# Time off for Christmas shopping in public service.



## baldyman27

Having spoken to someone today who is in the public service (not sure if I'm allowed to name the relevant service) it turns out that they are entitled, whether officially or not, to a half day paid in order to do their Christmas shopping. This despite having weekends completely free.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not wholly against the public sector but, being in the private sector I was always glad to be allowed a few hours off _unpaid_ in order to do stuff that couldn't be done at weekends. In the current climate I think this is a bit rich though. This is quite a large part of the public sector too so the monies involved would not be insignificant.


----------



## PaddyBloggit

*Re: Time off for shopping in public service.*

Must be during the times when the phones aren't answered!


----------



## ajapale

*Re: Time off for shopping in public service.*



baldyman27 said:


> .....(not sure if I'm allowed to name the relevant service) ....



Why not name the branch of the public or civil service involved? I think this would only be fair to the thousands of employees in the public sector, public service and civil service who do not enjoy this perk. 

Is it a Dublin thing?


----------



## rmelly

*Re: Time off for shopping in public service.*

I wonder do they get paid 'banking time' too.


----------



## baldyman27

Don't want to specify which exact department it is as I'm friendly with this person but its a part of Cork City Council, who, as far as I'm aware, are cutting back on temp staff also.


----------



## room305

baldyman27 said:


> Having spoken to someone today who is in the public service (not sure if I'm allowed to name the relevant service) it turns out that they are entitled, whether officially or not, to a half day paid in order to do their Christmas shopping. This despite having weekends completely free.



I can confirm this is in place in my workplace too and it's official. If it's any consolation employees must claim it and I can't imagine too many do (I never have). I've also heard of employees being quietly reprimanded for claiming it by some managers who feel it is all a bit ridiculous.

I guess it varies from place to place and I agree it should be abolished but there are probably bigger and better fights to be picking with the public sector unions.


----------



## Curious81

I work in the public service and this is not a practice in my workplace. I do know somebody who works in a private hospital and they get this x-mas shopping half day though. I also agree that it should be abolished.


----------



## ubiquitous

Banks and other offices in Galway shut for half-days during Race Week.


----------



## Welfarite

It is not official. It is up to local management to 'allow' credit of 3.5 hours to civil service staff at Christmas time as a gesture of appreciation for their work during the year. I don't get it but I give it to staff. Many private companies can reward staff with monetary bonuses at Christmas but no such mechanism exists in the CS.


----------



## Shawady

I also work in public sector and although I've heard people talk about it , I don't think anyone I work with takes this. It is probably some un-official thing going back years.
Having said that, i was talking to someone that works in the pensions board recently and he said they get an extra day off a year because they don't use their monthly bank time anymore. If I understood him correctly, the half hour they got once a month was added up to give them a day off every year, now that their wages are paid electronically.


----------



## extopia

Well, why allow technology to negate a good perk.


----------



## ngwrbc

*Re: Time off for shopping in public service.*



rmelly said:


> I wonder do they get paid 'banking time' too.


 
YES!!  Know someone in Public Service and they get 30 or 45mins added to their hours for "bank time", its not available anymore to new employees.


----------



## Welfarite

extopia said:


> Well, why allow technology to negate a good perk.


 

...or upset the unions who negotiated it yonks ago


----------



## rmelly

Welfarite said:


> ...or upset the unions who negotiated it yonks ago


 
I thought they'd given this up with benchmarking...that was until I remembered how one sided the benchmarking process was. Wasn't it a union leader who referred to the process as an ATM machine handing out cash to all comers (in the public sector obviously)?


----------



## Welfarite

rmelly said:


> I thought they'd given this up with benchmarking...that was until I remembered how one sided the benchmarking process was. Wasn't it a union leader who referred to the process as an ATM machine handing out cash to all comers (in the public sector obviously)?


 

The unions 'gave up' nothing to get benchmarking. After all, it was meant to bring PS salaries into line with similar-type private sector jobs. It wasn't really a bargaining pay-talk scenario. Hence the ATM remark.


----------



## Caveat

> Time off for Christmas shopping in public service.


 
If there's _*any*_ truth whatsoever in this one...well...I dunno whether to laugh or cry.


----------



## Welfarite

Caveat said:


> If there's _*any*_ truth whatsoever in this one...well...I dunno whether to laugh or cry.


 

A credit of 3.5 hours per annum works out at about a minute per day. Putting this fact in terms of a 'half day off for Christmas shopping' is another way of saying that, I suppose.


----------



## jasonr

We civil servants have listened about the big xmas bonuses paid to employees in private sector over the past 10 years. I've been a civil servant for the past 15 years and this half day shopping leave is the only thing that i ever get that resembles a bonus. Oh how the times have changed when people are beginning to cry about this little concession. 

Apart from that I have witnessed school leavers over the last few years going into jobs (construction and others) and were paid in excess of what I was earning as a civil servant at the time. There was'nt much remarks passed on us when the times were good. One thing that should be remembered is that the majority of civil servants are Clerical /Executive Officer's and believe me we are not on this massive wage/bonuses that everyone is led to believe.


----------



## blue_steel

Give me a break. I work in the public sector and yes we got 3.5 hours off for Christmas shopping and yes I took it. Big deal. Last year I was working in the private sector and got a 5 grand bonus. I know which I'd prefer.
I think the Public Sector witch-hunt is getting a little out of hand during this downturn. Nobody gave a damn about the half day shopping when they were making lots of money themselves but now all of a sudden its an outrage. I have been in the Public sector for 4 months now and I can tell you it is a lot more stressful than the private. There are lots of us dealing with the most vulnurable and unruly in society and providing a service that goes largely un-noticed. I had a far handier number in my old private sector job but when offered this post could not turn it down given the current economic circumstances. I think people need to remember who caused this crisis - fat cat bankers and greedy developers who have left the country scarred with innumerable ugly, unrequired, half-built apartment blocks. Working people should be venting their anger at them and not each other. Public or private, we're all facing the same problems.


----------



## pc7

Caveat said:


> If there's _*any*_ truth whatsoever in this one...well...I dunno whether to laugh or cry.


 
My mam and cousin both work in civil service and get this, its true


----------



## jasonr

well said blue steel. At this stage we're just the easy target.


----------



## Caveat

FWIW, I have complained about the public service for the last 20 odd years - whether the country is experiencing a boom or a recession makes no difference to me.  As for the big Christmas bonuses in the private sector - well, in 20 years employment I've never got one.  No-one I know gets one either.

And remember, apart from the top few percent of earners, public sector employees, on average,  get paid more than private sector ones. 

Fact. 

Do a search for the most recent stats.


----------



## Sunny

I have no problem with anyone in public or private sector getting a few hours off around Christmas. As long as they don't end up shutting up the social welfare office or something for it, good luck to them. 

I draw the line at the time off to go to the bank to cash their non-existant pay cheques though!


----------



## jasonr

Caveat said:


> FWIW, I have complained about the public service for the last 20 odd years - whether the country is experiencing a boom or a recession makes no difference to me. As for the big Christmas bonuses in the private sector - well, in 20 years employment I've never got one. No-one I know gets one either.
> 
> And remember, apart from the top few percent of earners, public sector employees, on average, get paid more than private sector ones.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> Do a search for the most recent stats.


 
Caveat, you must not know anyone working in factories then - for the 5 people I know working in different factories - each one has always received a xmas bonus. However, out of these 5 factories, 4 of them have halved the bonus this year. Still half of €1000 is 500 so still not too bad.


----------



## ashambles

> Last year I was working in the private sector and got a 5 grand bonus. I know which I'd prefer.


You suggest you prefer the money but yet you've freely chosen to work in the sector that gives the shopping time off instead. Isn't this a bit like someone who drinks Coke telling you they prefer Pepsi - you might say to them well drink Pepsi then. 



> I had a far handier number in my old private sector job but when offered this post could not turn it down given the current economic circumstances.


A handy number where you were afraid of losing you job? Some would see that as not being a handy number at all.


----------



## Sunny

Heres another one?

http://www.independent.ie/national-...82-a-day-to-sit-in-on-interviews-1578876.html

I honestly don't understand the logic of this so would be grateful if someone could explain it to me. Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.


----------



## Caveat

WTF?!...is this not a job for an existing HR dept?


----------



## Dreamerb

Interviewers generally don't interview for free, although depending on the circumstances it may not be directly for pay. It's hard work (if you're doing it properly). The headline is wrong - it's not "sit in on" it's actually conduct an interview. Serving civil servants and external advisers do conduct interviews but it's often difficult to get enough of them.

Do you think they should work for free?


----------



## Dreamerb

Caveat said:


> WTF?!...is this not a job for an existing HR dept?


No. Do you expect your job interview to be conducted exclusively by someone in HR?


----------



## D8Lady

Caveat said:


> If there's _*any*_ truth whatsoever in this one...well...I dunno whether to laugh or cry.



I think I'm going to cry...


----------



## Caveat

Dreamerb said:


> Do you expect your job interview to be conducted exclusively by someone in HR?


 
No, not exclusively - but neither do I usually expect anyone else involved in the interview to be drafted in like this.

Surely there are appropriate technical staff, managers etc etc - whatever the situation requires - already available for this?


----------



## dereko1969

yes and i would think most interview boards do consist of serving civil servants but the thing is they have jobs to do and it isn't always feasible or desireable to have them taking time off from their jobs to work on interview boards.
the article seems to imply this happens with all boards when i would doubt that is the case.
from a cost benefit position it can make more sense to use retired public servants rather than taking busy people away from their jobs. but we get slaughtered for thinking like that - we're slagged off for taking a half day shopping (not everyone takes this) but then slagged off for not taking time off our jobs to work on interview boards. this thread like so many others has turned into a rant against the public and civil service.


----------



## Caveat

dereko1969 said:


> yes and i would think most interview boards do consist of serving civil servants but the thing is they have jobs to do and it isn't always feasible or desireable to have them taking time off from their jobs to work on interview boards.
> the article seems to imply this happens with all boards when i would doubt that is the case.
> *from a cost benefit position it can make more sense to use retired public servants rather than taking busy people away from their jobs*.


 
Well fair enough when you put it like that...but...and you probably knew I'd say this...

...the private sector seem to manage to do it! 



> this thread like so many others has turned into a rant against the public and civil service.


 
Turned into? Look at the title - it was practically a rant in the first place anyway


----------



## blue_steel

ashambles said:


> You suggest you prefer the money but yet you've freely chosen to work in the sector that gives the shopping time off instead. Isn't this a bit like someone who drinks Coke telling you they prefer Pepsi - you might say to them well drink Pepsi then.
> 
> A handy number where you were afraid of losing you job? Some would see that as not being a handy number at all.


 
I'm not sure what to make of the soft drinks analogy but I thought it would be obvious to most that the reason I took the public sector position was job security and not the fabled half day off at Christmas.

I had been working in the construction industry which as you may have heard is experiencing some difficulties. So yeah I took a pay cut to take the more secure job. Since then the company has been forced to lay-off 25 people and cut wages by 15%. As someone with a family to support I guess I made the right decision. And again I assumed it would be obvious that by handy number I meant the pressure and responsibity involved in proforming my duties and not security of tenure.


----------



## dereko1969

Caveat said:


> Well fair enough when you put it like that...but...and you probably knew I'd say this...
> 
> ...the private sector seem to manage to do it!
> 
> 
> 
> Turned into? Look at the title - it was practically a rant in the first place anyway


 the scale of it is the thing, how many people would you say are normally interviewed for private sector jobs? in the public sector i would think the numbers interviewed are much much higher, as you're usually putting people onto a panel that can have a hundred people on it, in the private sector you're (usually) appointing one person.
yep it was a rant in the first place mea culpa


----------



## brian1

This is just madness. 

In the private sector interviews are almost always carried out by the active employees of the company (managers, HR, engineers, etc.).  

I remember when I first left college and went for interviews with some of the biggest banks in the UK, I was interviewed by senior management of those banks. Now if senior managers in the big banks in the UK can find time to interview people, then our civil servants have no excuses at all not to do the same, instead of given nice pay outs to their retired chums.


----------



## bazermc

*Re: Time off for shopping in public service.*



PaddyBloggit said:


> Must be during the times when the phones aren't answered!


 

He said a half day paid leave - not every day of the year


----------



## baldyman27

This wasn't necessarily a rant to begin with, though it does seem to be turning into a bit of a catfight. Obviously I work in the private sector, in construction as it happens. I was never on a huge wage when I was employed by others and a christmas bonus was a weeks wages, net. For this, I worked up to and over 70 hours per week and at weekends, had fair headaches and phonecalls at all hours. Work could be anything from meetings to cleaning out sewers to staying up right through the night finishing concrete.
Hands up here, I got E800 per week take home for this and overtime was paid sometimes time and a half, sometimes just time. I thought it was good money for my age and as I was well capable for what I was at, I was happy with it. However, I also cribbed about the public sector at the heighth of the boom. The inefficiencies and cushy numbers were as obvious then. It was my choice however, to stay in the private sector and forego the 'job for life' for the potential rewards in my job.They haven't materialised, as yet anyway, and won'tfor a while if I can keep my head above water as I am now out on my own.
What I'm getting at is that, fair enough, the public sector is coming in for a lot of scrutiny and sometimes unfair abuse at the moment but we all made our choices and it was either job security in the public or monetary reward in the private. Believe me, I got enough abuse from people I know in the Public sector in the last few years about the presumably 'massive' money I was on.
My original post about the half day for shopping was not intended as a a go at the Public sector, merely highlighting another unfair perk that's available, whether it's availed of or not.To those that don't, fair play.


----------



## j26

Just some info on interview boards in the civil service.  Bear in mind I'm talking about the civil service here, not the wider public service.
Since public sector posts are public positions, it must be seen to be as fair as possible to try to get the best possible candidates (obviously) but also to avoid the potential for litigation, which I believe is less of a potential issue for the private sector.  One thing that is clear is that civil service recruitment is scrupulously fair, but unfortunately that costs money.

The composition of the standard interview board is one person one grade above the position being applied for, one person two grades up and one external person, who also has the role of ensuring that there is no favouritism shown in the interviews, and who is usually the chair of the board.  So the typical board for an EO interview would be a HEO, an AP and the external person who was usually a PO at the time of retirement.  While they used to use serving civil servants for the external person, it has been determined (most of the time) to be cheaper to use retired civil servants, plus most people didn't want to do it.

The system is designed to to be as fair as possible, but unfortunately that costs.

Edit:  Looking at the Indo article, the amounts they're to be paid do seem excessive.


----------



## Complainer

There was an informal arrangement for a half-day Xmas shopping leave in my last private sector employer, but there is no such arrangement in my current public sector employer.


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> There was an informal arrangement for a half-day Xmas shopping leave in my last private sector employer, but there is no such arrangement in my current public sector employer.



Does that mean it is not a formal arrangement or that you don't get one? 

I don't see the problem with people taking an hour or two out during the day to do things like go to the bank, dentist, doctor etc but getting paid to do your shopping... I've never heard of such a thing in SME land.


----------



## j26

Purple said:


> I don't see the problem with people taking an hour or two out during the day to do things like go to the bank, dentist, doctor etc but getting paid to do your shopping... I've never heard of such a thing in SME land.



Do you really think dentists are that busy in December?


----------



## Purple

j26 said:


> do You Really Think Dentists Are That Busy In December?



Lol


----------



## bacchus

blue_steel said:


> I have been in the Public sector for 4 months now and I can tell you it is a lot more stressful than the private.



I think you may have used Public instead of Private, and vice versa!


----------



## Sunny

Just throwing it out there!


----------



## BoscoTalking

jasonr said:


> We civil servants have listened about the big xmas bonuses paid to employees in private sector over the past 10 years. I've been a civil servant for the past 15 years and this half day shopping leave is the only thing that i ever get that resembles a bonus. Oh how the times have changed when people are beginning to cry about this little concession.
> 
> Apart from that I have witnessed school leavers over the last few years going into jobs (construction and others) and were paid in excess of what I was earning as a civil servant at the time. There was'nt much remarks passed on us when the times were good. One thing that should be remembered is that the majority of civil servants are Clerical /Executive Officer's and believe me we are not on this massive wage/bonuses that everyone is led to believe.


 I think this argument is very skewed to the woe is me. Those same school leavers who decided to go into jobs and "make hay while the sun shone" and pay related taxes while doing so are now finding it hard to even claim benefits because some of them were self employed or apprentices . 

These little concessions was always noted as a "joke" - why do you see so many gorgeous women at the Galway races - because the nurses of the city get time off to attend! 

As a civil service employee i think you are just as guilty of honing in on one aspect and not the full picture. Many did not get the large bonuses (i certainly was not entitled to them and had to pursue night courses and extra unpaid hours average 50pw to excel in my job) but of course guys at the top did - just as CC . Any bonus i have ever gotten has been under 1k and has had to be put into my pension (defined contribution) to avoid tax and seeit go that bit further.... just a little of the other side for you. And partnership never touched us.


----------



## Caveat

Complainer said:


> There was an informal arrangement for a half-day Xmas shopping leave in my last private sector employer, but there is no such arrangement in my current public sector employer.


 
Let me guess, your last private sector employers drank champagne all day too but your current public sector employer won't give you a biro unless there is a court order?


----------



## Dreamerb

Sunny said:


> Just throwing it out there!


It has to be considered. I certainly don't relish the prospect of a pay cut, but given the overall economic picture there's a strong argument for it.

That said, I would not think it fair to extend cuts to the lowest paid - as well as their least being able to afford it, that (possibly) would raise the prospect of strikes, service withdrawal, etc. Any pay cuts would have to be (in my personal opinion) targetted on middle to high-ranking civil and public servants. 

From discussions with colleagues I'd agree that not only is there a broad expectation that the pay deal terms will have to go, but there's a high level of belief that it's necessary. There's definitely no sabre-rattling from my colleagues, nor - unusually - from most of the public sector unions, just mutters about protecting the lowest paid.


----------



## BoscoTalking

Dreamerb said:


> That said, I would not think it fair to extend cuts to the lowest paid - as well as their least being able to afford it, that (possibly) would raise the prospect of strikes, service withdrawal, etc.


 i agree that folks who work on the ground on low levels of pay- under 30k should not have to suffer (but not receive increases in times of zero positive inflation)) but from now on i do not want to see the country held to ransom by civil servants because they think the public sector are getting better paid.


----------



## Dreamerb

Private sector, even? 

To be fair, private sector pay in comparable jobs had, prior to benchmarking, substantially outdistanced public sector pay. To my own knowledge, in the late 90s and to about 2003-ish, a lot of civil servants - at all levels - were leaving to take up other jobs, frequently at very much higher salaries (of four people I knew well enough to know of details, I think all but one had salary increases of over 50%). I think this, on a macro scale, was part of the reason for the benchmarking exercise. 

Nor do I see any time lately that civil servants have held the country to ransom, though a number of other public sector area have had strikes. 

A real problem with the benchmarking model is that while benchmarking followed certain private sector salaries on the way up, there is insufficient recognition of the risk premium in the private sector, and no real mechanism for public sector salaries to follow those same private sector salaries back down.


----------



## Sunny

Dreamerb said:


> It has to be considered. I certainly don't relish the prospect of a pay cut, but given the overall economic picture there's a strong argument for it.
> 
> That said, I would not think it fair to extend cuts to the lowest paid - as well as their least being able to afford it, that (possibly) would raise the prospect of strikes, service withdrawal, etc. Any pay cuts would have to be (in my personal opinion) targetted on middle to high-ranking civil and public servants.


 


Dreamerb said:


> From discussions with colleagues I'd agree that not only is there a broad expectation that the pay deal terms will have to go, but there's a high level of belief that it's necessary. There's definitely no sabre-rattling from my colleagues, nor - unusually - from most of the public sector unions, just mutters about protecting the lowest paid.


 


Dreamerb said:


> Private sector, even?
> 
> To be fair, private sector pay in comparable jobs had, prior to benchmarking, substantially outdistanced public sector pay. To my own knowledge, in the late 90s and to about 2003-ish, a lot of civil servants - at all levels - were leaving to take up other jobs, frequently at very much higher salaries (of four people I knew well enough to know of details, I think all but one had salary increases of over 50%). I think this, on a macro scale, was part of the reason for the benchmarking exercise.
> 
> Nor do I see any time lately that civil servants have held the country to ransom, though a number of other public sector area have had strikes.
> 
> A real problem with the benchmarking model is that while benchmarking followed certain private sector salaries on the way up, there is insufficient recognition of the risk premium in the private sector, and no real mechanism for public sector salaries to follow those same private sector salaries back down.


 
Good posts. I don't think many people would disagree with you.


----------



## redbiro

Dreamerb said:


> It has to be considered. I certainly don't relish the prospect of a pay cut, but given the overall economic picture there's a strong argument for it.
> 
> That said, I would not think it fair to extend cuts to the lowest paid - as well as their least being able to afford it, that (possibly) would raise the prospect of strikes, service withdrawal, etc. Any pay cuts would have to be (in my personal opinion) targetted on middle to high-ranking civil and public servants.
> 
> From discussions with colleagues I'd agree that not only is there a broad expectation that the pay deal terms will have to go, but there's a high level of belief that it's necessary. There's definitely no sabre-rattling from my colleagues, nor - unusually - from most of the public sector unions, just mutters about protecting the lowest paid.


 

Agreed, the pay deal is a dead as a 100% mortgage. Pay cuts - well now that a different kettle of fish but it should be on the table.

I moved from the private to the public sector 18 months ago as both my spouse and I worked for the same employer - I had the foresight to see what was coming down the track and started looking to spread our risk.

I took a pay cut in real terms but am still happy with the relative security (contract employee, not permanent).

Without doubt the public service needs to be rationalised to some degree and loads of quangos axed, but the underlying reality is that taxes will need to rise. Garret Fitzgerald was on newstalk the other evening saying much the same thing. For a number of years now we've been paying taxes at similar levels to the US and enjoying service levels closer to the European model. All fuelled by a massive tax take from the construction boom. 

You can rattle on about distractions like half day shopping all you like (never heard of it myself) but the country is running a budget deficit of about 10% which is well outside the EU limits and obviously unsustainable.  Public sector reform ain't gonna fix that unless you start slashing important services like hospitals, schools, police etc. Cutback certainly, reform certainly but there's a limit to what can be achieved without unacceptable cuts in services.

With the credit crunch and the Iceland situation still affecting the availability of credit, the big question is how long can the government borrow to continue financing that deficit. The national debt may be small enough in relative terms but the ability to continue to borrow and keep the current Keynesian policies in place is not unlimited IMO.

I can't see how we can avoid an Income tax rise ( stealth taxes are more likely to depress consumption and inherently inequitable IMO). That special levy ain't gonna cut it as it stands. The only question now is whether the gov have the cojones.

 Now that would be real leadership - prospects of it happening with local elections on the card.... I'd vote for it but I doubt many others would.


----------



## gazzer

Cant believe people are giving out about civil servents getting a half day leave for shopping. Bloody hell. What about all the private sector employees who get xmas bonuses or if they dont get bonuses what about the xmas party/drinks that you get. Civil Servents dont get any of that. In fact we are not allowed except any xmas gifts from members of the public or those in business. What about the numbers of days off a lot of private sector employees will get off for xmas? I finish work at 3.30 on Xmas Eve and I am back in work on Monday 29th at 8am. Just throwing that out there in case people think that civil servents get the whole of xmas off.


----------



## BoscoTalking

gazzer said:


> Cant believe people are giving out about civil servents getting a half day leave for shopping. Bloody hell. What about all the private sector employees who get xmas bonuses or if they dont get bonuses what about the xmas party/drinks that you get. Civil Servents dont get any of that. In* fact we are not allowed except any xmas gifts from members of the public or those in business. *What about the n*umbers of days off a lot of private sector employees will get off for xmas*? I finish work at 3.30 on Xmas Eve and I am back in work on Monday 29th at 8am. Just throwing that out there in case people think that civil servents get the whole of xmas off.


 ? 
This rule has always been in the MNC that i work for and also we only get public holidays off the rest are what we take from our own balances. the misconception of Christmas bonuses has been covered already here.


----------



## gazzer

pennypitstop said:


> ?
> This rule has always been in the MNC that i work for and also we only get public holidays off the rest are what we take from our own balances. the misconception of Christmas bonuses has been covered already here.


 
What about xmas drinks or parties?


----------



## BoscoTalking

the company contributes to half the cost of the Christmas party the rest we pay to a social club every paycheck - so it ain't free by any stretch, however they do contribute. its a half day's wages? probably not.


----------



## Caveat

gazzer said:


> What about xmas drinks or parties?


 
This has come up before too. I don't get them and never have - seemingly many others are in the same position.



> I finish work at 3.30 on Xmas Eve and I am back in work on Monday 29th at 8am.


 
What kind of hours/days do you think all private sector retail and hospitality staff have to work?


----------



## TarfHead

gazzer said:


> I finish work at 3.30 on Xmas Eve and I am back in work on Monday 29th at 8am. Just throwing that out there in case people think that civil servents get the whole of xmas off.


 
My sister works in the Department of Enterprise & Employment and she is not expected in work on Monday 29th. I think she referred to it as a 'grace' day.

I'm just throwing it out there in case people think that all civil servants will be at their desks, effortlessly adapting to the new Smart Economy.

I work for a publicly quoted company and any time I take over Christmas, over and above Bank/Public holidays, comes out of my annual leave entitlement. 'Grace' days / Christmas bonuses / complimentary drinks don't exist where I work.


----------



## Padraigb

TarfHead said:


> My sister works in the Department of Enterprise & Employment and she is not expected in work on Monday 29th. I think she referred to it as a 'grace' day.



I think it more likely that she referred to it as a _privilege day_. Civil servants are allowed one at Christmas and another at Easter -- a day's leave in addition to the public holidays. It must be taken at a time close to the holiday, but no particular date is prescribed.

Think of them as part of the annual leave entitlement.


----------



## Purple

gazzer said:


> Cant believe people are giving out about civil servents getting a half day leave for shopping. Bloody hell. What about all the private sector employees who get xmas bonuses or if they dont get bonuses what about the xmas party/drinks that you get. Civil Servents dont get any of that. In fact we are not allowed except any xmas gifts from members of the public or those in business. What about the numbers of days off a lot of private sector employees will get off for xmas? I finish work at 3.30 on Xmas Eve and I am back in work on Monday 29th at 8am. Just throwing that out there in case people think that civil servents get the whole of xmas off.


How many days holidays do you have a year? How many hours a week do you work? Do you get paid sick leave?


----------



## rmelly

gazzer said:


> Cant believe people are giving out about civil servents getting a half day leave for shopping. Bloody hell. What about all the private sector employees who get xmas bonuses or if they dont get bonuses what about the xmas party/drinks that you get. Civil Servents dont get any of that. In fact we are not allowed except any xmas gifts from members of the public or those in business. What about the numbers of days off a lot of private sector employees will get off for xmas? I finish work at 3.30 on Xmas Eve and I am back in work on Monday 29th at 8am. Just throwing that out there in case people think that civil servents get the whole of xmas off.


 
better you than this guy - wonder if he is public or private sector...

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=99857


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> your current public sector employer won't give you a biro unless there is a court order?


Not so much a court order - More like form B78F-B (new biro request form), must be authorised by Head of Dept and filled out in triplicate (in biro).


----------



## mathepac

Some assumptions (feel free to play with the numbers and check my sums)

We have 275,000 civil & public servants
They are each paid 20% more (on average) than the average industrial wage, say €700 p/w or €20 per hour
They each work 45 weeks of the year 

Half of them take their Christmas half-day, one hours banking time per week, and two privelege days per annum.

Christmas Shopping Cost = 137,500 X €20 X 3.5 Hours = €9,625,000

Banking Time Cost = 137,500 X €20 X 1 Hours  X 45 weeks = €123,750,000

Privelege Day Cost = 137,500 X €20  X 7 X 2 = €38,500,000

I think that comes to a total of *€171,875,000* for little hidden perks - its the sheer scale of the thing that makes it hard to swallow.


----------



## j26

The bank time is way off - its generally 30 minutes on the week you're paid, and since most are paid fortnightly, it's about a quarter of what you calculate.  Also, civil servants recruited since 1st October 2003 must be paid into their bank account, and don't get bank time, so it's a perk that will die out in in time.  Given the expansion of the public service in recent years, that means that possibly up to a quarter of the public service of are already ineligible at this stage, so again your figures would need to be amended to reflect that.

As for privilege days, I believe they only apply to the civil service (I could be wrong).  The offices remain closed for an extra day at Christmas, so every civil servant has to take it - there's no real opting in or out to it.  However, that doesn't seem too bad when you look at, say solicitors offices, many of whom have already closed, and will remain closed until January.  Many businesses give holidays over and above the public holidays at Christmas time, and also give bonuses (which we don't get), so I don't really see why the public service should be singled out.

As for the "shopping time", again I don't know how prevalent that actually is.  I seriously doubt teachers get it anyway.  It could be just a civil service thing again, so your base figure of 275,000 could be way off.


----------



## gipimann

j26 said:


> As for privilege days, I believe they only apply to the civil service (I could be wrong). The offices remain closed for an extra day at Christmas, so every civil servant has to take it - there's no real opting in or out to it.


 
I work in HSE and get 2 privilege days - Christmas and Easter.  I got them when I worked with Dublin Public Libraries too, so it appears that public servants (some if not all) get them as well.


----------



## mathepac

Why so defensive j26? 

My invitation was to 





mathepac said:


> ... (feel free to play with the numbers and check my sums)...





j26 said:


> The bank time is way off - its generally 30 minutes on the week you're paid, and since most are paid fortnightly, it's about a quarter of what you calculate. Also, civil servants recruited since 1st October 2003 must be paid into their bank account, and don't get bank time, so it's a perk that will die out in in time. Given the expansion of the public service in recent years, that means that possibly up to a quarter of the public service of are already ineligible at this stage, so again your figures would need to be amended to reflect that. ...


Have a shot at it, although I think you will find by perusing older threads on AAM that my numbers stack up.

Come up with a number. If you can pick holes in my assumptions and calculations you must have some idea of a number.


j26 said:


> ... As for privilege days, I believe they only apply to the civil service (I could be wrong). The offices remain closed for an extra day at Christmas, so every civil servant has to take it - there's no real opting in or out to it...


I worked in the public sector as contracted employee for a period and I was granted privilege days based on "custom and practice" in the role I was fulfilling, so your brlief is misplaced.


j26 said:


> ... Many businesses give holidays over and above the public holidays at Christmas time, and also give bonuses (which we don't get), ...


If you read the previous posts in the thread you will see that in the private sector any holidays employees take over and above public holidays come out of their annual leave entitlement.

Bonuses may be granted in the private sector (they will be taxed as well unlike the hidden perks under discussion here), but they will be tied to the performance of the individual and the organisation as a whole. If there's no money in the kitty, bonuses won't be paid.

Having worked as an employee and an employer in the private sector, I have been on both sides of the equation - 


 work hard, long hours, tough times, little money, no bonus
 work hard, long hours, better times, some money, bonus paid.



j26 said:


> ... However, that doesn't seem too bad when you look at, say solicitors offices, many of whom have already closed, and will remain closed until January...


But solicitors run their own businesses, surely they can decide when they close for annual leave, and I guarantee you that if they remain closed from now until January its because they know they won't have much to do.


j26 said:


> ... so I don't really see why the public service should be singled out...


The thread title might be a useful hint, i.e. *"Re: Time off for Christmas shopping in public service."*


j26 said:


> ... As for the "shopping time", again I don't know how prevalent that actually is. I seriously doubt teachers get it anyway. It could be just a civil service thing again, so your base figure of 275,000 could be way off.


Again come up with a number. Biffo, when he had the Finance portfolio, put the number at 260,000 in 2004/5 for the public service as a whole.


----------



## j26

mathepac said:


> Why so defensive j26?


Hardly defensive.  I was primarily pointing out some inaccuracies in your assumptions on bank time.  It definitely doesn't stack up, and the figure would be more likely to be in or about a fifth of what you claim (three quarters of a quarter of your figure or 18.75%, rounded up to 20% for the sake of argument).  That knocks about 100m from your calculations.

I'm not fully aware of the figures for who gets any entitlement to privilege days or the infamous shopping time, and I did point that out.  I don't believe all public servants have any entitlement to them, but I don't know how many are, so I'd be reluctant to hazard a guess on the numbers, other than to say I'd guess they mainly apply to office based staff who are by no means the majority of the public service.

If you want accurate figures, why not get your TD to ask a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance?


----------



## mathepac

j26 said:


> ... If you want accurate figures, why not get your TD to ask a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance?


I'd love to but they're on one of their looong holliers right now. 

Some of the breaks they get are nearly as long as those enjoyed by, ehhmm, another group of people, also in the public sector. 

Sshhhh - listen..... Is Santa arriving early, or is that a clamour I hear  from the private sector for holiday parity?


----------



## j26

mathepac said:


> I'd love to but they're on one of their looong holliers right now.


[broken link removed]

Ah sure, the deficit will still be there in mid to late January.


----------



## sue_flaherty

As usual its civil servant bashing time again as if all the woes in the economy were are fault.  We aren't the ones who were getting massive salaries and bonuses.  If you add the so called privelege day to most civil servants annual leave entitelment it would probably be the same as those in most private jobs.  I know one person who works for a bank and each year they get an extra day off for their birthday.


----------



## Purple

sue_flaherty said:


> As usual its civil servant bashing time again as if all the woes in the economy were are fault.  We aren't the ones who were getting massive salaries and bonuses.  If you add the so called privelege day to most civil servants annual leave entitelment it would probably be the same as those in most private jobs.  I know one person who works for a bank and each year they get an extra day off for their birthday.


I get 20 days a year. I have worked for 18 years. 
I get no sick pay of any sort. 

What do you get?


----------



## mathepac

j26 said:


> [broken link removed] ...


 Nice - its a pity we can't elect some of those little emoticons; at least they're animated.


j26 said:


> ...
> Ah sure, the deficit will still be there in mid to late January.


Hopefully we will be as well.


----------



## room305

sue_flaherty said:


> As usual its civil servant bashing time again as if all the woes in the economy were are fault.



This is a straw man. Nobody is saying that we should cut the public sector wage bill because the public sector is the cause of our woe (that woe should be directed at the housing bubble and government policy). However, we cannot afford the current level of expenditure.

That means either we borrow to fund the deficit, cut public sector wages or trim the workforce. Borrowing is out as I figure we'll probably run out of willing creditors by June. So we must look at the others. As a public sector worker I'll admit I'd prefer to see redundancies rather than wage cuts but given that time is of the essence, an across the board percentage cut is probably preferable.



sue_flaherty said:


> We aren't the ones who were getting massive salaries and bonuses.



Perhaps not, the people enjoying these perks tend to be in the minority in either sector. This doesn't alter the facts though.



sue_flaherty said:


> If you add the so called privelege day to most civil servants annual leave entitelment it would probably be the same as those in most private jobs.  I know one person who works for a bank and each year they get an extra day off for their birthday.



I'd be surprised if this is the case. Also I find it telling that whenever somebody on AAM wishes to highlight private sector profligacy, they always point to the banks. Banks are hardly representative of a typical private sector operator.

If you care to make a point about long holidays, high wages and massive bonuses enjoyed by SME workers in comparison to the public sector it would be more instructive.


----------



## Purple

room305 said:


> This is a straw man. Nobody is saying that we should cut the public sector wage bill because the public sector is the cause of our woe (that woe should be directed at the housing bubble and government policy). However, we cannot afford the current level of expenditure.
> 
> That means either we borrow to fund the deficit, cut public sector wages or trim the workforce. Borrowing is out as I figure we'll probably run out of willing creditors by June. So we must look at the others. As a public sector worker I'll admit I'd prefer to see redundancies rather than wage cuts but given that time is of the essence, an across the board percentage cut is probably preferable.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not, the people enjoying these perks tend to be in the minority in either sector. This doesn't alter the facts though.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be surprised if this is the case. Also I find it telling that whenever somebody on AAM wishes to highlight private sector profligacy, they always point to the banks. Banks are hardly representative of a typical private sector operator.
> 
> If you care to make a point about long holidays, high wages and massive bonuses enjoyed by SME workers in comparison to the public sector it would be more instructive.


Balance and reason, as usual.


----------



## finty

I'm a civil servant, I get 23days holidays plus 2 privilege days and a half day christmas shopping. Total 25.5days, higher than the average? maybe by a day or so. I worked in the private sector till march this year and instead of a half day off for "shopping" I got a 15% bonus. hmmmmm, I wonder what was more valuable to me.

I wish they'd just roll it into our annual leave and just say we get 25.5days annual leave. nothing too extra ordinary about that. 

Its the civil service, the rewards and drawbacks are different to private industry. Its the way things are. There are many problems with the workings of the civil service.

cutting the 1/2 day extra holiday isnt the solution, its just another stick to beat the civil sevice.

I worked in private industry till last march, the benefits working there far outweighed those of the civil service


----------



## Purple

finty said:


> I worked in private industry till last march, the benefits working there far outweighed those of the civil service


Was it in the SME sector?
Why did you move?


----------



## z103

> I wish they'd just roll it into our annual leave and just say we get 25.5days annual leave. nothing too extra ordinary about that.


Is it not 5.5 days extra ordinary?


----------



## Husker

finty said:


> cutting the 1/2 day extra holiday isnt the solution, its just another stick to beat the civil sevice.


 
Very true.  And by the way, what some on here want you to accept is:

- less annual leave
- a pay cut
- lower pension rights
- less job security
- no union membership

Just a bit of flexibility to make up for market failure, that's all.


----------



## Purple

Husker said:


> Very true.  And by the way, what some on here want you to accept is:
> 
> - less annual leave
> - a pay cut
> - lower pension rights
> - less job security
> - no union membership
> 
> Just a bit of flexibility to make up for market failure, that's all.



Have you read the rest of this thread?


----------



## Willowchase

Purple said:


> Have you read the rest of this thread?



This thread has developed into a 'You versus us' debate.

To be fair, the vast majority of private sector P.A.Y.E. workers have never received a bonus in their lives. Most of them have in no way gained any additional benefits arising from the 'Celtic Tiger' economy except possibly by virtue of the fact they were able to obtain and/or hold on to employment. Those who made the killings, apart from the property developers etc. were those who were self employed and could name their price for the services they offered.

Now, many of these workers fear for their jobs. Most of those lucky enough not to have lost them yet realise that there is little prospect of any salary increase in the near future and possibly a reduction, notwithstanding any national wage agreement.

Again, most public sector employees are not on massive wages and put in many hard hours with little prospect of recognition or gratitude from either their employers or the public. They're not the ones going on junkets etc. So what if they may be entitled to an extra half day a year. This is only very small beer.

The only meaningful difference between the public service and the private sector (P.A.Y.E. particularly) is job security and guaranteed defined benefit index linked pensions. Unfortunately many private sector workers have no pension at all. A price needs to be placed on this benefit.


----------



## Goldman

As someone who works in the private sector, I feel that the civil service are completely entitled to this 3.5hrs paid leave to go shopping. In reference to people saying in these current economic times, civil service staff should not be given this, I am appalled. The private sector generally enjoys economic success to a much greater extent than the public sector with various profit sharing incentives, bonuses, etc. (alas I exclude a certain FAS Director). I find it rich that my colleagues in the private sector now look for the knife to trim the costs in the civil service in these current economic times, when the private sector has generally enjoyed great oppulence for years.


----------



## room305

Goldman said:


> I find it rich that my colleagues in the private sector now look for the knife to trim the costs in the civil service in these current economic times, when the private sector has generally enjoyed great oppulence for years.



Any ideas then on how the country might continue to pay the public sector wage bill?


----------



## Husker

Purple said:


> Have you read the rest of this thread?


 
Yes, thanks.


----------



## baldyman27

Willowchase said:


> This thread has developed into a 'You versus us' debate.


 
Of course it has and rightly so. IMO the basic difference between public and private enterprise is the huge risks involved. Apologies for being severe here but we in the private sector are not only trying to fund/barely keep alive our enterprises but also funding the public sector. For those of us who receive bonuses (I don't) are we not entitled to them if we have brought ourselves to the point of being able to afford them through hard work, sleepless nights, etc, etc.? 
The aim of private enterprise is to make money. The main aim of the public sector is to spend taxpayers money, the same taxpayers who have to pay for that public service *before* they get paid themselves. This holds true for the PAYE worker as much as the entrepreneur. The public service is a necessary and, in the main, commendable service, but excuse me if I think that a lot of the money is spent very unwisely.
To those who hold the banks as a model of the private sector, bull. If I run into trouble in the morning, I lose my house, I don't get an injection of taxpayers money to bail me out. On the other hand, if, by risking my house/car/soul I can afford to give myself an extra E500 next christmas, I will. And as a result will contribute E347.45 to the national coffers. Will that cover a half day for someone to go shopping??


----------



## Husker

Believe it or not, public sector workers pay tax too and don't like to see it wasted.  Some work beyond the hours they are paid for and don't look for anything in return.  So don't try and draw a line between the private and public sectors as if one was simply funding the other, one involves hard work and the other does not, one has perks and the other does not.  It is simply untrue.


----------



## baldyman27

Husker, I haven't attempted to draw a line at all.Of course there are hardworking an honest folk in both sectors. The throwback from the public sector employees always seems to relate to the fabled bonuses those in the private sector allegedly receive. For the most of us, simply untrue.


----------



## Complainer

baldyman27 said:


> The main aim of the public sector is to spend taxpayers money


Rubbish, of course. The main aim of the public sector is to provide public services.


----------



## room305

Husker said:


> Believe it or not, public sector workers pay tax too and don't like to see it wasted.  Some work beyond the hours they are paid for and don't look for anything in return.  So don't try and draw a line between the private and public sectors as if one was simply funding the other, one involves hard work and the other does not, one has perks and the other does not.  It is simply untrue.



Glad someone said it. Working in the public sector doesn't make it any easier or less galling to pay taxes (and worse again to see so much of it wasted).


----------



## mathepac

room305 said:


> ... Working in the public sector doesn't make it any easier or less galling to pay taxes (and worse again to see so much of it wasted).


Thanks for that. I'm glad someone on the inside, so to speak,  has the wherewithal to come out and say there is waste in the public services (all large organisations have waste). 

Speaking as an individual without current inside knowledge, I only have access to what is posted publicly on forums like this one, and feel entitled to chip in my tuppence worth.

It was refreshing to hear Frank McCabe on Marian Funnucane's radio show this morning come out with ideas and proposals geared to getting Ireland Inc's public service "businesses or industries" (I'm unsure which precise word he used)  back where they belong, at the top of the pile internationally, both  perceptually and actually.

While I support his views, I also believe we need to root out waste wherever it exists to make room for the development initiatives.

I believe Biffo & Co could learn a lot by listening to Frank's ideas and upbeat "can do" attitude - they look and sound to me as if they need a chunk of motivation.


----------



## baldyman27

Complainer said:


> Rubbish, of course. The main aim of the public sector is to provide public services.


 
I stand corrected, apologies. These services are paid for with taxpayers money though and not all that money is spent serving the public.


----------



## z103

> I stand corrected, apologies.


I believe you were correct the first time. The main aim of the public sector is to spend its allocated budget (our money). The reason for this is that if it does not spend its budget entirely, then it will not be allocated as much in the next financial year.
(Why would there be all these useless cycle lanes otherwise?)


----------



## BoscoTalking

leghorn said:


> I believe you were correct the first time. The main aim of the public sector is to spend its allocated budget (our money). *The reason for this is that if it does not spend its budget entirely, then it will not be allocated as much in the next financial year.*
> (Why would there be all these useless cycle lanes otherwise?)


this has led to the wasteful spending in December to ensure you get a good budget the following year. So i think this idea is completely flawed. 
Budgets are based on needs analysis - if work comes in under budget i think the good project management needs to be commended - not by cuts the following year.


----------



## Caveat

pennypitstop said:


> this has led to the wasteful spending in December to ensure you get a good budget the following year.


 
We see this with our public sector customers every single year.

In fact it's happening as I type - people are ordering 100s, 1000s of € worth of stuff that they have *admitted* they don't need.


----------



## BoscoTalking

Caveat said:


> We see this with our public sector customers every single year.
> 
> In fact it's happening as I type - people are ordering 100s, 1000s of € worth of stuff that they have *admitted* they don't need.


 You have to admire the fact that they want to make sure their money is there the following year, possibly. But I know when i look for €€ in a budget it had better be qualified as a need. and i don't get to spend savings made on X on item Y which was not named in the budget so maybe thats another area i don't agree with.


----------



## Purple

Goldman said:


> As someone who works in the private sector, I feel that the civil service are completely entitled to this 3.5hrs paid leave to go shopping. In reference to people saying in these current economic times, civil service staff should not be given this, I am appalled. The private sector generally enjoys economic success to a much greater extent than the public sector with various profit sharing incentives, bonuses, etc. (alas I exclude a certain FAS Director). I find it rich that my colleagues in the private sector now look for the knife to trim the costs in the civil service in these current economic times, when the private sector has generally enjoyed great oppulence for years.


You have to be taking the proverbial there mate. Have you not seen the newspapers, the TV, the links to the ERSI and OECD reports on this site showing that the public sector is, on the whole, grossly overpaid?


----------



## Purple

pennypitstop said:


> You have to admire the fact that they want to make sure their money is there the following year


 Why?


----------



## BoscoTalking

i left the word "possibly" at the end of your quote of mine. 
It is quite possible that civil servants want to operate in a good budget in order to be able to react if they need to, to some unforseen cost which may crop up. perhaps.


----------



## Welfarite

leghorn said:


> I believe you were correct the first time. The main aim of the public sector is to spend its allocated budget (our money). The reason for this is that if it does not spend its budget entirely, then it will not be allocated as much in the next financial year.
> (Why would there be all these useless cycle lanes otherwise?)


 

So the reason that social welfare offices are on overtime this week and the past few months is not to try and pay as many of the newly unemployed before Xmas but, rather, to 'protect' a budget that will be, in any case, slashed next year due to economic downturn?


----------



## baldyman27

pennypitstop said:


> It is quite possible that civil servants want to operate in a good budget in order to be able to react if they need to, to some unforseen cost which may crop up. perhaps.


 

Would it not be more prudent to allocate this money in a separate contingency fund?


----------



## BoscoTalking

baldyman27 said:


> Would it not be more prudent to allocate this money in a separate contingency fund?


Hey thats one way to go but i suspect that public sector workers don't have a say - its the senior folks who should come up with these changes and lets face it they probably see no problem with whats happening at the moment.


----------



## baldyman27

pennypitstop said:


> its the senior folks who should come up with these changes and lets face it they probably see no problem with whats happening at the moment.


 
Or don't want to see maybe?


----------



## BoscoTalking

baldyman27 said:


> Or don't want to see maybe?


who knows?


----------



## Towger

Welfarite said:


> So the reason that social welfare offices are on overtime this week and the past few months is not to try and pay as many of the newly unemployed before Xmas but, rather, to 'protect' a budget that will be, in any case, slashed next year due to economic downturn?


 
That is not what he is saying.

I have seen it and been and been told the same my self. Many departments/areas/quangoes go on a spending spree to use up the budget, on the ‘Use it or lose it principle’.
For example, I have seen whole offices equipped with brand new top end 'Gaming PCs', for want of a better word. They would have cost 2 or 3 times the price of an average PC. I queried this, as writing Word Documents and a bit of Excel etc was all they were going to be used for. With a straight face, I was told that “We had left over cash in the budget and if we did not use it up, we would lose it next year.”


----------



## baldyman27

Which department allocates the budgets to the various councils, etc.? I would have thought (and this is in the simplest form) that council A goes to whichever department and says 'we need x amount of money for running costs and we plan to spend x amount on capital projects and we feel a contingency fund of another x amount would be prudent which, should we have to draw down from we will show why'. Instead, it seems that they can say we spent all the money you gave us last year and so much didn't get done so now we want more. Am I right in saying this? If so, surely its the department that's at fault for not properly governing the various councils, etc.


----------



## Welfarite

Towger said:


> That is not what he is saying.
> 
> I have seen it and been and been told the same my self. Many departments/areas/quangoes go on a spending spree to use up the budget, on the ‘Use it or lose it principle’.
> For example, I have seen whole offices equipped with brand new top end 'Gaming PCs', for want of a better word. They would have cost 2 or 3 times the price of an average PC. I queried this, as writing Word Documents and a bit of Excel etc was all they were going to be used for. With a straight face, I was told that “We had left over cash in the budget and if we did not use it up, we would lose it next year.”


 

I understand fully what he is saying. He is backing up a sweeping statement with one example (something about cycle lanes). I weas merely countering that statement with an example of my own.


----------



## HighFlier

No other perks in the Public Service ?eh?

 What about guaranteed pensions, sick day quotas, virtually unsackable, no performance criteria, and able to get through recessions without the all consuming worry that all the rest of us have? 

Give me a break!


----------



## BoscoTalking

baldyman27 said:


> If so, surely its the department that's at fault for not properly governing the various councils, etc.


no i do not agree with that at all. Whoever is buying €€€ worth of stuff that is not needed then just to spend a budget then they are at fault. 
This "systemic failure" BS actually sends me into orbit - whatever happened to  individuals being responsible for their actions.


----------



## baldyman27

pennypitstop said:


> no i do not agree with that at all. Whoever is buying €€€ worth of stuff that is not needed then just to spend a budget then they are at fault.
> This "systemic failure" BS actually sends me into orbit - whatever happened to individuals being responsible for their actions.


 

Very true, its the question of accountability Im wondering about though. Most people will try to get away with what they can, fact of life. Who is ulimately responsible for asking where the money is being spent or why it's being spent on completely OTT stuff? Apart from the good people on AAM, of course.


----------



## grahamo

I'm a public servant and am getting a little bit sick of being made the scapegoat for everyone's troubles. I'm one of the "post 1995" employees which means I pay PRSI at class A1 and have the same terms and conditions as most people in the private sector so I'm not "unsackable". As for pension I have to pay into it, its not free! As for sick pay I pay into an insurance plan which covers sick pay. As for performance criteria, We're too busy to get involved with that as we're busy covering for people who leave/retire and are not replaced.
The department I work for actually makes money from the work I do so I cost the taxpayer zilch. I don't go on junkets and don't receive bonuses.

P.S. I don't get a half days leave for shopping or banking time but I get a half day on Christmas Eve.


----------



## gazzer

I work in the Civil Service and I have no privelage day. Im back in work on Mon Dec 29th. I finish work on Xmas Eve at aroudn 2.30/3.30. However out of my friends who work in the private sector almost all of them finished up on Friday 19th and are not back until Jan 5th yet they only have to take 4 days of their annual leave.

If I was to take that amount of time off I would have to take 7 days annual leave.


----------



## gazzer

HighFlier said:


> No other perks in the Public Service ?eh?
> 
> What about guaranteed pensions, sick day quotas, virtually unsackable, no performance criteria, and able to get through recessions without the all consuming worry that all the rest of us have?
> 
> Give me a break!


 
Those pensions have to paid for by the civil servents. They are not free and they have to be paid for 40 years in order to get the maximum benefit. 

What do you mean by sick day quotas?? 

I know plenty of post 95 entrants to the civil service who were sacked.

We have to do PMDS every year and if you do not get the relevant marking you dont get any increments and it effects your promotion prospects.

If the public service is such an attractive prospect why are there not more people applying to join?


----------



## jhegarty

gazzer said:


> However out of my friends who work in the private sector almost all of them finished up on Friday 19th and are not back until Jan 5th yet they only have to take 4 days of their annual leave.
> 
> If I was to take that amount of time off I would have to take 7 days annual leave.




I'd love to know where your friends work , because I don't know any private sector employer with these conditions.


----------



## gazzer

jhegarty said:


> I'd love to know where your friends work , because I don't know any private sector employer with these conditions.


 
Well I am only stating what they told me the other day. The building I work in houses my dept and 8 other private offices. 6 out of those 8 offices closed on Friday and are not open until Monday 5th Jan.


----------



## jhegarty

gazzer said:


> Well I am only stating what they told me the other day. The building I work in houses my dept and 8 other private offices. 6 out of those 8 offices closed on Friday and are not open until Monday 5th Jan.




Lots of private sector companies close those dates , but in every company I have come across every day (not a public holiday) will be taken from annual leave.


----------



## BoscoTalking

gazzer said:


> Well I am only stating what they told me the other day. The building I work in houses my dept and 8 other private offices. 6 out of those 8 offices closed on Friday and are not open until Monday 5th Jan.


i imagine they, like me, have to take the days off in their annual leave. As in there is no option to work these days. 
I don't want to sound all "civil servants are wasters etc" but what i do think is that they do not have a grasp of private sector as much as they think they do. Check over on educationposts this morning and there is a teacher asking are they entitled to a "moving day with paid sub" like, hello missus get into the real world!
The reality to me is that there are senior civil servants who look at budgets as pocket money and don't really care if they are squandered and come up with rediculus perks for employees because they believe the private sector get them. For example: paying someone's estate agents fees if when they take up a transfer they wish to buy a house or sell their existing house - in all fairness, did they apply for the job or were they begged?This may happen in pribvate sector if someone is headhunted because their skills are in need and they need to be wooed but certainly not as a rule and absolutely not as an "entitlement". The idea that nobody was interviewing for civil and public service jobs during the celtic tiger  is rubbish, they were valued as job with fantastic benefits just as much as they are now.


----------



## gazzer

pennypitstop said:


> i imagine they, like me, have to take the days off in their annual leave. As in there is no option to work these days.
> I don't want to sound all "civil servants are wasters etc" but what i do think is that they do not have a grasp of private sector as much as they think they do. Check over on educationposts this morning and there is a teacher asking are they entitled to a "moving day with paid sub" like, hello missus get into the real world!
> The reality to me is that there are senior civil servants who look at budgets as pocket money and don't really care if they are squandered and come up with rediculus perks for employees because they believe the private sector get them. For example: paying someone's estate agents fees if when they take up a transfer they wish to buy a house or sell their existing house - in all fairness, did they apply for the job or were they begged?This may happen in pribvate sector if someone is headhunted because their skills are in need and they need to be wooed but certainly not as a rule and absolutely not as an "entitlement". The idea that nobody was interviewing for civil and public service jobs during the celtic tiger is rubbish, they were valued as job with fantastic benefits just as much as they are now.


 
I can only go on my own experience in the Civil Service and as much as I would love to have taken annual leave and be off from Dec 19th until Jan 5th like my friends who work in the Private Sector there is no way my boss would allow it. The nature of my work means that there has to be a presence in the office on every weekday over the xmas (apart from Dec 24th and Dec 25th). I had to come in to work at 8.15 this morning and I wont be leaving until 7pm. That is common enough in my section and while I am happy to have a job at something I enjoy the long hours can sometimes be a pain. I dont get overtime for doing anything over an 8 hour day though I do get time in lieu(one hour for each extra hour worked)

Also I dont get the point you are making about estate agent fees?? When I decentralised and sold my house I certainly didnt get any money or compensation for doing it as it was a voluntary more.


----------



## Caveat

jhegarty said:


> every company I have come across every day (not a public holiday) will be taken from annual leave.


 
Of course.  I've never heard of any other way.


----------



## rmelly

This year my employer introduced 2 (paid) 'Company Leave Days' at Christmas, in addition to the standard annual leave, for all permanent (i.e. non-contractor) employees, which was nice.


----------



## Purple

For those posting and counter posting about time off at Christmas can they please state their total annual leave? It would also be good if they could state their standard working week and if they can work up extra days off by working overtime.

I get 20 days, my minimum hours are 39 and everyone here gets paid overtime. I never work less than 48 hours a week and have taken 10 sick days in the last 18 years, 6 of them for hospitalisation.
Many friends in the private sector work long hours with no time off in lieu,  no paid overtime and no paid sick days.

One more small point; it is very unlikely that most public sector employees with defined benefit pensions will come anywhere close to funding their own pension.


----------



## AlbacoreA

If you don't like the terms and conditions of where you work you'd assume you'd move to a job with better terms and conditions. If you don't move, the assumption must be either you can't get a better job, or you are happy with the terms and conditions. Whats the point of comparing the different terms and conditions? Its not as if all occupations have the same working day/week either. 

Some people get sick more than others. Again some occupations might be more dangerous than others. You might be a professional footballer and get injured, or work in creche with kids and catch their bugs? or you might work in a gym all day? Whats the interest in sick days?


----------



## Padraigb

Purple said:


> For those posting and counter posting about time off at Christmas can they please state their total annual leave? It would also be good if they could state their standard working week and if they can work up extra days off by working overtime.



Hmm. Did I post or did I counter post?

What use would be served by giving information like that? What credence might be placed on it? Why do you want to know?

Questions, questions...


----------



## Caveat

Purple said:


> For those posting and counter posting about time off at Christmas can they please state their total annual leave? It would also be good if they could state their standard working week and if they can work up extra days off by working overtime.
> 
> I get 20 days, my minimum hours are 39 and everyone here gets paid overtime. I never work less than 48 hours a week and have taken 10 sick days in the last 18 years, 6 of them for hospitalisation.
> Many friends in the private sector work long hours with no time off in lieu, no paid overtime and no paid sick days.


 
Private sector: 20 days hols. some of which I must use for Christmas. 

No Christmas bonuses nor any other kind. 

Min. 39 hours pw but generally, I do closer to 45 and don't get paid overtime nor time in lieu. 

Been in present job 9 years and have taken about 5 sick days.


----------



## csirl

We should rename this thread the Ebenezzer Scrooge thread - "who gets the least holidays, works the longest hours and doesnt get any time off at Christmas?"


----------



## rmelly

Total 2009 Annual Leave is 23 days.

37.5 hr standard working week, no paid overtime and time in lieu only given for weekends (in the office) with prior approval. Occasional overseas travel (full working week) with expenses paid, not per diem.

Actual hours worked differs every week based on project duration/type/status/role/phase, whether I'm onsite or offsite, whether I am assigned to multiple projects or doing presales work out of hours.

I'm on call for some customers over Christmas but the chance of getting a call is maybe 1 in 10. I'm still expected to respond to internal mails/calls (via BlackBerry) however, and am getting some.

Re sick leave, I've missed on average of less than half day a year over my working life, with no sick days in last 4 years or more, despite having kidney infection at one stage and bad chest infection a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Complainer

Caveat said:


> We see this with our public sector customers every single year.
> 
> In fact it's happening as I type - people are ordering 100s, 1000s of € worth of stuff that they have *admitted* they don't need.


I presume your concern for the public purse extends to rejecting these orders and sending a note to the CEO of the organisation pointing out the unnecessary spending?


----------



## jhegarty

Complainer said:


> I presume your concern for the public purse extends to rejecting these orders and sending a note to the CEO of the organisation pointing out the unnecessary spending?



I would expect the poster to be sacked an hour later , and the letter be thrown in the bin.


----------



## rmelly

Padraigb said:


> Hmm. Did I post or did I counter post?
> 
> What use would be served by giving information like that? What credence might be placed on it? Why do you want to know?
> 
> Questions, questions...


 
Presumably to show that while someone may have a particular 'perk', e.g. additional leave, they may forego something else such as paid Health insurance, employer pension contributions, bonuses, overtime/time in lieu?


----------



## Padraigb

rmelly said:


> Presumably to show that while someone may have a particular 'perk', e.g. additional leave, they may forego something else such as paid Health insurance, employer pension contributions, bonuses, overtime/time in lieu?



A small self-selected sample tells us nothing useful about differences between private sector and public sector conditions of employment.


----------



## rmelly

Padraigb said:


> A small self-selected sample tells us nothing useful about differences between private sector and public sector conditions of employment.


 
so?


----------



## Padraigb

rmelly said:


> so?



So it's a pointless exercise.


----------



## rmelly

Padraigb said:


> So it's a pointless exercise.


 
all of these threads are - the Dail is on holidays for 40 days and even if they weren't, it's not as if the cabinet are avid readers of askaboutmoney, so anything discussed here is ultimately pointless.


----------



## AlbacoreA

csirl said:


> We should rename this thread the Ebenezzer Scrooge thread - "who gets the least holidays, works the longest hours and doesnt get any time off at Christmas?"


 
I think its been done before...

[broken link removed]



> THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.
> 
> FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
> 
> FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
> 
> ALL: They won't!


----------



## blue_steel

Excellent 



> Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh


----------



## 4th estate

Questions:

What does the Public Sector (PS) do for you, and would you do it?

Garda 
Nurses (include physio, speech therapist, psychiatric nurse etc.)
Doctors (A+E with drunks and drug addicts not to mention the ordinary decent emergency)
Prison Officers, what a job
Coroner 
Teacher
Drain clearance ( eeugh)
Council Environmental Health (think rats and vermin here)
Social Workers 

Can anyone add to the list?

I just think that anyone complaining about the PS ..... well you can join the club if you want to!!


----------



## rmelly

4th estate said:


> Drain clearance ( eeugh)


 
Are you sure? I'm forever walking around / avoiding blocked drains in the city centre on my way to & from work, even there hasn't been heavy rain. Maybe these guys are all on shopping leave?


----------



## z104

I have a friend that works in the civil service. She moved from a private company about a year ago. She was telling me that the people she works with believe that they work hard. Believe being the operative word. 

She said compared to working in the private sector she does about half of the work at most. She found it a bit starange at first and was waiting for the work to increase but it just didn't happen. She now realises that this is it and is quiet happy to take a salary for it.


----------



## Purple

Padraigb said:


> Hmm. Did I post or did I counter post?
> 
> What use would be served by giving information like that? What credence might be placed on it? Why do you want to know?
> 
> Questions, questions...


The point is that someone working up to Christmas Eve in the public sector may get more than 20 days holidays a year and may only have to work a laughably short week (such as 35 hours).
If they are working 4 hours less than the bare minimum in most of the private sector and practically al of the SME sector that adds up to a half day a week or 24 extra days off a year. 
The whole picture is required before comparisons can be made.


----------



## Padraigb

Purple said:


> The point is that someone working up to Christmas Eve in the public sector may get more than 20 days holidays a year and may only have to work a laughably short week (such as 35 hours).
> If they are working 4 hours less than the bare minimum in most of the private sector and practically al of the SME sector that adds up to a half day a week or 24 extra days off a year.
> The whole picture is required before comparisons can be made.



A self-selected sample of the people who participate in this forum and who follow this thread and who answer your questions does not give the whole picture (even if everybody is truthful, which cannot be assured). It's a fair guess that all that might emerge is a distorted picture.

Given that some people seem to have strong feelings about topics like this, I fear that it would simply become oil on the flames rather than oil on troubled waters.


----------



## gipimann

In terms of the working week in the public sector, the hours quoted generally don't include what may be a set lunchtime.   For example, my working hours per week (public sector - HSE) are 33.75 hrs (6hr 45 min x 5), however my working day is 9am - 5pm Mon-Fri with a set 1hr 15 mins for lunch each day.

Does the private sector 39 hour week include a set lunch break (I appreciate that it might not always be taken, but is there one factored into the 39 hours?).


----------



## rmelly

gipimann said:


> In terms of the working week in the public sector, the hours quoted generally don't include what may be a set lunchtime. For example, my working hours per week (public sector - HSE) are 33.75 hrs (6hr 45 min x 5), however my working day is 9am - 5pm Mon-Fri with a set 1hr 15 mins for lunch each day.
> 
> Does the private sector 39 hour week include a set lunch break (I appreciate that it might not always be taken, but is there one factored into the 39 hours?).


 
No - the private sector generally don't get paid lunches, so a 39 or 37.5 hr week is actual hours worked, excluding ALL breaks, certainly for me it is.


----------



## jhegarty

rmelly said:


> No - the private sector generally don't get paid lunches, so a 39 or 37.5 hr week is actual hours worked, excluding ALL breaks, certainly for me it is.



The same everywhere i have worked. My 39 hour week is actually 41.5 hours spent in the building.

There is however  usually 2 paid 15 minute brakes per day.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> The point is that someone working up to Christmas Eve in the public sector may get more than 20 days holidays a year and may only have to work a laughably short week (such as 35 hours).
> If they are working 4 hours less than the bare minimum in most of the private sector and practically al of the SME sector that adds up to a half day a week or 24 extra days off a year.
> The whole picture is required before comparisons can be made.


 
Also factor that people working longer hours and extra days are often getting paid extra for it, recieve a bonus, get time in lieu, or its their own business anyway and they get a % of the profits and take time off as they want. For example, its often claimed that some IT contractors earn so much, that they can afford to take months off at a time! There are plenty of private sector, workers/companies, SE who do not work beyond office hours. Which is obvious if you ever tried deal with them outside office hours.


----------



## Complainer

AlbacoreA said:


> Also factor that people working longer hours and extra days are often getting paid extra for it, recieve a bonus, get time in lieu, or its their own business anyway and they get a % of the profits and take time off as they want. For example, its often claimed that some IT contractors earn so much, that they can afford to take months off at a time! There are plenty of private sector, workers/companies, SE who do not work beyond office hours. Which is obvious if you ever tried deal with them outside office hours.


I guess these calculations should also take into account the amount of time spent posting on Askaboutmoney.com when supposedly 'working'.


----------



## room305

AlbacoreA said:


> For example, its often claimed that some IT contractors earn so much, that they can afford to take months off at a time!



I doubt this true in any kind of general sense, if an IT contractor doesn't work for months at a time it is because there is no work available.


----------



## jhegarty

room305 said:


> I doubt this true in any kind of general sense, if an IT contractor doesn't work for months at a time it is because there is no work available.



Exactly, an IT contractor has to set his rates to expect to be out of work for long periods of time. And get hit very quickly by an down-turn in things.

I could earn far more than I do if I was contracting, but choose the (relative) security of a full time job over it.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Complainer said:


> I guess these calculations should also take into account the amount of time spent posting on Askaboutmoney.com when supposedly 'working'.


 
Anyone that claims they work 100% of the time is living in fantasy land. So lets not go with that tired old line.


----------



## AlbacoreA

jhegarty said:


> Exactly, an IT contractor has to set his rates to expect to be out of work for long periods of time. And get hit very quickly by an down-turn in things.
> 
> I could earn far more than I do if I was contracting, but choose the (relative) security of a full time job over it.


 
Well I know a few who take extended holidays, do other projects because they are earning so much. What they are doing at the moment I have no idea. A couple of months back everyone was still getting good contracts. 

But thats the issue isn't it. You can choose a safer career in the public sector, or similar, or you can go a riskier route of contracting, starting your own business, becoming self employed. Both sides tend to be quite dismissive and cynical of the other. But IMO its lot like the paper, scissor, rock game. There are ups and downs to both.


----------



## Complainer

AlbacoreA said:


> Anyone that claims they work 100% of the time is living in fantasy land. So lets not go with that tired old line.


Have a look at the thread title. Are you suggest that it is OK to have an 8-page thread about some people getting a couple of hours off, but it is NOT OK to highlight the fact that some people are spending considerable amounts of work time day in and day out hanging out on AAM (while boasting with much bravado about how many hours a week they work)?

That doesn't seem like a very balanced approach to me.


----------



## room305

AlbacoreA said:


> But thats the issue isn't it. You can choose a safer career in the public sector, or similar, or you can go a riskier route of contracting, starting your own business, becoming self employed.



Which is precisely why public sector workers should be paid less than the private sector, there is an ancillary benefit in having such job security.


----------



## rmelly

jhegarty said:


> Exactly, an IT contractor has to set his rates to expect to be out of work for long periods of time. And get hit very quickly by an down-turn in things.
> 
> I could earn far more than I do if I was contracting, but choose the (relative) security of a full time job over it.


 
Agreed. Contracting isn't all it's made out to be.


----------



## z103

> Agreed. Contracting isn't all it's made out to be.


You can be sure of that!
Certainly no looking at internet/AAM, or not getting the job done when I was contracting.


> Anyone that claims they work 100% of the time is living in fantasy land. So lets not go with that tired old line


I can honestly say that when I was contracting I definitely was productive 100% of the time. I learned new technologies in my own time. Companies I contracted for wouldn't tolerate less. Often, as soon as I walked in the door on a new contract I was shown my desk with PC all set up, and I started working immediately.


----------



## Orga

mathepac said:


> Some assumptions (feel free to play with the numbers and check my sums)
> 
> We have 275,000 civil & public servants
> They are each paid 20% more (on average) than the average industrial wage, say €700 p/w or €20 per hour
> They each work 45 weeks of the year
> 
> Half of them take their Christmas half-day, one hours banking time per week, and two privelege days per annum.
> 
> Christmas Shopping Cost = 137,500 X €20 X 3.5 Hours = €9,625,000
> 
> Banking Time Cost = 137,500 X €20 X 1 Hours  X 45 weeks = €123,750,000
> 
> Privelege Day Cost = 137,500 X €20  X 7 X 2 = €38,500,000
> 
> I think that comes to a total of *€171,875,000* for little hidden perks - its the sheer scale of the thing that makes it hard to swallow.



Ok - these numbers are ridiculous - to be accurate the use of the numbers to justify the attached argument (that civil and public servants' perks cost €171million approx) is actually absurd!!! First, these are not direct costs as they are already included in payroll and what the example represents is potential productivity costs that could accrue from these people working during these times.
So, let's look at another example of an argument using the same figures and let's use that to justify something outrageous:
Roughly half of the 275,000 c+p servants have /use computers in their work- for H&S reasons they are obliged to shut them down when they go home which means that each morning they must start them up. The average start up time is around 3 minutes (I'm erring on the side of faster PCs) that means that we have
3mins x 137,500 servants x 235 working days x €20 per hour divided by 60 to take account of the minutes unit giving a grand total of
€32,312,500
That's right folks - it costs over €32 million euro for civil and public servants to turn on their computers (they must watch the full log on due to the need to enter details at various points)
Which makes me realise that if we account for the extra minute it takes to enter these details that it adds on another €10million or so.
There can be only one conclusion when you look at the scale of the problem - cut the computers, back to pen and paper, that's how you make sure they are working all the time!
What about the idea of shaking hands at meetings - perhaps Mathepac you could do a costing on that and see if the numbers would justify abolishing it.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Complainer said:


> Have a look at the thread title. Are you suggest that it is OK to have an 8-page thread about some people getting a couple of hours off, but it is NOT OK to highlight the fact that some people are spending considerable amounts of work time day in and day out hanging out on AAM (while boasting with much bravado about how many hours a week they work)?
> 
> That doesn't seem like a very balanced approach to me.


 
No one needs time off for christmas shopping thats just daft. 

Theres a lot of martyrs around alright. Martyrs for what though...


----------



## AlbacoreA

leghorn said:


> You can be sure of that!
> Certainly no looking at internet/AAM, or not getting the job done when I was contracting.
> 
> I can honestly say that when I was contracting I definitely was productive 100% of the time. I learned new technologies in my own time. Companies I contracted for wouldn't tolerate less. Often, as soon as I walked in the door on a new contract I was shown my desk with PC all set up, and I started working immediately.


 

Abraham Lincoln: "_Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe._"


----------



## Purple

Complainer said:


> Have a look at the thread title. Are you suggest that it is OK to have an 8-page thread about some people getting a couple of hours off, but it is NOT OK to highlight the fact that some people are spending considerable amounts of work time day in and day out hanging out on AAM (while boasting with much bravado about how many hours a week they work)?
> 
> That doesn't seem like a very balanced approach to me.




Why do you keep deflecting the points being made? Posters from the public sector were making the point that they were working up to and including Christmas Eve as if that was exceptional in the private sector. I pointed out that such posts are meaningless unless yearly holidays are given. If you only work a short week (35 hours) and you get more than 20 days holidays a year then you are still better off than most private sector employees even if you have to work Christmas Eve. 
Your blanket defence of every point made about the public sector does little for your credibility on these threads. Do you think that there is no scope for reform in the public sector?
Do you think there are no public sector workers who hide behind their union and job security and do bugger all?
Do you think that the country can continue to pay the public sector wage bill?
Have you ever read a book on economics that was written by someone without a beard?


----------



## baldyman27

Orga said:


> That's right folks - it costs over €32 million euro for civil and public servants to turn on their computers (they must watch the full log on due to the need to enter details at various points)
> Which makes me realise that if we account for the extra minute it takes to enter these details that it adds on another €10million or so.
> There can be only one conclusion when you look at the scale of the problem - cut the computers, back to pen and paper, that's how you make sure they are working all the time!
> What about the idea of shaking hands at meetings - perhaps Mathepac you could do a costing on that and see if the numbers would justify abolishing it.


 
An absolutely ridiculous argument. For a start, you can subtract one employee's PC start-up time as the person who originally informed me about the Christmas shopping time also has 2 desks in 2 different parts of the city, one of which he has never even seen, much less waited 3 minutes for the attached PC to warm up. If you want to go down that road why not start calculating the cost of relieving one's self at the taxpayer's expense??? A PC is necessary, half days for shopping are not.

Let's not forget that the public service is paid for by the taxpayer and, as such, we have a right to highlight these perks and also have a right to be unhappy about them. To the poster (apologies, can't figure how to quote from 2 posts) who wants to know about hours worked per week, holiday entitlements, etc., I'm self-employed.I finished work at 1.30 on the morning of Christmas Eve, grabbed a few hours sleep and went back to work for about 3 hours until noon. Then I went shopping. Do I continue?? If so, I can go on a rant about how difficult it was to afford shopping which, in part, I can squarely blame the public sector for.


----------



## sue_flaherty

Regarding this, as usual everyone is looking at the average rate of pay.  However, a lot of civil servants would be below this level of pay (36,400 per year).  I would have no problem with a reduction for higher paid civil servants but wages of the lower paid should not be affected.



mathepac said:


> Some assumptions (feel free to play with the numbers and check my sums)
> 
> We have 275,000 civil & public servants
> They are each paid 20% more (on average) than the average industrial wage, say €700 p/w or €20 per hour
> They each work 45 weeks of the year
> 
> Half of them take their Christmas half-day, one hours banking time per week, and two privelege days per annum.
> 
> Christmas Shopping Cost = 137,500 X €20 X 3.5 Hours = €9,625,000
> 
> Banking Time Cost = 137,500 X €20 X 1 Hours X 45 weeks = €123,750,000
> 
> Privelege Day Cost = 137,500 X €20 X 7 X 2 = €38,500,000
> 
> I think that comes to a total of *€171,875,000* for little hidden perks - its the sheer scale of the thing that makes it hard to swallow.


----------



## room305

sue_flaherty said:


> Regarding this, as usual everyone is looking at the average rate of pay.  However, a lot of civil servants would be below this level of pay (36,400 per year).  I would have no problem with a reduction for higher paid civil servants but wages of the lower paid should not be affected.



Why? The ESRI report states that the pay gap between public and private sector is larger at the lower tiers. Furthermore, if a lot of civil servants are on lower rates of pay then cuts at this level will have the greatest impact in reducing the public sector wage bill.


----------



## z103

> Abraham Lincoln: "_Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe._"


Abraham Lincoln was a civil servant, wasn't he?



> I can go on a rant about how difficult it was to afford shopping which, in part, I can squarely blame the public sector for.


I, too, believe this.
Inflated Public Sector wages have increased prices in general to the extent that normal people can no longer afford basics.


----------



## j26

This is getting annoying - next they'll be after the day we get off for our birthdays.


----------



## Purple

leghorn said:


> Abraham Lincoln was a civil servant, wasn't he?


LOL, but he still managed to fight a civil war where 7 out of 8 of him solders were combat troops. 7 out of 8 front line troops... not much chance of that in the public sector here 




leghorn said:


> I, too, believe this.
> Inflated Public Sector wages have increased prices in general to the extent that normal people can no longer afford basics.


This is basic economics… but you will still get those who subscribe to the economics of the breaded brethren who manage to ignore reality.


----------



## Purple

j26 said:


> this Is Getting Annoying - Next They'll Be After The Day We Get Off For Our Birthdays.


Lol


----------



## AlbacoreA

leghorn said:


> Abraham Lincoln was a civil servant, wasn't he?


 
He also was a private sector worker. 





leghorn said:


> I, too, believe this.
> Inflated Public Sector wages have increased prices in general to the extent that normal people can no longer afford basics.


 
How are the public sector wages the sole cause of price increases?

What basics can normal people not afford?

Whats a normal person?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> Why do you keep deflecting the points being made? Posters from the public sector were making the point that they were working up to and including Christmas Eve as if that was exceptional in the private sector. I pointed out that such posts are meaningless unless yearly holidays are given. If you only work a short week (35 hours) and you get more than 20 days holidays a year then you are still better off than most private sector employees even if you have to work Christmas Eve. ...


 
Its all meaningless as you make no distinction as to why people get the holidays they do, or what payment they get for overtime or working the hours they do. You make no distinction between someone on the minimium wage or the company director working the same extended hours or having the same holidays.


----------



## AlbacoreA

baldyman27 said:


> ...To the poster (apologies, can't figure how to quote from 2 posts) who wants to know about hours worked per week, holiday entitlements, etc., I'm self-employed.I finished work at 1.30 on the morning of Christmas Eve, grabbed a few hours sleep and went back to work for about 3 hours until noon. Then I went shopping. Do I continue?? If so, I can go on a rant about how difficult it was to afford shopping which, in part, I can squarely blame the public sector for.


 
Whats the point here. The self employed rarely work the same hours as employees. No everyone gets a bonus either http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055443089 

Obviously if you can't afford something, (public sector) you can't afford it, and need to cut your coat according to your cloth. But at the same time the private sector isn't an innocent in this either. The banks, the developers, the great irish rip-off of the consumer for goods and services, also the consumers failure to shop around, and just accept the rip off. 

Theres a reason the same packet of biscuits is €2.50 in one shop and €4.50 in another only around the corner, and its not the public sector.


----------



## baldyman27

AlbacoreA said:


> Whats the point here. The self employed rarely work the same hours as employees. No everyone gets a bonus either http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055443089
> 
> Obviously if you can't afford something, (public sector) you can't afford it, and need to cut your coat according to your cloth. But at the same time the private sector isn't an innocent in this either. The banks, the developers, the great irish rip-off of the consumer for goods and services, also the consumers failure to shop around, and just accept the rip off.
> 
> Theres a reason the same packet of biscuits is €2.50 in one shop and €4.50 in another only around the corner, and its not the public sector.


 
Specifically, I can refer to the fact that I wait at least 6 weeks to get VAT returnable, which, believe it or not, is the difference between me getting my salary or not. Can I afford to wear the coat?? Yes, I should be able to, if there wasn't a separate govt. dept. dealing with what I owe them and they owe me. Do you want more details??????? 

Not everyone gets bonuses, glad you said it. I was glad to get the 2 months salary I owed myself.  And, yet again, we have a champion of the public sector who seems to think that private sector=banks/developers.
Now where have I heard that before?


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> Its all meaningless as you make no distinction as to why people get the holidays they do, or what payment they get for overtime or working the hours they do. You make no distinction between someone on the minimium wage or the company director working the same extended hours or having the same holidays.



No it's not. If you get 6 weeks holidays and work a 35 hour week and your neighbour gets 4 weeks and works a 39 hour week then even if you work Christmas Eve you still have a much better deal than him on holidays.

Pay, overtime etc are a different matter.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> No it's not. If you get 6 weeks holidays and work a 35 hour week and your neighbour gets 4 weeks and works a 39 hour week then even if you work Christmas Eve you still have a much better deal than him on holidays.
> 
> Pay, overtime etc are a different matter.


 
Why pick on just christmas eve? You might work in a shop which christmas eve is one of the busiest shopping days of the year. You might work as a Santa or a taxi driver. Or you might work somewhere where christmas eve is completely dead work wise. Ditto One person might have more holidays but on 35k. The other might be on 135k. Holidays are not unrelated to pay and other conditions, and working hours and which days you work are not unrelated to what you do.


----------



## AlbacoreA

baldyman27 said:


> Specifically, I can refer to the fact that I wait at least 6 weeks to get VAT returnable, which, believe it or not, is the difference between me getting my salary or not. Can I afford to wear the coat?? Yes, I should be able to, if there wasn't a separate govt. dept. dealing with what I owe them and they owe me. Do you want more details???????
> 
> Not everyone gets bonuses, glad you said it. I was glad to get the 2 months salary I owed myself. And, yet again, we have a champion of the public sector who seems to think that private sector=banks/developers.
> Now where have I heard that before?


 
Do developers and banks sell biscuits? 

By saying the Public sector must cut its cloth, I'm championing the public sector. How so?

What has you paying your wages out of vat returns got to do with, working hours, a reduction in cost of public sector, consumers, and the great Irish rip off?


----------



## room305

Purple said:


> No it's not. If you get 6 weeks holidays and work a 35 hour week and your neighbour gets 4 weeks and works a 39 hour week then even if you work Christmas Eve you still have a much better deal than him on holidays.
> 
> Pay, overtime etc are a different matter.



I wouldn't make too much of the public sector martyrdom surrounding working Christmas eve. It's a bit of joke really. People bring their kids in, we all eat mince pies and are told to go home by lunch time at the latest.


----------



## poohbear

mathepac said:


> Some assumptions (feel free to play with the numbers and check my sums)
> 
> We have 275,000 civil & public servants
> They are each paid 20% more (on average) than the average industrial wage, say €700 p/w or €20 per hour
> They each work 45 weeks of the year
> 
> Half of them take their Christmas half-day, one hours banking time per week, and two privelege days per annum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average wage of €700 per week is not what the "average Clerical Officer" is on. You would want to call that the "average fortnightly" for a Clerical Officer.
> 
> This particular statement always recks my head. When average wages are misquoted in the papers they include all Ministerial and High Ranking Public and Civil servants therefore pushing the "real average" wage up by 20% to 30%.
> 
> 
> Banktime is only given on the day you are paid (its not one i entirely agree with) but for a lot thats fortnightly and not since Oct 2003 to any new staff.
> 
> Annual leave for most Clerical Officers is 20 days - which by the way is the minimum statutory entitlement - not a grand gesture A few years ago when the house prices were so hight, two CO's in the Civil Service with jobs for life could not get a mortgage cos their combined wages werent enough - job for life meant nothing then!
> 
> 45 weeks dont know where you get that one, but if its taking in the weekend, everybody is entitled to two days off per week, whether that week begins on a Monday or Friday etc.
> 
> 
> I'm in the CS for the past 17 years. I came in in 1991 when job security was not an option and I took a wage decrease. I'm in it for the long haul, I know that when times are good that I wont benefit financially but when they are bad I do still (thankfully ) have a job.
> 
> When I did the CS exam, over 10,000 went for it too. Everybody conveniently forgets that in the late 90,s early 2000's so many CS were leaving for the private sector that they had to get rid of the bottom four points of the pay scales for CO's in order to get new staff in This was a real slap in the face for anybody who was 5 years into the CS cos the new entrant sitting next to them was now getting the same pay!
> 
> I am grateful for my job, for which i've worked bloody hard for. I don't sit there doing nothing, I don't abuse my sick leave etc... I don't begrudge anybody in the private sector who has done really well over the past number of years I just wish people would research their opinions a little before blasting us all. They may find that things aren't as rosey as they seem.


----------



## AlbacoreA

room305 said:


> I wouldn't make too much of the public sector martyrdom surrounding working Christmas eve. It's a bit of joke really. People bring their kids in, we all eat mince pies and are told to go home by lunch time at the latest.


 
For places that are quiet, they should make it an annual leave day.


----------



## poohbear

The problem there is that if the office is closed there will be an outcry in the papers. The particular area that I work in deals with Solrs, Accts etc which are all mostly closed for the week after Christmas. We generally just carry on with the background work instead. we are entitled to  an extra day providing there is coverage in each section of each department. 

As for eating mince pies all Xmas eve morning - that poster obviously doesn't work in a public office, that would look lovely in front of the public - very professional

Talking to my neighbour on Xmas Eve morning (who works in the private sector) laughed at me for having to go into work  that day since his offices close for a week and a half at Xmas. This being the very person who moans and whinges about the CS and PS. I don't mind working - for me its the hassle of trying to organise childcare when creches close on the 23rd December and don't reopen till Monday 5th January - thats another thread in itself i fear!!.

Even between the PS and the CS there is a huge difference between leave and pay entitlements with the CS coming off worst !! but don't take me wrong on that statement - its just to show there are differentials every where


----------



## room305

poohbear said:


> The problem there is that if the office is closed there will be an outcry in the papers. The particular area that I work in deals with Solrs, Accts etc which are all mostly closed for the week after Christmas. We generally just carry on with the background work instead. we are entitled to  an extra day providing there is coverage in each section of each department.



The better half is in the same situation. It's a public office and nobody wants to officially close the place and there's no work to be done but somebody has to go in.



poohbear said:


> As for eating mince pies all Xmas eve morning - that poster obviously doesn't work in a public office, that would look lovely in front of the public - very professional



Where I work is open to the public. They mightn't come in very often but it's technically open to everybody.


----------



## z103

> Theres a reason the same packet of biscuits is €2.50 in one shop and €4.50 in another only around the corner, and its not the public sector.


I would disagree. According to poohbear, we have 275,000 civil & public servants. That means about 1 in 15 of Irish people are grossly overpaid. 

We also now know that 'rip of Ireland' is because shops are taking advantage of all these overpaid people and are profiteering. The recent Forfas report indicates that cost of doing business in Ireland should only account for about 6% of the rip off.

What country pays clerical officers (for example) as much as Ireland does? People then wonder why prices are so high!


----------



## poohbear

leghorn said:


> I would disagree. According to poohbear, we have 275,000 civil & public servants. That means about 1 in 15 of Irish people are grossly overpaid.
> 
> We also now know that 'rip of Ireland' is because shops are taking advantage of all these overpaid people and are profiteering. The recent Forfas report indicates that cost of doing business in Ireland should only account for about 6% of the rip off.
> 
> What country pays clerical officers (for example) as much as Ireland does? People then wonder why prices are so high!




Eh Leghorn I didn't quote 275,000 civil and public servants, that was a previous poster 

€22,000 is also the starting point of the Clerical Officer grade is that such huge money?? considering most of them will be working at the front line trying to help the public and getting an unspeakable amount of abuse. There aren't that many people in the private sector who would put up with the crap that a CO gets on the front line of a public department office.

As for Clerical Officers pay, a family member of mine who works in the private decided he'd like to go into the CS as his area of work was drying up, that was until he saw the advertised post with a starting pay of €22,000 he soon changed his mind!! He wanted to know who would work for only that!! 

I also pointed out to him that being in the P or C service anymore is not a job for life. Staff since can be let go at the end of their probation which is a year (in my day it was two years) and that the Sec Gen in all Departments now has the authority to sack staff - thats CS don't know about CoCo's, HSE,etc. 

There are however fundamental differences between the Civil Service and the Public Service, the Civil Service is basically the secretariat of the Government - no matter who is in government. One of the main differences is that state agencies get their funding from the exchequer via a government department but want to spend it like it was private money. 
The Boards of state agencies, are mostly made up of political appointments no matter which party is in government at that time of appointment.

Many of us who liaise with these agencies will say the same thing, they want job security with private company perks. that doesn't work and this is where a lot of current problems are arising. 

By the way some earlier poster said they paid their taxes so therefore our wages, I pay tax too so whats the point???

According to the OECD report the CS is one of the smallest in the world which is comparable with our state. However it would seem to be the public service which is particularly overstaffed that would mostly fall into the HSE (most probably). Thats not necessarily the fault of all staff, that problem arose when all Health Boards were amalgamated into the HSE, there should have been redundancies offered then, when there was the money to pay out and jobs for staff to go to in the private sector.


----------



## finty

Good post there poohbear! 

about time this thread was locked, its like celebrity big brother I hate watching it but everytime i log on this site I can't help look in to see what nonsense is being bandied about about the CS.

Some people have good benefits, some don't. The civil service has good ones, certainly not as good as a lot of jobs out there but good none the less. 

Its comparing apples and oranges and pears and bananas......it'll never end.

As poohbear said, the irish civil service is actually quite small and while it has its problems (and the holidays aren't one of them) its not the cause of the current crisis.

The HSE is an issue and a financial black hole, that needs sorting out big time.

I had a job where the staff got a free turkey and ham at christmas! 
Didnt hear the shareholders screaming about the gross waste of company money and looking for the CEO's head!! Its a time of goodwill to all men!

Scrooges the lot of ye...


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> Why pick on just christmas eve? You might work in a shop which christmas eve is one of the busiest shopping days of the year. You might work as a Santa or a taxi driver. Or you might work somewhere where christmas eve is completely dead work wise. Ditto One person might have more holidays but on 35k. The other might be on 135k. Holidays are not unrelated to pay and other conditions, and working hours and which days you work are not unrelated to what you do.



I didn’t bring up working Christmas Eve, other posters made the point that they, as public sector employees, had to work Christmas Eve whereas private sector employees didn’t. I simply made the point that this is meaningless unless it is put in context of overall holiday leave and working hours. 



poohbear said:


> Eh Leghorn I didn't quote 275,000 civil and public servants, that was a previous poster
> 
> €22,000 is also the starting point of the Clerical Officer grade is that such huge money?? considering most of them will be working at the front line trying to help the public and getting an unspeakable amount of abuse. There aren't that many people in the private sector who would put up with the crap that a CO gets on the front line of a public department office.
> 
> As for Clerical Officers pay, a family member of mine who works in the private decided he'd like to go into the CS as his area of work was drying up, that was until he saw the advertised post with a starting pay of €22,000 he soon changed his mind!! He wanted to know who would work for only that!!
> 
> I also pointed out to him that being in the P or C service anymore is not a job for life. Staff since can be let go at the end of their probation which is a year (in my day it was two years) and that the Sec Gen in all Departments now has the authority to sack staff - thats CS don't know about CoCo's, HSE,etc.
> 
> There are however fundamental differences between the Civil Service and the Public Service, the Civil Service is basically the secretariat of the Government - no matter who is in government. One of the main differences is that state agencies get their funding from the exchequer via a government department but want to spend it like it was private money.
> The Boards of state agencies, are mostly made up of political appointments no matter which party is in government at that time of appointment.
> 
> Many of us who liaise with these agencies will say the same thing, they want job security with private company perks. that doesn't work and this is where a lot of current problems are arising.
> 
> By the way some earlier poster said they paid their taxes so therefore our wages, I pay tax too so whats the point???
> 
> According to the OECD report the CS is one of the smallest in the world which is comparable with our state. However it would seem to be the public service which is particularly overstaffed that would mostly fall into the HSE (most probably). Thats not necessarily the fault of all staff, that problem arose when all Health Boards were amalgamated into the HSE, there should have been redundancies offered then, when there was the money to pay out and jobs for staff to go to in the private sector.



Good post Poohbear.
Can you clarify if the Sec Gen of each department can make staff redundant? For example after the creation of the HSE the staff numbers in the Dept of Health should, I would suggest, have dropped considerable. Can the Sec General get 200 staff in a room and say, “sorry lads, we don’t have a job for you anymore; you’re all being let go.”?

When making a comparison of staff on €22’000 a year you have to take into account the likely pension benefits (they won’t retire on €22’000), the short working week (35 hours or over 10% less then the standard working week), and the generally better terms and conditions.

A friend of mine is a grade 6 public sector employee. He works 35 hours a week, gets 6 weeks holidays plus 2 privilege days plus he can work up one day a month of overtime on his laughable short week (his words). That gives him a grand total of 44 days off a year (plus paid sick leave). His opinion is that most of the people he works with know they have it handy and would be willing to take a pay cut followed by a 12-18 month pay freeze. I don’t know what he gets paid but he said he is one hell of an hourly rate.


----------



## poohbear

Good post Poohbear.
Can you clarify if the Sec Gen of each department can make staff redundant? For example after the creation of the HSE the staff numbers in the Dept of Health should, I would suggest, have dropped considerable. Can the Sec General get 200 staff in a room and say, “sorry lads, we don’t have a job for you anymore; you’re all being let go.”?

When making a comparison of staff on €22’000 a year you have to take into account the likely pension benefits (they won’t retire on €22’000), the short working week (35 hours or over 10% less then the standard working week), and the generally better terms and conditions.

A friend of mine is a grade 6 public sector employee. He works 35 hours a week, gets 6 weeks holidays plus 2 privilege days plus he can work up one day a month of overtime on his laughable short week (his words). That gives him a grand total of 44 days off a year (plus paid sick leave). His opinion is that most of the people he works with know they have it handy and would be willing to take a pay cut followed by a 12-18 month pay freeze. I don’t know what he gets paid but he said he is one hell of an hourly rate.[/quote]


It is of course easier to let staff go if they are under probation or are paying full PRSI. As there has never been a mass cull before I don't know how they will approach it .  They made a complete mess with Decentralisation (which in its natural form is a very good idea) but a mass push out of the Pale was never going to work. As I'm a longterm CS i don't pay full PRSI, dont get dentist or optical benefits etc however this also means if I'm sacked I can't claim any benefit etc. So if staff are going to be let go or given the option of redundancies then they should be able to access the social welfare system like everybody else.

As far as the €22,000 that will rise to €35,000 approx over 15 years or so. They will get half their weekly wage as a pension provided they have worked the forty years any less worked will be deducted from the pension. This basically means if you don't go for promotion and work for  forty years as a CO and paid your contributions, your pension will be €17500 per year This is something i try to highlight to those in the private sector. The average CS is not getting a pension of €100,000 or any where near it. 

A grade 6 must be HSE or CoCo as the CS do not have this grade structure so I can't fully explain their plan. CoCo have a heck of a lot more Annual Leave that the CS, many colleagues left the CS and went into the CoCo when they did a huge recruitment drive some years back. They also get paid more and work less hours than the CS. I think its something similar in the HSE. If a Grade 6 is on a par with a HEO in the CS then the Grade 6 is getting 18 days more Annual Leave!!!! that a HEO in the CS - no wonder hes laughing. Overtime is not a given in the CS - its rare to get in most departments. 

Regarding the new pay talks, I don't think anybody is against the idea of loosing that 6% over two years as that was given to keep the private and public sector pay in line with inflation. If inflation does decrease to 0% then none of us can hardly expect a pay rise. Keeping jobs will be hard enough for most people.


----------



## Orga

baldyman27 said:


> An absolutely ridiculous argument. For a start, you can subtract one employee's PC start-up time as the person who originally informed me about the Christmas shopping time also has 2 desks in 2 different parts of the city, one of which he has never even seen, much less waited 3 minutes for the attached PC to warm up. If you want to go down that road why not start calculating the cost of relieving one's self at the taxpayer's expense??? A PC is necessary, half days for shopping are not.
> 
> Let's not forget that the public service is paid for by the taxpayer and, as such, we have a right to highlight these perks and also have a right to be unhappy about them. To the poster (apologies, can't figure how to quote from 2 posts) who wants to know about hours worked per week, holiday entitlements, etc., I'm self-employed.I finished work at 1.30 on the morning of Christmas Eve, grabbed a few hours sleep and went back to work for about 3 hours until noon. Then I went shopping. Do I continue?? If so, I can go on a rant about how difficult it was to afford shopping which, in part, I can squarely blame the public sector for.



Baldy, I'm afraid you missed the point - I'm neither pro nor con on this issue as it's far too complex to be so simplistic - I acknowledge that it is cathartic when people are feeling the pinch to be able to let off steam and have a go at an easy target and I'm glad that the public service and civil service are filling another important need among the ordinary citizens of Ireland - the point is that mathepac took figures, did a "shake 'em all around", came up with a large number and used it to justify an argument. That's both bad maths and bad arguing. I used the same specious figures to support what (you rightly picked up on) as an unsustainable argument. And, yes, I had actually considered developing the example of toilet breaks but I understand that this would be gender biased and could of course lead to large numbers of the predominantly female employee members of the P&S services being made redundant due to the negative impact that their slightly longer toilet breaks are having on efficiency and productivity - in the national interests of course and in the interest of the private citizen who works in private industry and pays taxes.

Just remember that based on Mathepac's figures every minute extra spent in the toilet costs the system €10million


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> I didn’t bring up working Christmas Eve, other posters made the point that they, as public sector employees, had to work Christmas Eve whereas private sector employees didn’t. I simply made the point that this is meaningless unless it is put in context of overall holiday leave and working hours.


 
My point is its still meaningless even with that information. 



Purple said:


> ...When making a comparison of staff on €22’000 a year you have to take into account the likely pension benefits (they won’t retire on €22’000), the short working week (35 hours or over 10% less then the standard working week), and the generally better terms and conditions.


 
True but you'd also have to factor Private sector workers who get good terms and conditions aswell, bonus'es, share options etc. While they may be cutting back on these things at the moment, they didn't over the previous 10 yrs or so. 



Purple said:


> A friend of mine is a grade 6 public sector employee. He works 35 hours a week, gets 6 weeks holidays plus 2 privilege days plus he can work up one day a month of overtime on his laughable short week (his words). That gives him a grand total of 44 days off a year (plus paid sick leave). His opinion is that most of the people he works with know they have it handy and would be willing to take a pay cut followed by a 12-18 month pay freeze. I don’t know what he gets paid but he said he is one hell of an hourly rate.


 
I assume thats a senior position, on somewhere between 50k and 80k. So 30 days holidays. 
The extra 14 days your spinning into extra leave sounds very like flexitime not overtime which would be paid. Flexitime isn't extra leave at all. 
Assume a salary of 80k, over 252 working days is about €320 a day. 50k would be €200 a day.


----------



## z103

> €22,000 is also the starting point of the Clerical Officer grade is that such huge money??


Yes it is.
If it is for someone doing front line support and office admin, with no experience, it certainly is. This, you say, is only the _starting point_! - what on earth does it go up to?


----------



## poohbear

leghorn said:


> Yes it is.
> If it is for someone doing front line support and office admin, with no experience, it certainly is. This, you say, is only the _starting point_! - what on earth does it go up to?



If its such a huge starting point then how come vacancies could not be filled in the late 90's and early to mid 00's so much so they had to get rid of the bottom four points of the scale!!! People wouldn't touch the C & P Service because the perks like job security didn't factor against bonuses, large wage packs etc which they received when they walked in the door. It was a bit like a certain large fast food chain, Irish people looked down upon those who chose that as their career path. 

Its only when there is a downturn that people start to focus in on these old favourites.

The scale goes up to €35,000 after 15 years or so(and stays at that for the rest of your career - ie, the next 25 years). Thats not a bad wage I agree but it won't give you pension of €100,000 per year as the papers would have you believe. Only the Sec Gen of a department having put in 40 years service would receive anything like that - and thats my point!! 

Like I have said previously I don't begrudge anybody who made money in the last 10 years or so but I don't and won't apologise for taking the long term view and applying for a CS job.


----------



## AlbacoreA

poohbear said:


> ...People wouldn't touch the C & P Service because the perks like job security didn't factor against bonuses, large wage packs etc which they received when they walked in the door. It was a bit like a certain large fast food chain, Irish people looked down upon those who chose that as their career path. ....


 
Hence non nationals taken on in the last few years into the Public Sector. Its an indicator in the lack of interest in these roles.


----------



## gipimann

For information, the salary scale for a Grade VI officer (mentioned above) is -

47,675 - 48,869 - 50,314 - 53,022 - 54,643 - 56,656 - 58,683



The 6th and 7th points on the payscale are Long Service Increments, which are given 3 & 6 years after the 5th point on the scale.   It takes 10 years to get to the top of the scale.

Grade VI is 3 grades above Clerical Officer which is the entry grade for staff into the service.  It would be considered middle management/senior administrator grade rather than top management.


----------



## z103

> If its such a huge starting point then how come vacancies could not be filled in the late 90's and early to mid 00's so much so they had to get rid of the bottom four points of the scale!


How much does the equivalent worker get in other countries, for example Poland? or even India?
That's who Ireland is now competing with.


----------



## poohbear

gipimann 	 		*Re: Time off for Christmas shopping in public service.*
 		For information, the salary scale for a Grade VI officer (mentioned above) is -

47,675 - 48,869 - 50,314 - 53,022 - 54,643 - 56,656 - 58,683



The 6th and 7th points on the payscale are Long Service Increments, which are given 3 & 6 years after the 5th point on the scale. It takes 10 years to get to the top of the scale.

Grade VI is 3 grades above Clerical Officer which is the entry grade for staff into the service. It would be considered middle management/senior administrator grade rather than top management.



This grade 6 then is the equivalent of a HEO in the CS, pay scale is similar, however the Grade 6 gets more Annual Leave and works less hours than a HEO in the CS. This was one of my points earlier that even in the C & P Services there are numerous differentials between like grades.

AlbacoreA 	 		*Re: Time off for Christmas shopping in public service.*
 		 	Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *poohbear* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=771449#post771449 
_...People wouldn't touch the C & P Service because the perks like job security didn't factor against bonuses, large wage packs etc which they received when they walked in the door. It was a bit like a certain large fast food chain, Irish people looked down upon those who chose that as their career path. ...._

Hence non nationals taken on in the last few years into the Public Sector. Its an indicator in the lack of interest in these roles.

Thats my point! Yet so many give out about "the perks" but won't take the pay to go along with "the Perks" 

Its also bloody hard to get into the CS, don't know about the PS. First you must complete an exam then go onto a interview panel and so on. Competency interviews were brought into the CS several years ago and many C Servants will tell you, just completing one of those forms is enough to put you off before you even do the exam, interview, presentation or other equivalent test alongside.

I'll sound old now but when i did my exam into the Cs I was one of 10,000 applicants, I got onto a panel of 500 and then got into the CS via interview (about 200 of us- first big influx after 80's embargo). I have worked hard for promotion since then, internally within the department and interdepartmentally(competitions CS wide) with exams and interviews there too.

The exams draw from grade entrants countywide upwards of 3,000 to 5,000 with maybe 500 getting on an interview panel and maybe 300 of those being called for interview and then probably only 50 getting actually placed - and that was in the good times I expect there will be an embargo of some sort soon.

Just a view point from the inside.


----------



## AlbacoreA

leghorn said:


> How much does the equivalent worker get in other countries, for example Poland? or even India?
> That's who Ireland is now competing with.


 
Thats a whole new topic, best suited to a new thread on outsourcing public sector services. Can't get  a car fixed from someone in Mumbai, or buy a pint of milk off them, or collect dole etc.


----------



## z103

> Thats a whole new topic, best suited to a new thread on outsourcing public sector services. Can't get a car fixed from someone in Mumbai, or buy a pint of milk off them, or collect dole etc.


Can you not see that if you increase public sector wages, you are increasing inflation which in turn increases costs and wages in general?


----------



## AlbacoreA

leghorn said:


> Can you not see that if you increase public sector wages, you are increasing inflation which in turn increases costs and wages in general?


 
Yes but...

Is it the main cause of inflation? Is it the main reason for our uncompetitiveness? 

Why do you want to start talking about increasing public sector wages in this thread?


----------



## sue_flaherty

I agree with some of the latest posts - I am also a civil servant and while I do have 27 days leave + 2 privilege days (!) this is after been in the service for around 20 years .  Within this time I have seen the bad times when there was embargos on recruitment and changes of promotion were almost nil.  Things improved in recent years which is only reason I have the leave I have now as this is as a result of competive promotion ( as earlier poster says it is not an easy thing to get promote without difficult form having to be fill out first).  During my first years the same complaints arose each Xmas re 'privilege days'.  Then during the years of the Celtic tiger this was forgotten about as not very many wanted our job and the salary involved.  Now as soon as things get a bit rocky these are mentioned again now.


----------



## Purple

poohbear said:


> If its such a huge starting point then how come vacancies could not be filled in the late 90's and early to mid 00's so much so they had to get rid of the bottom four points of the scale!!!


 People did take the jobs; they were just creating them with such speed that it was impossible to fill them all quickly. For example in 2003 there were about 50’000 people working in health, by 2007 that had gone up to over100’000.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Were these jobs all at the bottom of the scale? How much did the private sector jobs grow at the same time? How many of these (both sectors) were filled by non-nationals? What was the demand that required all these jobs. I seem to remember both sectors having problems getting enough people at that time especially at the lower end. The fact that some jobs were being filled doesn't mean there weren't jobs that couldn't be filled.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> My point is its still meaningless even with that information.


 Then your point is incorrect.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> Then your point is incorrect.


 
You mean my point that different jobs, (fireman, officer worker, santa, self employed company director) have different amounts of leave, working hours and days like christmas eve off, so comparing those in isolation, out of context, like you are attempting to, is meaningless. 



Purple said:


> For those posting and counter posting about time off at Christmas can they please state their total annual leave? It would also be good if they could state their standard working week and if they can work up extra days off by working overtime.
> 
> I get 20 days, my minimum hours are 39 and everyone here gets paid overtime. I never work less than 48 hours a week and have taken 10 sick days in the last 18 years, 6 of them for hospitalisation.
> Many friends in the private sector work long hours with no time off in lieu, no paid overtime and no paid sick days.....


 
You're saying thats incorrect, and taking it out of context is valid? Comparing annual leave, overtime, working hours, of say a policeman to an actor? Or a Doctor to a Restaurant owner? Makes no sense to me. 

What I don't understand is, if people don't like their hours, and  conditions. (I assume that why they are playing the martyr) why not move to a job or career that has better conditions.

I dunno where you are going with that anyway. The topic is time off for christmas shopping. Theres simply no need for that, with internet shopping and late opening hours. Try to find a mechanic or a dentist that works outside office hours, or get a couch or fridge delivered outside office hours now there you might have a case. At the end of the day, the public sector can't afford, or afford to be seen to have, "nice to have", frills like christmas shopping. 

As an aside theres no point keeping an office or business open on christmas eve unless theres useful work being done. My local superquinn was open on New Years Day and the staff said they could count the customers on one hand. no point in that. I'm sure its the same for many places public or private on christmas eve too. This should be easy to predict based on previious years activity on these days.


----------



## gipimann

Purple said:


> For example in 2003 there were about 50’000 people working in health, by 2007 that had gone up to over100’000.


 
Without disputing the figures, I just wonder if the 2003 and 2007 figures are comparing the same "entity".   In 2003 there were the various Health Boards, in 2007 there was the HSE - which also included the voluntary hospitals and other health-related agencies & organisations which had not been under the HB umbrella and may not have been counted in staff numbers.

By the way, according to the HSE website, there are now 130 000 employed!


----------



## gipimann

AlbacoreA said:


> As an aside theres no point keeping an office or business open on christmas eve unless theres useful work being done. My local superquinn was open on New Years Day and the staff said they could count the customers on one hand. no point in that. I'm sure its the same for many places public or private on christmas eve too. This should be easy to predict based on previious years activity on these days.


 
I worked in the public library service in Dublin many years ago, and one year, following phone calls to Gay Byrne complaining that the libraries closed for over a week at Christmas. the City Librarian decided to open for 3 days between Christmas and New Year.

Over the 3 days, the branch I worked in issued 32 books in total - 16 customers.    The numbers were similar around the city.    

The libraries didn't open again between Christmas and New Year during my time there!


----------



## Husker

Purple said:


> I didn’t bring up working Christmas Eve, other posters made the point that they, as public sector employees, had to work Christmas Eve whereas private sector employees didn’t. I simply made the point that this is meaningless unless it is put in context of overall holiday leave and working hours.
> 
> 
> 
> Good post Poohbear.
> Can you clarify if the Sec Gen of each department can make staff redundant? For example after the creation of the HSE the staff numbers in the Dept of Health should, I would suggest, have dropped considerable. Can the Sec General get 200 staff in a room and say, “sorry lads, we don’t have a job for you anymore; you’re all being let go.”?
> 
> When making a comparison of staff on €22’000 a year you have to take into account the likely pension benefits (they won’t retire on €22’000), the short working week (35 hours or over 10% less then the standard working week), and the generally better terms and conditions.
> 
> A friend of mine is a grade 6 public sector employee. He works 35 hours a week, gets 6 weeks holidays plus 2 privilege days plus he can work up one day a month of overtime on his laughable short week (his words). That gives him a grand total of 44 days off a year (plus paid sick leave). His opinion is that most of the people he works with know they have it handy and would be willing to take a pay cut followed by a 12-18 month pay freeze. I don’t know what he gets paid but he said he is one hell of an hourly rate.


 
What's a grade 6 public sector employee? A consultant?  And when did his opinion of what his colleagues think make any type of decent point whatsoever?


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> You mean my point that different jobs, (fireman, officer worker, santa, self employed company director) have different amounts of leave, working hours and days like christmas eve off, so comparing those in isolation, out of context, like you are attempting to, is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying thats incorrect, and taking it out of context is valid? Comparing annual leave, overtime, working hours, of say a policeman to an actor? Or a Doctor to a Restaurant owner? Makes no sense to me.


You are being obtuse. A person doing an clerical job in the public sector who gets 30 days annual leave but has to work Christmas Eve is still better off than a private sector employee who gets 20 days annual leave but doesn’t have to work Christmas Eve. Your attempt to muddy the water on what is a very straightforward point is bordering on the ridiculous. 



AlbacoreA said:


> What I don't understand is, if people don't like their hours, and  conditions. (I assume that why they are playing the martyr) why not move to a job or career that has better conditions.


 I agree. I presume you include the public sector workers who were moaning about working Christmas Eve in that group?



AlbacoreA said:


> I dunno where you are going with that anyway. The topic is time off for christmas shopping. Theres simply no need for that, with internet shopping and late opening hours. Try to find a mechanic or a dentist that works outside office hours, or get a couch or fridge delivered outside office hours now there you might have a case. At the end of the day, the public sector can't afford, or afford to be seen to have, "nice to have", frills like christmas shopping.
> 
> As an aside theres no point keeping an office or business open on christmas eve unless theres useful work being done. My local superquinn was open on New Years Day and the staff said they could count the customers on one hand. no point in that. I'm sure its the same for many places public or private on christmas eve too. This should be easy to predict based on previious years activity on these days.


 I agree with all of that.


----------



## room305

Husker said:


> What's a grade 6 public sector employee? A consultant?  And when did his opinion of what his colleagues think make any type of decent point whatsoever?



That's a senior staff officer or a higher executive/administrative officer on an administrative scale. Middle management I guess?


----------



## AlbacoreA

gipimann said:


> I worked in the public library service in Dublin many years ago, and one year, following phone calls to Gay Byrne complaining that the libraries closed for over a week at Christmas. the City Librarian decided to open for 3 days between Christmas and New Year.
> 
> Over the 3 days, the branch I worked in issued 32 books in total - 16 customers. The numbers were similar around the city.
> 
> The libraries didn't open again between Christmas and New Year during my time there!


 
One company I worked in kept a record of every day they'd ever been open and business done etc. Therefore they could forcast which days were worth staying open and which days just weren't. Always surprised I haven't seen this kinda of simple record keeping more often. Very few places seem to do it.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> You are being obtuse. A person doing an clerical job in the public sector who gets 30 days annual leave but has to work Christmas Eve is still better off than a private sector employee who gets 20 days annual leave but doesn’t have to work Christmas Eve. Your attempt to muddy the water on what is a very straightforward point is bordering on the ridiculous.


 
Thats because its not straightforward. Your trying to make a sweeping general comparision by cherry picking a single criteria (annual leave) and ignoring all other factors (remuneration) which make the comparision invalid.

You can't decide to work in a shop, then complain about working christmas eve, or working long hours. If you don't like it go get a job in an office or something. If you want lots of annual leave get a job as a treacher or something. 

Personally I couldn't work as a teacher no matter what the leave, or work in the tax office, or dole office. I also wouldn't work in retail (again) unless I had to. 





Purple said:


> I agree. I presume you include the public sector workers who were moaning about working Christmas Eve in that group?


 
Of course.  People are the same everywhere. Public private no difference.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> Thats because its not straightforward. Your trying to make a sweeping general comparision by cherry picking a single criteria (annual leave) and ignoring all other factors (remuneration) which make the comparision invalid.


 OK, you are definitely being obtuse. Let me make this as simple as I can; other posters were complaining that they had to work Christmas Eve and were suggesting that those in the private sector who didn't have to work Christmas Eve were better off than them (in the context of holiday leave) because of this. I was pointing out that working or not working Christmas Eve needs to be judged in the context of overall leave. It was a point refuting a point made in isolation about working Christmas Eve. That's it. Nothing else. It really is that simple and straightforward. NOW do you understand???


----------



## Orga

Dear dissenting debaters,

You'd swear the public service closed completely on Christmas Eve - it doesn't -nor Christmas day either - sections do close and sections of private industry close also. Could we not all just agree that leave for public servants needs to be explanatory in a transparent manner so that should questions arise they are easily answered and the current arrangements are not transparent - they are probably fair, but not transparent. If Mr or Ms Private industry or Mr or Ms Public Service are paying taxes that fund services then there is an accountability due of those services to provide reasonable explanations for the manner in which they are delivered and this includes accounting for the deployment of staff. On that note I have a big beef with the bin collectors who unilaterally change the date of collection around Christmas - I'm voting with my money and changing my bin collector


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> OK, you are definitely being obtuse. Let me make this as simple as I can; other posters were complaining that they had to work Christmas Eve and were suggesting that those in the private sector who didn't have to work Christmas Eve were better off than them (in the context of holiday leave) because of this. I was pointing out that working or not working Christmas Eve needs to be judged in the context of overall leave. It was a point refuting a point made in isolation about working Christmas Eve. That's it. Nothing else. It really is that simple and straightforward. NOW do you understand???


 
No. Because the previous comments also made reference to xmas bonus'es, gifts, disparity of pay, experience of the same leave in the private sector etc. 
It makes no sense to take leave in isolation from everything else. Its not top trumps. (or benchmarking for that matter ).


----------



## Noilheart

Just noticed your post there now Blue Steel and may say  - well done, this needed to be said and it brings the meagre pay of the majority of civil servants into perspective compared what has gone on in this country for the last ten years at least


----------



## rmelly

bridget1 said:


> Just noticed your post there now Blue Steel and may say - well done


 
Zoolander?


----------



## SISSOKO

ubiquitous said:


> Banks and other offices in Galway shut for half-days during Race Week.


 
Better than that i'm afraid , finish at 11 on the 2 big race days.
and half a race day for sept meeting.


----------



## Noilheart

Hi rmelly,

By the way , I did mean Blue Steel's post as per below. 



blue_steel said:


> Give me a break. I work in the public sector and yes we got 3.5 hours off for Christmas shopping and yes I took it. Big deal. Last year I was working in the private sector and got a 5 grand bonus. I know which I'd prefer.
> I think the Public Sector witch-hunt is getting a little out of hand during this downturn. Nobody gave a damn about the half day shopping when they were making lots of money themselves but now all of a sudden its an outrage. I have been in the Public sector for 4 months now and I can tell you it is a lot more stressful than the private. There are lots of us dealing with the most vulnurable and unruly in society and providing a service that goes largely un-noticed. I had a far handier number in my old private sector job but when offered this post could not turn it down given the current economic circumstances. I think people need to remember who caused this crisis - fat cat bankers and greedy developers who have left the country scarred with innumerable ugly, unrequired, half-built apartment blocks. Working people should be venting their anger at them and not each other. Public or private, we're all facing the same problems.


----------

