the army clerical workers driving around in 4x4's and exec saloons, buying multiple properties to let? Or is that builders and taxi drivers? Not every one in public sector is over paid.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> How do mean "buying off"?


 In my opinion benchmarking was tantamount to the government conspiring with the unions to defraud the people of Ireland. There was no basis to the core argument that the public sector was underpaid and the measurement matrix used was never published. 



aircobra19 said:


> If you don't negotiate with unions you'll have industrial disputes all the time. Effectively union busting. Are you claiming benchmarking overheated the economy?


 You talk to unions and take their opinions on board, then those with a constitutional and democratic mandate to run the country. That's not what happened.


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Nov 2008)

Hang on a FF govt who didn't think something through before implementing it. By happy coincidence making all their cronies better off? Thats crazy talk. 

I think they found that matrix on the back of betting slip the day someone won big on the horses. Well if you believe one...

Negotiating is appeasing unions. They are exist to bring the employee to negotiation. Either you or you don't. Negotiating is not the same as buying them off, and negotiating is not the same as not appeasing them. So I dunno where you going with that. You want it both ways.

But the important point we can blame the current crisis on the public sector.


----------



## Green (29 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Benchmarking is not an "old argument" but a serious contributor to our current public finances problem. You must think we have the memories of goldfish.


 


Purple said:


> I agree, but then it was only ever about buying off the public sector unions.


 


Purple said:


> In my opinion benchmarking was tantamount to the government conspiring with the unions to defraud the people of Ireland. There was no basis to the core argument that the public sector was underpaid and the measurement matrix used was never published.
> 
> You talk to unions and take their opinions on board, then those with a constitutional and democratic mandate to run the country. That's not what happened.


 
There were a number of faults with benchmarking not least of all the secret calculations on the first round which were not made public. However, the people returned to power the Government which instigated and brought in benchmarking.


----------



## Green (29 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Hang on a FF govt who didn't think something through before implementing it. By happy coincidence making all their cronies better off? Thats crazy talk.
> 
> I think they found that matrix on the back of betting slip the day someone won big on the horses. Well if you believe one...
> 
> ...


 
I think we have to come to a simple understanding in this country. You can have partnership or you can have reform, we choose partnership and consequently didn't get a huge amount of reform. However, to blame the current recession in Ireland on the public sector is crazy.


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Nov 2008)

Its minor contributory factor IMO. 

The primary one is an Govt thats unable to manage the economy and appears fixate on personal gain, and cronyism. Especially within the building sector, and the public sector. Which makes it very difficult for the Govt to take a hard line with both. Also the failure of the opposition to offer a credible alternative.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2008)

YOBR said:


> I think we have to come to a simple understanding in this country. You can have partnership or you can have reform, we choose partnership and consequently didn't get a huge amount of reform.


Excellent point; you have just sumed up the root cause of what went wrong over the last 10 years.


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Nov 2008)

The public sector hasn't changed fundamentally in decades. Of course we've had the one govt for the last 10yrs etc.


----------



## Mouldy (29 Nov 2008)

I love the way threads on the Public Sector get hijacked by the "The gospel according to purple" et al.

The original question of this thread was would public servants accept a pay cut. It would be intresting to have a debate on how to diplomatically pursue a course of action like this in real world terms rather that the back and forth of largely hysterical postings that have ruined what would otherwise have been an intresting thread. Please consider this when posting. (I'm not a mod, but someone had to say it.)

M


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2008)

Mouldy said:


> I love the way threads on the Public Sector get hijacked by the "The gospel according to purple" et al.
> 
> The original question of this thread was would public servants accept a pay cut. It would be intresting to have a debate on how to diplomatically pursue a course of action like this in real world terms rather that the back and forth of largely hysterical postings that have ruined what would otherwise have been an intresting thread. Please consider this when posting. (I'm not a mod, but someone had to say it.)
> 
> M



It would be interesting to hear your views. Posting that no one is putting forward your views is fine but the solution is to put them forward yourself.

I agree that it would be interesting to hear the views of the people on the inside. Talking to friends who are public servants and teachers has informed much of my view on these topics. I find the defensiveness of some of the posters here when the public sector is discussed to be childish. Others have made very insightful and interesting points.


----------



## Mouldy (29 Nov 2008)

See post #69.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2008)

Mouldy said:


> See post #69.



It's a good post; I agree with you.


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Nov 2008)

BTW You can do this.. http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=751020&postcount=69

I'd say you get peoples back's up with sweeping generalizations that vilify everyone in the public sector. What do you expect tbh. Its not useful either.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> I'd say you get peoples back's up with sweeping generalizations that vilify everyone in the public sector. What do you expect tbh. Its not useful either.



I'd say that people are reading what they want to read into my posts, rather than just reading my posts. I have never vilified everyone in the public sector.


----------



## aircobra19 (29 Nov 2008)

Suggesting that partnership and lack of reform in the public sector is root of all the problems over the last 10yrs. Is vilifying the public sector in my book. The root cause is the failure of Govt in managing the economy. Plus the greed of developers and banks profiteering. The public sector is just responding to that. Just like people in the private sector. Not that is right, but the egg didn't come before the chicken. There needs to be change from the top down.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Suggesting that partnership and lack of reform in the public sector is root of all the problems over the last 10yrs.



I never said it was, in fact I said it wasn't. I did say that it was a contributing factor and reform is necessary to get us out of the mess.


----------



## sidzer (29 Nov 2008)

As a public servant I'm on for a 10% cut. If things are as bad as is being reported then we all need to act responsibly. We need to start with a pay freeze. 
I remember those bleak days in the eighties - a dark shadow of despair hung over our towns and cities -  a plane ticket to America to work in a pizza bar was the dream! We need to do whatever we can to avoid going back to those bad bad days...


We have lost the run of ourselves in the last ten years....


----------



## Complainer (30 Nov 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> The evil public sector, with the army clerical workers driving around in 4x4's and exec saloons, buying multiple properties to let? Or is that builders and taxi drivers?


Class. Those looking in from the outside have really no idea what partnership is about at all.


----------

