# Public Service Ding Dong Posts removed from other threads as "off topic"



## Betsy Og (21 Oct 2009)

Re public sector, the wider public mood senses the need for cuts so lets get it on, let 'em strike until the unions are bankrupt, maybe then we can get back to business.

The private sector pays what it is profitable to pay - & more usually gives you the road unless you are contributing to profit. The public sector is like employees of a bankrupt firm, they have to go. 

Why oh why are these union chiefs not told that its irrelevant how much the private sector is paying or employing, it doesnt cost the state a penny, in fact it contributes to the state in taxes & PRSI.

On the other hand the employer of your public sector members is bankrupt and the entire nation is not happy to borrow endlessly to keep the worlds biggest sheltered employment scheme afloat. No mon, no fun.


----------



## z101 (21 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Your right Betsy. To listen to the media with the possible exception of Mat Cooper you would think 80% of workers were public servants.

I am just looking at RTE news at 6. They lead with this story, and filled the story with Union leader statements with the usual footage of guards etc. They had a 3 sentence piece of Lenihan. The now have McLoon in the studio giving him airtime. Employer bodies hardly got a mention. I agree with you Betsy that the Irish people are not stupid but there are alot that are only informed by this rubbish and this is where the poster has highlighted a point. McLoon is still sticking to the line that the PS have had a paycut already, even though all this was is to be asked to pay for their own pensions. Like everyone else (that can afford one). I suppose if you have had it sooo good you would fool yourself in this way. This is a guy who was on the FAS board and is now saying how the country should be run. He will be off having a pint with Bertie later no doubt. Unions will try to destroy this country for their own self interest. 
Is there anyway for truth and balance to be brought to this and where irish people can show their resistance to these PS unions???


----------



## Complainer (21 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Betsy Og said:


> The private sector pays what it is profitable to pay


Fascinating - What profits are AIB paying their 3% increase from?



Betsy Og said:


> Why oh why are these union chiefs not told that its irrelevant how much the private sector is paying or employing, it doesnt cost the state a penny, in fact it contributes to the state in taxes & PRSI.


How many billion did Anglo contribute to the state last year? How many billion did AIB contribute?


----------



## DerKaiser (21 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Complainer said:


> Fascinating - What profits are AIB paying their 3% increase to?
> 
> 
> How many billion did Anglo contribute to the state last year? How many billion did AIB contribute?



Well said!


----------



## z101 (21 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Complainer said:


> Fascinating - What profits are AIB paying their 3% increase from?
> 
> 
> How many billion did Anglo contribute to the state last year? How many billion did AIB contribute?


 
Point 1 you are correct on. This is a disgrace.

point 2 is selective as these companies number but 2 among the thousands of companies in Ireland that employ people, a large number (far more than the entire civil service) are effected by a 10%+ paycut if they still have a job at all. You just dont hear the media harp about these people on a daily basis. I guess there is no one or two people like these union leaders who can be a voice for the majority, or to give sound bite interviews to a lazy media.


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Bailing out AIB or other banks is not something I agree with, but as it happens I heard they were forced into the pay rise by the LRC or Labour Court, so we cant blame them for that.

FF out, if its not propping up the bubble or its fall out, its being weak kneed with unions.


----------



## liaconn (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

How has yet another thread turned into Public Service bashing???  Is there no end to this?


----------



## Latrade (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> How has yet another thread turned into Public Service bashing??? Is there no end to this?


 
I probably should have known it would lead to such. But my honest intention was to highlight media reporting/bias/failure understand on important issue. 

However, I think we're going to be in for an escalation of anger towards the PS over the next few months.


----------



## Complainer (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Ceatharlach said:


> point 2 is selective as these companies number but 2 among the thousands of companies in Ireland that employ people, a large number (far more than the entire civil service) are effected by a 10%+ paycut if they still have a job at all. You just dont hear the media harp about these people on a daily basis. I guess there is no one or two people like these union leaders who can be a voice for the majority, or to give sound bite interviews to a lazy media.


Recent CSO research shows that relatively few people in the private sector have had pay cuts. Have you seen other research supporting your "a large number (far more than the entire civil service) are effected by a 10%+ paycut" claim?


----------



## fobs (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Well the 400,000 on the dole at the moment are more than the entire 300,000 in the PS. Many of these lost their jobs this year equating to a 100% cut!


----------



## Latrade (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Complainer said:


> Recent CSO research shows that relatively few people in the private sector have had pay cuts. Have you seen other research supporting your "a large number (far more than the entire civil service) are effected by a 10%+ paycut" claim?


 
There's additional research from IBEC which has run a quartely survey (the CSO figures are only for the first quarter), this would indicate it is more common than the CSO report as the year has progressed.

In addition, the CSO figures only relate to basic pay rate and it is true that many employers haven't cut the basic rate. However, this is due in part to difficulties achieveing agreement for this type of cut. What the CSO doesn't account for is other cuts. Moving to a three day week wouldn't be picked up by the CSO because the hourly rate is still the same. Cutting overtime wouldn't be picked up, cutting shifts wouldn't be picked up, cutting shift rates wouldn't be picked up, unpaid leave wouldn't be picked up, stopping bonuses wouldn't be picked up, etc. Biggest of all is redundancies, the CSO figures don't account for this cut.

The net effect is that overall take home pay has been cut significantly in the private sector. However, there are some employers who aren't doing as badly or haven't seen any significant effects and are still giving pay rises. On balance it is around the 10%, though if you take generally ok industries like Pharmachem, it's closer to 25%.


----------



## csirl (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



fobs said:


> Well the 400,000 on the dole at the moment are more than the entire 300,000 in the PS. Many of these lost their jobs this year equating to a 100% cut!


 
Most of these were on the dole right through the good times - probably about 250k of them.

So probably 150k extra on the dole out of a workforce of 2 million. This equals 7.5% of the population which coincidently is the average percentage contraction of the economy that most economists are predicting this year. Private sector has laid off 7.5% and cut the wages of some of its workforce, public sector has levied its workforce 7.5% and laid off some of its workforce (temp workers). Average wealth in the country is reduced by 7.5% (the contraction in the economy). 

Private sector has taken a mainly cut jobs approach, public sector has taken a cut pay approach. It seems like both public and private sector have taken equal amounts of pain to date.


----------



## liaconn (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Also, Public Servants have taken pay cuts but must still work the same amount of hours. Where Private Sector workers have taken pay cuts it's usually for reduced hours. I realise it's involuntary and financially as hard a hit but it's still reduced pay for reduced hours.


----------



## Latrade (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> Also, Public Servants have taken pay cuts but must still work the same amount of hours. Where Private Sector workers have taken pay cuts it's usually for reduced hours. I realise it's involuntary and financially as hard a hit but it's still reduced pay for reduced hours.


 
I think we're continuing the opportunities to have a go at the private sector. But additional pension contributions are also a feature of the private sector due to the problems with DB pension schemes. However, private sector employees would always have been paying pension contributions, they just now have to pay more to keep the fund afloat.


----------



## liaconn (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

I'm not 'having a go' , I'm just responding to a part of your previous post where you stated that the CSO wouldn't pick up on workers who were on reduced hours. That was an important point that you made, but it was also important to point out that it wasn't that simple.

Anyway, this seems to be sliding back to a public-v-private row.


----------



## z101 (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



csirl said:


> Private sector has taken a mainly cut jobs approach, public sector has taken a cut pay approach. It seems like both public and private sector have taken equal amounts of pain to date.
> 
> Also, Public Servants have taken pay cuts but must still work the same amount of hours. Where Private Sector workers have taken pay cuts it's usually for reduced hours. I realise it's involuntary and financially as hard a hit but it's still reduced pay for reduced hours


 
Where are your getting info from. Its amazingly selective. The private sector is getting both jobs losses and paycuts, up to 25% in some instances. The public sector were asked to pay for their own pensions with not a single job axed yet!. As much as the unions spin this it's not a paycut. Again to that second posters point, ordinary worker people who have to pay for their own faltering pensions will never be convinced that PS workers beens asked to contribute to their 'guaranteed' pension is anything close to a paycut. And where are you getting the private sector paycut is mostly reduced hours. Not the reality by a country mile! It's because PS are so removed from the reality of most Irish people with these kind of asumptions that makes people so angry. We even have union leaders coming out and saying this should be addressed through work practises.. What to hell was benchmarking about?? Why cant benchmarking go the other way?? Unions for years harped on about inflation, now that we have deflation they dont want want to know. As for complainers CSO figures these do not reflect (at the CSO's own admission) the declining reality of like with like. They were a limp attempt to try and put credence to some claims. As the say you can prove with physics that an elephant can fir through the eye of an needle but the reality is simply different. The ESRI figures were more acurate and even ventured on the conservative side as it didn't fully factor the guaranteed pension return and job security.
Its no wonder people are so angry. 
It's not public service bashing it's just not fair on the rest of the population to prop up this nonsense when the country cant afford it.


----------



## Latrade (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> I'm not 'having a go' , I'm just responding to a part of your previous post where you stated that the CSO wouldn't pick up on workers who were on reduced hours. That was an important point that you made, but it was also important to point out that it wasn't that simple.
> 
> Anyway, this seems to be sliding back to a public-v-private row.


 
Sorry, wasn't saying you were having a go, apologies if it seemed I were. I was trying to say that it could continue the row. 

You're right to bring up the pension levy, but it's also important to put into the context that many on DB schemes have had to face the same issue in the private sector. Additional pension contributions are not the reserve of the public sector.


----------



## csirl (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Ceatharlach said:


> Where are your getting info from. Its amazingly selective. The private sector is getting both jobs losses and paycuts, up to 25% in some instances. The public sector were asked to pay for their own pensions with not a single job axed yet!. As much as the unions spin this it's not a paycut. Again to that second posters point, ordinary worker people who have to pay for their own faltering pensions will never be convinced that PS workers beens asked to contribute to their 'guaranteed' pension is anything close to a paycut. And where are you getting the private sector paycut is mostly reduced hours. Not the reality by a country mile! It's because PS are so removed from the reality of most Irish people with these kind of asumptions that makes people so angry. We even have union leaders coming out and saying this should be addressed through work practises.. What to hell was benchmarking about?? Why cant benchmarking go the other way?? Unions for years harped on about inflation, now that we have deflation they dont want want to know. As for complainers CSO figures these do not reflect (at the CSO's own admission) the declining reality of like with like. They were a limp attempt to try and put credence to some claims. As the say you can prove with physics that an elephant can fir through the eye of an needle but the reality is simply different. The ESRI figures were more acurate and even ventured on the conservative side as it didn't fully factor the guaranteed pension return and job security.
> Its no wonder people are so angry.
> It's not public service bashing it's just not fair on the rest of the population to prop up this nonsense when the country cant afford it.


 
You can shout and scream all you like, but the facts show that the contraction of the economy will be a single figure percentage, probably in the 5-8% range. Like it or not, this means that the average person in Ireland will be 5-8% poorer - not anything close to the 25% figures that you are quoting.


----------



## DB74 (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



csirl said:


> You can shout and scream all you like, but the facts show that the contraction of the economy will be a single figure percentage, probably in the 5-8% range. Like it or not, this means that the average person in Ireland will be 5-8% poorer - not anything close to the 25% figures that you are quoting.


 
That's all well and good if you are average!

It's not unreasonable to assume that some people will be 25% poorer while some who won't lose their jobs will be static (eg - public sector workers)


----------



## liaconn (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Ceatharlach said:


> Where are your getting info from. Its amazingly selective. The private sector is getting both jobs losses and paycuts, up to 25% in some instances. The public sector were asked to pay for their own pensions with not a single job axed yet!. As much as the unions spin this it's not a paycut. Again to that second posters point, ordinary worker people who have to pay for their own faltering pensions will never be convinced that PS workers beens asked to contribute to their 'guaranteed' pension is anything close to a paycut. And where are you getting the private sector paycut is mostly reduced hours. Not the reality by a country mile! It's because PS are so removed from the reality of most Irish people with these kind of asumptions that makes people so angry. We even have union leaders coming out and saying this should be addressed through work practises.. What to hell was benchmarking about?? Why cant benchmarking go the other way?? Unions for years harped on about inflation, now that we have deflation they dont want want to know. As for complainers CSO figures these do not reflect (at the CSO's own admission) the declining reality of like with like. They were a limp attempt to try and put credence to some claims. As the say you can prove with physics that an elephant can fir through the eye of an needle but the reality is simply different. The ESRI figures were more acurate and even ventured on the conservative side as it didn't fully factor the guaranteed pension return and job security.
> Its no wonder people are so angry.
> It's not public service bashing it's just not fair on the rest of the population to prop up this nonsense when the country cant afford it.


 
What a rant!

The pension levy is a pay cut. We are not getting anything extra for it, so it is a pay cut. Whether you agree with the principle behind it or not, it is disingenuous to say it's not a cut.

My point about Private Sector workers taking a pay cut for working  reduced hours was a response to another poster who said that reduced hours were not taken into account in the CSO report.

I suggest you read posts properly and answer coherently instead of just venting. I actually had to read your post several times to get any sense of what you were saying.


----------



## csirl (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



DB74 said:


> That's all well and good if you are average!
> 
> It's not unreasonable to assume that some people will be 25% poorer while some who won't lose their jobs will be static (eg - public sector workers)


 
If such a significant minority of workers are 25% poorer, it implies that the bulk of private sector workers are slightly better off or a similar number to the significant minority are 17-20% (25 minus 5-8%) better off?


----------



## Latrade (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



csirl said:


> If such a significant minority of workers are 25% poorer, it implies that the bulk of private sector workers are slightly better off or a similar number to the significant minority are 17-20% (25 minus 5-8%) better off?


 
The stat mentioned was reference to pay cut or loss of take home. 

However, you're right in the sense that the shrinking of the economy has driven down a lot of other costs, especially mortgage costs and fuel costs. The average pay cut (not being 25% and more like 6%) is at least comparable if not less than the expected shrinking of the economy.


----------



## S.L.F (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Ceatharlach said:


> The public sector were asked to pay for their own pensions with not a single job axed yet!. As much as the unions spin this it's not a paycut.


 
First the P.S. have been paying 6.5% of their wage for their pension plus PRSI since 1995 and now are paying a 7.5% pension levy (tax) which does them no good what-so-ever as they don't get any benefit from it.

The PS have not been asked anything.



Ceatharlach said:


> Again to that second posters point, ordinary worker people who have to pay for their own faltering pensions will never be convinced that PS workers beens asked to contribute to their 'guaranteed' pension is anything close to a paycut.


 
But if a PS worker is bringing home less pay and getting nothing for it would you consider that a pay cut because that is the case.

A public servants pension when they get it will not increase by paying the pension levy.



Ceatharlach said:


> And where are you getting the private sector paycut is mostly reduced hours. Not the reality by a country mile! It's because PS are so removed from the reality of most Irish people with these kind of asumptions that makes people so angry.


 
People were angry because they have fallen for the nonsense put out by the newspapers and the govt and the flawed ESRI report.



Ceatharlach said:


> We even have union leaders coming out and saying this should be addressed through work practises.. What to hell was benchmarking about?? Why cant benchmarking go the other way?? Unions for years harped on about inflation, now that we have deflation they dont want want to know.


 
PS has taken a paycut and in Dec will be getting hit again.



Ceatharlach said:


> As for complainers CSO figures these do not reflect (at the CSO's own admission) the declining reality of like with like. They were a limp attempt to try and put credence to some claims. As the say you can prove with physics that an elephant can fir through the eye of an needle but the reality is simply different. The ESRI figures were more acurate and even ventured on the conservative side as it didn't fully factor the guaranteed pension return and job security.


 
You should have a look at the thread on the ESRI report , the ESRI report has included semi-state bodies in it's calculations (ESB, RTE etc etc) all these employees are on big money in comparison to 95% of PS employees.

I know a guy who is a wage clerk in the ESB and has been there for the last 30 years he is on €80,000 a year show me a PS wage clerk that is on that kind of money.

You mentioned "like with like" what do you suppose the ESRI compared a fully trained Gardai to....would you believe a security guard????

Hardly like for like



Ceatharlach said:


> Its no wonder people are so angry.
> It's not public service bashing it's just not fair on the rest of the population to prop up this nonsense when the country cant afford it.


 
You say this is not public service bashing and I think it is exactly what it is.


----------



## S.L.F (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> I actually had to read your post several times to get any sense of what you were saying.


 
Took me a few times too


----------



## boris (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

This post has gone way off course and has disintegrated to a Public Service bashing.  If an ordinary post talking about the media cannot stay on topic, then I think that the ban on Public Service bashing should be reintroduced accross all the threads or else this will happen all over the place.


----------



## liaconn (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

I agree. The minute I read the opening post I wondered how long it would be before someone managed to twist it into a bash at the Public Service. It's getting ridiculous. Someone even managed to have a go at the PS in a thread about someone's neighbour burning rubber .


----------



## ashambles (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

If the bulk of private sector workers are better off how come income tax is down 10% YOY despite increased levies? Perhaps a real drop of 15% or so.

Bit puzzled by this riddle, I'd have thought there'd be a link between income tax and income but perhaps somebody can put me right on that.


----------



## Caveat (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> I agree. The minute I read the opening post I wondered how long it would be before someone managed to twist it into a bash at the Public Service. It's getting ridiculous. Someone even managed to have a go at the PS in a thread about someone's neighbour burning rubber .


 
Whilst I don't disagree with you Liaconn, it's not always this black and white.  All too often the so called 'bashing' is as a direct result of PS/CS defenders or apologists making points that when debated or questioned, are simply rebutted by accusations of bashing ?!

Not all questioning or examination of points or posts that defend the PS/CS can automatically be called bashing simply because they are critical by their very nature.

Some PS/CS posters even instigate this cycle of bashing themselves you know...


----------



## liaconn (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

The point, though, is that threads opened on all kinds of topics end up drifting off into complaints about the Public Service. Also, most Public Servants don't just rebut with accusations of PS bashing, they also try to back up what they're saying. There are some posters on here who are constantly taking swipes at the Public Service, going very silent when asked for facts or figures, then popping their head over the wall again a few days later with another spate of unfounded cat calling.

Anyway, I'm going off topic now. Anyone got any other examples of myths perpetuated by the media?


----------



## z101 (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Its bad enough that the media wont take the public service to proper task as per the point been revelent to the posters question, but now you want to BAN ALL DISCUSSION ON THE PUBLIC SERVICE! This speaks volumns.. 

Hopefully Lenihan will see through the 'facts' as some present them here.


----------



## liaconn (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Oh, for crying out loud.

We want threads to stay on topic and not degenerate into arguments about the Public Sector.

We want comments about the Public Sector to be accurate, constructive and properly debated, not just unsubstantiated 'bashing'.

That is not banning all discussion on the Public Sector.

Once again, can you read the posts properly before jumping up and down and shouting.


----------



## liaconn (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Well, as going off topic is against the rules, maybe this thread should just be closed.


----------



## Ceist Beag (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Betsy Og said:


> 1) Mayo are chokers and will never win
> 4) Cork footballers cant perform in a final in Croker, or against Kerry in Croker



Well in fairness they're hardly myths given the evidence of the past 15 years or so!


----------



## MrMan (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Betsy Og said:


> Its practically impossible for this thread to not go off topic because if you suggest a "myth" then it gets explored & immediately goes off topic.  e.g. if I throw in a few sporting ones:
> 
> 1) Mayo are chokers and will never win* correct*
> 2) Kilkenny are now a dirty shower who'll stop at nothing to win. *just take out 'now' and it will be correct.*
> ...


----------



## S.L.F (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Caveat said:


> Whilst I don't disagree with you Liaconn, it's not always this black and white. All too often the so called 'bashing' is as a direct result of PS/CS defenders or apologists making points that when debated or questioned, are simply rebutted by accusations of bashing ?!
> 
> Not all questioning or examination of points or posts that defend the PS/CS can automatically be called bashing simply because they are critical by their very nature.
> 
> Some PS/CS posters even instigate this cycle of bashing themselves you know...


 
The problem is not "*making points*" that PS employees have a problem with it's "*making stuff up*" that they have a problem with.

Eg about time PS employees paid for their own pensions...they have been doing so since 1995.

Eg the pension levy goes towards the PS pension fund, it does not, it goes into general funds.

Eg ESRI say PS are over paid by 25% but have included the very very highly paid semi-state bodies in the figure.

Eg all PS employees get fantastic pensions when they retire but fail to mention that is only true if they are in the PS a full 40 years.

Eg fail to mention that when you join the PS you are obligued to take their pension whether you want it or not.

Eg flexi-time gets PS employees extra time off.

Eg teachers get 30 days sick leave per year but fail to mention that the average sick leave by teachers is 1 day a year.

I could go on but you get the drift.

I would like the Admins to reinstate the cease fire.


----------



## S.L.F (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Ceatharlach said:


> Its bad enough that the media wont take the public service to proper task as per the point been revelent to the posters question, but now you want to BAN ALL DISCUSSION ON THE PUBLIC SERVICE! This speaks volumns..
> 
> Hopefully Lenihan will see through the *'facts'* as some present them here.


 
Let's find out if Ceatharlach is a troll or not!

2 simple questions for you.

1. What 'facts' are you talking about?

2. How do you mean the media won't take the public service to "proper task" do you mean the media should get involved with govt affairs or do you mean the govt should get involved with media affairs?

Should be simple enough for you to answer.


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



S.L.F said:


> The problem is not "*making points*" that PS employees have a problem with it's "*making stuff up*" that they have a problem with.
> 
> Eg about time PS employees paid for their own pensions...they have been doing so since 1995. Contributing somewhat, but actually paying for them?? c'mon, it would cost a fortune to provide those pensions, especially with the cool add ons like the pension is tagged to what people in that role are now earning - fantasyland stuff. Would index linking it not have been enough?
> 
> ...


----------



## liaconn (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

RTE 'Stars' are not public servants. They are on contract. The ordinary RTE staff eg admin staff, producers, editors are public servants and are not earning anything like the salaries of Gerry Ryan, Miriam O'Callaghan etc

I am sick of that myth that public servants are 'expected' to take their sick leave. This has been doing the rounds for ages and is absolutely not true.

Re the flexi time allegation, it is not extra time off. You can only take a flexi day if you have already 'worked up' the time by putting in the equivalent of a day's extra hours in the weeks preceeding your flexi day off.

The point re the pension levy not going into a ring fenced fund is important as it demonstrates that this is a contribution to the exchequer ie a pay cut and not something we are storing up for later ie our pension is still the same as it always was.


----------



## S.L.F (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

One of the things that gets on my nerves is whare someone can't be bothered to do a post properly giving others a chance to...well argue the toss.


----------



## S.L.F (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Betsy

1. I have come across several posts suggesting that PS don't pay anything for their pensions...they do. You might say it's not enough that's your privilege the point is 6.5% for 40 years is a good sum.

2. People have suggested that the pension levy is going to make their pension better...it doesn't

3. I was under the impression that RTE (Relayed Turkey Entrails) was not public service more of a semi-state (different rules to Public service) the point I made still stands the ESRI included semi-state bodies which should not have been included in their report and really pushed the wage factor up.

4. if you work a full 40 years you get a lump sum and half your wage but if you only work 20 years you don't get a quarter you get far less than a quarter so you are incorrect it is not porportionate and yes you are correct it is buttons. Far better off putting your money into a post office for the 20 years.

5. What's the allegation? The suggestion has been made that by working you get extra time off...you don't. As for institutional overtime it's a very rare thing that civil servants get overtime.

6. You hear people are expected to take sick days in Revenue!

I hear that Santa Clause is coming this year.


----------



## Complainer (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

THere is so much fiction on this thread, it is hard to know where to start, or even to decide if it is worth bothering, but here we go.

1) The CSO earnings data including overtime, bonuses and irregular earnings shows increases in the average hourly earnings in Q1 2009 for industry, manufacturing, utilities and financial intermediation. [Financial intermediation is showing a year-on-year decrease]. See [broken link removed]

2) The pension levy is a very real pay cut across the entire public sector. It has only the most tenuous of connections with pension. It is called a pension levy simply as that was the vehicle that allowed it to be legally imposed. Those who get no public sector pension pay the levy. 

3) Many public sector jobs have been lost. Contract and temporary staff are all being cut off as their contracts expire. Retiring staff are not being replaced. The private sector does not have a monopoly on the misery of job losses.


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



S.L.F said:


> Betsy
> 
> 1. I have come across several posts suggesting that PS don't pay anything for their pensions...they do. You might say it's not enough that's your privilege the point is 6.5% for 40 years is a good sum. Might be, but not a fraction of the cost of the benefit.
> 
> ...



Apologies if responding to you annoys you, just some darned private sector efficiency !!! ;-)


----------



## S.L.F (22 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Betsy Og said:


> Apologies if responding to you annoys you, just some darned private sector efficiency !!! ;-)


 
The problem is I can't quote your posts so have to write all of what you have said out again.

Just to be clear I'm self employed (restoring sash windows and other stuff) the only work connection I have to the PS is the taxes I pay.

RTE is supposed to be self funding isn't it...license, fee advertising selling programs and other stuff.

Since you have picked out particular people I have done the same Gardai and prison officers are not civil servants so my point stands...it is very rare for civil servants to get overtime.

As for the 'story' on sick leave please provide a link that says staff in revenue *have* to take a set number of days sick leave (I'll bet you a pint you can't! Winnings to be collected at the 10th anniverary).


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

I considered closing the thread down, but I think some of the points being made are important under the "media myths" topic.

It comes down to how the media portray this current civil war. It's nothing new they do it with everything, but in order to get "balanced" views they present the two extremes of any argument rather than someone with a sense of perspective. We all know the truth is somewhere in the middle, but we just don't get to hear it or read it.

So I know it got a bit touchy there in the middle, but I feel some of the points being made in response to arguments are valid and valid in the context of the OT. Maybe mods may disagree.

I don't believe that there should be any banning or moderation of PS/CS bashing in short I don't see why they should have special protection on this forum. Many arguments put forward on a variety of subjects are rants, illogical, knee-jerk reactions and sometimes incredulous, yet we allow them and more importantly allow people to respond with a more rational perspective. 

However... I do wonder whether we should bring up sickness levels given the C&AG's report. While the stats are still fairly shocking, it will be interesting to see how the media plays this one. I'll give it a quick guess, Kevin Myers or similar to slate the PS, some extreme Union Official to defend the PS.


----------



## csirl (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



> Since you have picked out particular people I have done the same Gardai and prison officers are not civil servants so my point stands...it is very rare for civil servants to get overtime.


 
This is true. My brother is a civil servant - the concept of overtime does not exist for him - I believe it only applies to low paid clerical staff. As civil servants are "officers" of the State, they are expected to work the necessary hours to get the job done. If he works late, which he does regularly, he gets no payment for any extra hours worked. If he comes in for an extra day on a weekend, again, he gets no extra payment. His conditions of employment say he must work a min. of 41 hours a week. Weekly salary paid is exactly the same regardless of whether he works the min. 41 hours or 60 hours.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Maybe I'm missing something as regards the distinction between Public Servants and the Civil Service, I've never lived in that parallel universe so forgive my ignorance. As I said, the only reason either catergory might concern me is the costs being racked up by the employees in those areas are being paid for by our taxes .... or more pointedly by runaway borrowings.

Of course it wont say anywhere you *have* to take sick days as holidays, but only yesterday an independent report came out to say sick days in the public sector are far higher than in the private sector (seems teachers are an exception, but sure its not like they are short of days off), so the point being is they are being used as such. If this was a debate on Norn Iron I'm sure I'd get away with saying "The reality of the sit-ye-ation" is that they are being used as such.

Basically I hate waste, in my own money, in food, in materials etc etc. Now maybe that makes me small minded or something, but when a country is broke, and more widely in the world resources are becoming scarcer, it is rather galling to see blatant examples of waste in government spending. Time to stop the rot. Time the unions got real. 

IMHO unions are now basically a club for slackers, lets all band together and no-one will question our performance or cosy terms. If people had faith in their own abilities they wouldnt need a union, they'd rise to the top and natural selection would see the wasters at the back of the pack getting culled, and the herd as a whole would be better - natural geographic or the likes will show you the blood and guts version from Africa any night of the week. 

Unions are damaging as they lead to the flight of foreign industry, meaning Irish jobs. Guys with long service angling for a sweet redundancy deal, no regard for the lad in the door trying to pay his mortgage. The question is are the government prepared to accept the nonsense that foreign employers are not???


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

* You hear people are expected to take sick days in Revenue! Well that was from someone who worked there for years so unless theres been a regime chance of late it definitely was the case.
*



Here we go again. You know one dishonest lazy so and so and use him and a few of his mates (presumably) as an example of an entire organisation. I know lots of people who have worked in Revenue over the years and have never, ever treated sick leave like an extension of annual leave.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> Here we go again. You know one dishonest lazy so and so and use him and a few of his mates (presumably) as an example of an entire organisation. I know lots of people who have worked in Revenue over the years and have never, ever treated sick leave like an extension of annual leave.


 
Well fair enough if you want to disregard that anecdotal evidence, but have you any views on yesterdays report that said public sector sick days far higher than private sector?


----------



## gipimann (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

I heard an interview with a CPSU union rep on RTE yestereday - the C&AG report found that the level of uncertified sick leave was an average of 1.3 days.  This means that the vast majority of the sick leave counted by the C&AG office would then appear to be certified sick leave.

This seems to disprove the "couldn't be bothered to come in on a Monday" or the "I've got 7 days uncertified a year so will take them regardless" myths which are out there.

If almost all of the sick days are certified, it means that the person visited a GP, was assessed as being sick and received a medical certificate to cover their absence from work.


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Betsy Og said:


> Well fair enough if you want to disregard that anecdotal evidence, but have you any views on yesterdays report that said public sector sick days far higher than private sector?


 
I would suspect, if you really broke this down, you would find that a small number of dishonest public servants (such as your friend) are abusing sick leave. This is an even bigger annoyance to other public servants than it is to you. Not only are our taxes paying for these lazy f*ckers to doss off, but we also have to do their bo*ody work for them while they're out. Believe me, services don't suffer, Civil Service colleagues do. We would have no problem with people systematically abusing sick leave being sacked and the doctors in the private sector who casually issue certs for no reason and collude in the 'rip off', being severely sanctioned in some way.


----------



## DB74 (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Well I don't hear your Unions complaining about it


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

I agree. And they should. The rest of us don't want to be tarred with the same brush as a dishonest minority.


----------



## Sunny (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



gipimann said:


> If almost all of the sick days are certified, it means that the person visited a GP, was assessed as being sick and received a medical certificate to cover their absence from work.


 
Doctors handing out certs like confetti are part of the problem. It still doesn't explain why certified sick leave is still higher than in the civil service than the private sector. The private sector can't be that much healthier.

Sick leave needs to be tackled but it's too easy to blame individual workers taking advantage (I am sure there are many in both sectors who do). There are many reasons why sick leave can be higher. It is usually a sign of a mis-managed organisation so we should probably look to the culture and management of the civil service if we are looking to discover the reasons for the high levels of sick leave.


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

It should also be remembered that there are many Public Servants who succumb to serious illnesses such as cancer, heart disease or clinical depression and could need to take months and months of sick leave. I suspect the public sector would treat these people more compassionately than many (_not all, I stress_) private employers and allow them as much time as they need, secure in the knowledge that their job will still be there when they are better, and this would also skew the figures somewhat.


----------



## Birroc (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

I worked in the public sector and my manager told me to use my remaining uncertified sick leave when I needed to take a day off and had no vacation days left. I abused sick leave regularly and so did many of my colleagues. I see it now in private sector too but not to same extent (and even less in the past 12 months...)


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Well, your Manager should have been sacked. I have never, ever been told my a Manager to take sick leave when I needed time off and this would be considered a disciplinary action in the Civil Service.

What area of the PS did you work in? From your experiences, it seems to have been a pretty shoddy operation.


----------



## becky (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Sunny said:


> Doctors handing out certs like confetti are part of the problem. It still doesn't explain why certified sick leave is still higher than in the civil service than the private sector. The private sector can't be that much healthier.
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> I agree. And they should. The rest of us don't want to be tarred with the same brush as a dishonest minority.


 
I think this is the harm the Unions will do the the overall views on the PS/CS. They're taking advantage of the media's incompetence in order to push a certain agenda. However, it's likely that they'll come out in opposition and in defence of their members to this report.

I don't think the timing is in anyway coincidental and I do believe it will cause significant harm to the current perceptions.

However, it's clear that there is a spread of "unqualified" leave in terms of who is taking advantage. But it points to a bigger issue relating to points raised in the defence of the PSCS. The C&AG has, in previous reports, been critical of the advances made in reform of the PSCS. While some departments have made strides others haven't.

The issue of absenteeism as a factor in this. The push for improved HR management hasn't been achieved, fancy computer systems and more HR officers aside, true reform just hasn't taken place. The C&AG Office has reports going back over 10 years on this.

The overall stat is that there is 5% absenteeism. Considering the estimated (sorry csirl) absenteeism from an significant increae in swine flu is 10%, that's a bit worrying. Absenteeism within the PSCS in a normal year is 50% of a pandemic.


----------



## Sunny (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



becky said:


> We get get full pay when we get. You are also allowed 2 days uncertfied before you have to produce a cert.
> 
> I honestly believe if the scheme wasn't so good the sick leave would reduce overnight.


 
I get the same in the private sector and we don't suffer those levels of sick leave.


----------



## gipimann (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

Re GPs handing out certs - I recall many years ago (when I was in the civil service myself) being told that there were a number of GPs whose medical certs would not be accepted because they were "too easy to get".   I presume that this non-acceptance guideline is still possible if HR feel that certs from any GP are "too easily got".

From my own perspective, since I have to make an appointment to see my GP (and generally have to wait several days to get one), and pay €50 to get a cert, I don't go looking for certs at the drop of a hat!


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



gipimann said:


> Re GPs handing out certs - I recall many years ago (when I was in the civil service myself) being told that there were a number of GPs whose medical certs would not be accepted because they were "too easy to get". I presume that this non-acceptance guideline is still possible if HR feel that certs from any GP are "too easily got".
> 
> From my own perspective, since I have to make an appointment to see my GP (and generally have to wait several days to get one), and pay €50 to get a cert, I don't go looking for certs at the drop of a hat!


 
This is a bit of a red herring to be honest. I'll accept I know of some dubious ones, but the employer has the right to get a second opinion. 

In fairness to the PSCS, failure to manage absenteeism is not just a feature of them, a large part of the private sector fails to manage its absenteeism.


----------



## csirl (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Sunny said:


> I get the same in the private sector and we don't suffer those levels of sick leave.


 
A very large multinational company I worked for a few years ago had a DAILY sick leave level of 11%. There were certain groups of staff who had their own sick leave rota - all would take 2 days uncertified sick leave once every two weeks. A lot of the management more or less turned a blind eye - they would get paid anyway regardless of whether or not they tackled the problem. Company was, and still is, profitable. As this was a very large multinational with 100s facilities across the globe, I'm assume that they got away with this behaviour because the top brass would never drill down as low as an individual facility and as long as it was profitable, they didnt care.


----------



## Sunny (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



csirl said:


> A very large multinational company I worked for a few years ago had a DAILY sick leave level of 11%. There were certain groups of staff who had their own sick leave rota - all would take 2 days uncertified sick leave once every two weeks. A lot of the management more or less turned a blind eye - they would get paid anyway regardless of whether or not they tackled the problem. Company was, and still is, profitable. As this was a very large multinational with 100s facilities across the globe, I'm assume that they got away with this behaviour because the top brass would never drill down as low as an individual facility and as long as it was profitable, they didnt care.


 
I already said earlier that abuse of sick leave happens in the private sector. I was simply pointing out that you can't blame good sick leave benefits for the ligh level of sick leave in the civil sector.


----------



## Teatime (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

How does one advertise a senior job in one of the Unions? Something like this maybe:

The candidate must be completely unreasonable, ignorant and rude. He/She must be able to play a broken record over and over....


----------



## csirl (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Teatime said:


> How does one advertise a senior job in one of the Unions? Something like this maybe:
> 
> The candidate must be completely unreasonable, ignorant and rude. He/She must be able to play a broken record over and over....


 
and must have a beard.


----------



## becky (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Sunny said:


> I already said earlier that abuse of sick leave happens in the private sector. I was simply pointing out that you can't blame good sick leave benefits for the ligh level of sick leave in the civil sector.


 
It's my opinion that it's one of the main reasons here, but I realise there are other factors. 

I spoke to a colleague recently who has someone ring in with a toothache - I'm pretty sure if she didn't get paid for the day she would have taken a pain killer and come into work.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



becky said:


> I spoke to a colleague recently who has someone ring in with a toothache - I'm pretty sure if she didn't get paid for the day she would have taken a pain killer and come into work.


 
I'm sorry, but what's the manager doing condoning this? Uncertified sick leave still means you have to be sick and not in a fit condition to present yourself to work, you just don't have to have a registered medical doctor's certificate to confirm this.

Under very few circumstances would a toothache a valid sickness (beyond a very painful abssess. For the manager to accept this is where the crime is.


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*

I think maybe a breakaway thread should be set up entitled 'Public Sector sick leave'.

To go slightly back on point, I think the media will often extract juicy headlines from reports without providing any proper analysis. For instance, I know very few Public Servants who take an average of 16 sick days a year. I do, however, know of a small number of lazy, dishonest parasites who take far, far more than that every year. Therefore, the 'average' Public Servant is not taking 16 days sick leave annually, but 'a very small number' of Public Servants are taking vastly excessive amounts of sick days per annum.

Likewise, there are some very unscrupulous employers in the Private Sector who totally ignore their employees rights, treat migrant workers like dirt and bully vulnerable workers. In these cases the employees would not dare take sick leave unless they were at death's door. They are not 'average' private sector employees but they are skewing the figure downwards.

The use of the word 'average' is often used by the media to perpetuate myths.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> I think maybe a breakaway thread should be set up entitled 'Public Sector sick leave'.
> 
> To go slightly back on point, I think the media will often extract juicy headlines from reports without providing any proper analysis. For instance, I know very few Public Servants who take an average of 16 sick days a year. I do, however, know of a small number of lazy, dishonest parasites who take far, far more than that every year. Therefore, the 'average' Public Servant is not taking 16 days sick leave annually, but 'a very small number' of Public Servants are taking vastly excessive amounts of sick days per annum.
> 
> ...


 
In fairness, that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation of the private sector and nothing to really support it. I know you're probably owed a couple of sweeping generalisations and unsubstantiated "facts", but I would be doubtful this is really the case.

I don't deny that some employers may behave so, but I really don't think it's enough to significantly skew averages to that extent. It really is the case that employees in the private sector take less sick leave.


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Latrade said:


> In fairness, that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation of the private sector and nothing to really support it. I know you're probably owed a couple of sweeping generalisations and unsubstantiated "facts", but I would be doubtful this is really the case.
> 
> I don't deny that some employers may behave so, but I really don't think it's enough to significantly skew averages to that extent. It really is the case that employees in the private sector take less sick leave.


 
Believe me, because of the nature of my work I know what I am talking about and am not throwing out unsubstantiated 'facts'.


----------



## boris (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Latrade said:


> However, it's clear that there is a spread of "unqualified" leave in terms of who is taking advantage. But it points to a bigger issue relating to points raised in the defence of the PSCS. The C&AG has, in previous reports, been critical of the advances made in reform of the PSCS. While some departments have made strides others haven't.


 
On a small aside I quickly read through the C&AG's report last night and could not help but notice that they left themselves out of the analysis of sick leave. As far as I am aware they are part of the CS themselves (albeit with smaller numbers than most Gov. Dept's). They should have got outside expertise to analyse their element of the report so that it would have seemed impartial and complete.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> Believe me, because of the nature of my work I know what I am talking about and am not throwing out unsubstantiated 'facts'.


 
I've no doubt you do and have, however I would also say ditto from my perspective, except we arrive at different conclusions. 

However, those employers who are so agressive can and do find themselves subject to unfair dismissal cases. So while sick pay isn't protected leave, there are standards companies must follow. And while in some sectors (say construction) may have had a, ahem, "stronger" attitude to sickness, it certainly isn't enough to state that it is either the case for the whole private sector or enough to cause such significant differences.


----------



## becky (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Latrade said:


> I'm sorry, but what's the manager doing condoning this? Uncertified sick leave still means you have to be sick and not in a fit condition to present yourself to work, you just don't have to have a registered medical doctor's certificate to confirm this.
> 
> Under very few circumstances would a toothache a valid sickness (beyond a very painful abssess. For the manager to accept this is where the crime is.


 
Manager wasn't condoning it - far from it. The manager isn't in a position to tell an employee that a toothache is not acceptable reason to ring sick even though that's what he wanted to do.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



becky said:


> Manager wasn't condoning it - far from it. The manager isn't in a position to tell an employee that a toothache is not acceptable reason to ring sick even though that's what wanted to do.


 
Ok, I don't want to be too contrary on the issue and sympathise with the manager, but I'd still go back to a failing higher up. The manager should have been told and supported in the knowledge that this isn't a valid reason. 

I'll admit the fact that a mini pandemic hits the PSCS every year is quite shocking, but it isn't just the employees, it's the managers and their managers who haven't dealt with it.


----------



## Complainer (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



fobs said:


> Getting back to the OP one of the myths being spun by the media is classifying nearly everyone as being "the most vunerable in society"


Got any examples of this?


----------



## liaconn (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Latrade said:


> I've no doubt you do and have, however I would also say ditto from my perspective, except we arrive at different conclusions.


 
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. However, the point I was making is that 'averages' can very easily be skewed by outliers and are not indications of how a 'typical' person behaves.


----------



## Latrade (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. However, the point I was making is that 'averages' can very easily be skewed by outliers and are not indications of how a 'typical' person behaves.


 
Oh absolutely, basic statistics and all that. And goes to explain why the average driver considers themselves a better driver than the average driver.

It's the extreme examples given that really need to be questioned, like 3 out of 4 employees in the State Labs taking sick leave. Though in fairness to the C&AG he does show those areas that are managing their absenteeism and record lower levels.


----------



## z101 (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



S.L.F said:


> Let's find out if Ceatharlach is a troll or not!
> 
> 2 simple questions for you.
> 
> ...


Condesending... enjoy the sick days.. or is that not a fact either.


----------



## Pique318 (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



S.L.F said:


> Eg fail to mention that when you join the PS you are obligued to take their pension whether you want it or not.





Complainer said:


> 2) ...Those who get no public sector pension pay the levy.


I'm sorry, but I can't reconcile these two statements 



S.L.F said:


> ...it is very rare for civil servants to get overtime.


Maybe it is now, but in the past it wasn't in my experience. I worked in the CS for 3 years in the 90s and it was common practice to leave certain correspondence in boxes (on the back burner, in essence) until the period before Christmas, St. Patricks day, Easter, June, August & Hallowe'en, and then use it as an excuse to get overtime. This was authorised by HEOs and obviously APs. COs SOs & EOs would be involved in the OT.

Also, regarding the Flexitime thing. It was quite common for people to sit around chatting from about 5/5.30 till 6.29 (time clocks worked until 6.30) and then clock out, thus maximising the time worked up. 10.5 hours (or a day & a half) per 4wk period. 19.5 extra days off for catching up on gossip.


Betsy Og said:


> IMHO unions are now basically a club for slackers, lets all band together and no-one will question our performance or cosy terms. If people had faith in their own abilities they wouldnt need a union, they'd rise to the top and natural selection would see the wasters at the back of the pack getting culled, and the herd as a whole would be better


Totally agree


Sunny said:


> Doctors handing out certs like confetti are part of the problem. It still doesn't explain why certified sick leave is still higher than in the civil service than the private sector. The private sector can't be that much healthier.


Maybe the inane boredom of repetitive unchallenging work has something to do with it...


becky said:


> You are also allowed 2 days uncertfied before you have to produce a cert.


Ditto, but every company I've worked in in the Private Sector (and those my friends have worked in use a formula like [#days off] x [occasions (squared)]. This gives the Bradford Score. so 5 x 1 day absences = 125. but 1 x 5 day absence = 5. I think most places used to have a limit of 65 or so. Anything above that resulted in a talking to. Anything over 100 probably resulted in a reduced payrise (if approved based on profits, obviously) or even disciplinary action in extreme cases.


----------



## Complainer (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



Pique318 said:


> I'm sorry, but I can't reconcile these two statements


Low-paid public sector staff who's pension entitlement comes out below the standard old-age pension get no occupational pension, just the standard OAP. So they paid pension deductions all their working life and now they pay the pension levy, and they get nothing for it.


----------



## DonDub (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> I think maybe a breakaway thread should be set up entitled 'Public Sector sick leave'.
> 
> To go slightly back on point, I think the media will often extract juicy headlines from reports without providing any proper analysis. For instance, I know very few Public Servants who take an average of 16 sick days a year. I do, however, know of a small number of lazy, dishonest parasites who take far, far more than that every year. Therefore, the 'average' Public Servant is not taking 16 days sick leave annually, but 'a very small number' of Public Servants are taking vastly excessive amounts of sick days per annum.
> 
> ...


 
If a private sector business treats staff badly it is answerable before tribunals, the LRC/Labour Court and the civil courts. Also, if employees in these businesses abuse sick leave and/or other entitlements, they will negatively impact the competitiveness of the business, which will generally lead to profit decline, which in turn leads to rationalisation, and ultimately job losses. So, even in businesses where nut-job union reps are at large, the market will eventually act to correct abuses.
However, in the PS there is no such correction factor - thus leaving management, employees and unions complete freedom to abuse entitlements/regulations, over-charge for services, under-deliver, militate, strike,mismanage etc etc.....By the way, this PS problem isnt a new issue, its decades old. 
In summary, the Private Sector 'does or die', while the PS 'doesn't and lives'.....sick really....


----------



## Protocol (23 Oct 2009)

Why not give an annual bonus to any worker with no or very low sick leave?


----------



## becky (23 Oct 2009)

Protocol said:


> Why not give an annual bonus to any worker with no or very low sick leave?


 
PS workers get generous holidays, their bonus is the cheque that gets lodged to their account every month.

I don't agree with with bonuses in the PS/CS - never have.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Oct 2009)

becky said:


> PS workers get generous holidays, their bonus is the cheque that gets lodged to their account every month.


 
Starting off employment in the PS you get 21 days....is this generous holidays?



becky said:


> I don't agree with with bonuses in the PS/CS - never have.


 
What bonuses are you referring to?


----------



## Sue Ellen (23 Oct 2009)

*Re: Media "myths" that get on your nerves*



liaconn said:


> Well, as going off topic is against the rules, maybe this thread should just be closed.



Good idea.


----------

