# Croke Park 2 - dead before it gets voted upon



## Leper

Some of the main features of the three-year agreement which would run to June 2016 include:

*** Those currently on a working week of less than 35 hours will in future work a minimum of 37 hours - [No big deal here, but it wont happen]

*** Those working between 35 and under 39 hours will have to put in at least 39 hours, with additional hours helping to cut public sector numbers[Rank and File Public Servants will spit on this and it has no chance]

*** Reduced overtime rates, down to time and half for those on less than €35,000; time and a quarter for those earning more than €35,000[Much overtime has been cut already and all this will do is increase those working for time in lieu]

*** Public servants currently on a 39 hour week will provide an unpaid hour’s overtime [Just when Public Servants dont want to concede an inch after all the concessions already made]

*** So-called twilight payments - for work between 6pm and 8pm - will be abolished [No big deal, but important to those working long days, a sour taste though and just another nail in the public service workers coffin]

* A reduced Sunday rate of pay, down from double-time to time-and-three-quarters.[Another reduction on top of those already mentioned, no chance of being accepted]

*** A three-year freeze on annual pay rises for those earning more than €65,000 [Some light here, I'd love to be earning over €65,000]

*** Public sector workers with salaries between €35,000 and €65,000 will get two 15-monthly rather than annual pay rises over the period of the agreement.[Another beating by those who are beating public servants already]

*** Those on less than €35,000 will have a three-month postponement on their first due pay rise, before returning to annual increments as normal[Just another joke]

*** Those at the top of their pay scales will have to give up six days annual leave over the next three years or offer an equivalent cash deduction from their salary[over their dead bodies]

*** High-earners will have their salaries and allowances cut 5.5 per cent for those between €65,000 and €80,000; with 8 per cent off earnings between €80,000 and €150,000; 9 per cent off pay between €150,000 and €185,000; and 10 per cent shaved off any earnings above €185,000[Irrelelevant to the rank and file proles]

*** The cuts would mean someone on €100,000 salary and allowances would be down €6,000 to €94,000; someone on €160,000 would have their earnings cut to €149,100; while a top public servant on €200,000 would see their pay cut to €185,350 [The rank and file wont even read this]

*** Supervision and substitution payments for teaching staff to be ended.[Dont bet on it]

*** Other cutbacks include changes to flexitime, work sharing arrangements, redeployment provisions, new performance management arrangements and pay-grade restructuring [Discussions wont even reach this far]

I listened to RTE Radio News at 4.00pm today.  The unions couldnt say what they negotiated; the government spokespeople couldn't help either. But press statements are being prepared.

If I were a union official I would be worried about the mass resignations to membership if any of the above proceeds beyond next week.

If I were a politician I would be worried that any loyalty from rank and file civil servants would remain.

The Gardaí have already cast contempt for the above.  The Irish Nurses Organisation have thrown in their lot with the Gardaí also.  I reckon the trades unions that remained within the talks are walking the plank as regards their members or should I say recent members?


----------



## Betsy Og

A few points:

I dont know why they didnt have the required cuts a few years back when we were in dire straits and big decisions were needed - it seems a bit crueler (& less politically savvy)to be bringing them in now just as we seem to be turning the corner.

As regards hours, anyone I work with has a 37 hour week but routinely work 50 anyway (no overtime or time in lieu), so doubt much public tears shed over that one.

Re paycuts, thats the problem with unions, its all about the herd, the good suffer to compensate for the malingerers. So while there's bound to be some dead wood that could be cut, they are preserved forevermore so the younger people with the mortgages have to take a hit to pay.

At least your job is secure (no talk of compulsory redundancies) and you probably have a pension that the private sector workers can only dream of. So while its all bad news its not the bullet that many people have been presented with.


----------



## NOAH

does any of the above apply to our politicians?  Oh I forgot, they get money for everything,  2 mobile phones a year, free ipads,  subsidised restuarant and bar, free car parking,  attendance allowances,  travel allowances, un vouched allowances, free phone calls,  and on it goes,  of I nearly forgot, a taxed allowance of 98k a year on top.

Now I left out a few bits but you get the picture. 

Lets have a croke park2 and all the money we get deducted from the vulnerable will of course come into handy to continue paying all our allowances.

simples.


----------



## celebtastic

Betsy Og said:


> A few points:
> 
> I dont know why they didnt have the required cuts a few years back when we were in dire straits and big decisions were needed - it seems a bit crueler (& less politically savvy)to be bringing them in now just as we seem to be turning the corner.
> 
> As regards hours, anyone I work with has a 37 hour week but routinely work 50 anyway (no overtime or time in lieu), so doubt much public tears shed over that one.
> 
> Re paycuts, thats the problem with unions, its all about the herd, the good suffer to compensate for the malingerers. So while there's bound to be some dead wood that could be cut, they are preserved forevermore so the younger people with the mortgages have to take a hit to pay.
> 
> At least your job is secure (no talk of compulsory redundancies) and you probably have a pension that the private sector workers can only dream of. So while its all bad news its not the bullet that many people have been presented with.



+ 1 to all that.

Sad to see that increments haven't been frozen. Automatic pay rises based on time served, rather than ability, are a disgrace.

Is the "flexi" impacted at all?

Fully agree that these measures should have been implemented years ago.


----------



## micmclo

How do twilight payments work?
Don't staff already get overtime if they work late?

I hope it's not one of these looney schemes like staff getting time off to cash cheques which we were talking about a few years ago

edit, found the answer to my own question


> Special rates for ‘twilight‘ hours – where staff are paid at time-and-one-sixth for working between 6pm and 8pm


----------



## gianni

celebtastic said:


> Sad to see that increments haven't been frozen.



***  A three-year *freeze *on annual pay rises for those earning more than €65,000

***   Public sector workers with salaries between €35,000 and €65,000 will  get two three month *freezes *over the period of the  agreement.

***  Those on less than €35,000 will  have one three-month *freeze *over the period of the  agreement.




micmclo said:


> How do twilight payments work?
> Don't staff already get overtime if they work late?



Twilight payments were given to some public sector staff who worked between 6pm and 8pm. Those contracted to '9-5' jobs would, in most instances, get overtime payments for working at those hours.


----------



## Delboy

it's dead all right...Jack O'Connor tonight (he wore a red tie to confirm his credentials!) on Primetime played dumb to most of the questions put to him, especially the one about compulsory redundancies (for staff who won't redeploy within the specified mileage limits and who have not taken up VS when it was available).....kind of hung out to dry his colleague Patricia King on that one

I think we're looking at strikes ahead, if only for the fact that a lot of union leaders will lose their plum posts if they're seen to side with the deal


----------



## Leper

Delboy said:


> I think we're looking at strikes ahead, if only for the fact that a lot of union leaders will lose their plum posts if they're seen to side with the deal


 
People in the public service learnt long ago that strikes dont work and the only people affected are themselves; industrial action, yes but it will not be strikes.

As for the unions, if this is the best they could come up with . . . there is no point in being a member of a trades union.  And the "finer" details are not available even yet.  Forget about red ties and other red herrings this so called fair deal is dead in the water.  

. . . and of course, the people who caused this recession are no nearer jail and the senate rolls on and despite promises is not within a smell of being disbanded (or for that matter being put to referendum for disbandment).


----------



## BOXtheFOX

Betsy Og said:


> Re paycuts, thats the problem with unions, its all about the herd, the good suffer to compensate for the malingerers.


 
One of the reasons I jumped ship some years ago. The malingerers were winning every time. The problem with this deal is that the good workers are already saying "what's the point". Any unpaid or voluntary tasks taken on board by the good will fall by the wayside.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Leper I certainly have sympathy for a lot of the rank and file members of the public sector in the cuts being proposed here. Certainly imho anyone earning under €35K should not have to suffer further cuts. But I do take issue with some of the arguments you're making (below).



Leper said:


> *** Those at the top of their pay scales will have to give up six days annual leave over the next three years or offer an equivalent cash deduction from their salary[over their dead bodies]
> 
> *** High-earners will have their salaries and allowances cut 5.5 per cent for those between €65,000 and €80,000; with 8 per cent off earnings between €80,000 and €150,000; 9 per cent off pay between €150,000 and €185,000; and 10 per cent shaved off any earnings above €185,000[Irrelelevant to the rank and file proles]
> 
> *** The cuts would mean someone on €100,000 salary and allowances would be down €6,000 to €94,000; someone on €160,000 would have their earnings cut to €149,100; while a top public servant on €200,000 would see their pay cut to €185,350 [The rank and file wont even read this]


All the time we hear the ordinary punter on the street wants to see those earning the most taking the biggest hit and yet here you are saying the rank and file won't care about cuts to those earning the most? I disagree, I think the cuts to those earning over 100K and especially those earning over 150K have not been nearly harsh enough in these proposals.
Also, whilst it may not be palatable to the rank and file members the basic fact remains that the public sector pay *as a whole* remains much more than the country can afford. There is no getting away from this.


----------



## cork

I think those earning less than 65k & working bewteen 9 & 5 will carry this deal.

But what was needed was public sector reform.


We still don't have this.


----------



## celebtastic

In the abscence of compulsory redundancies, this really is a missed opportunity.

There are so many things that we have public servants employed to do that could either be stopped completely, or outsourced to the private sector. 

For example, I went to the Companies Registration Office in Dublin recently, and it looked like an episode out of Fr Ted with half of them drinking tea or staring out the window. Why arent these roles automated or outsourced to someone who could run it as a profit centre?

This sort of waste when the country is broke is a real scandal.


----------



## Firefly

Hi celebtastic,

It seems to me you have (and I've already posted this) a serious problem with public servants. Whilst I am all for balancing the books so that my children do not have to pay for our largesse, you post is a contender for worst post of the year. If I was to guess, you probably left a relatively cushy PS job yourself and now regret your decision. By the way, I've done work for lots of organisations myself, mostly private but some public and I can say without doubt that dossing goes on everywhere. 

For what it's worth, I had a completely different experience the last time my accountant set up a company for me - it was done pronto. 

Firefly.


----------



## celebtastic

Firefly said:


> Hi celebtastic,
> 
> It seems to me you have (and I've already posted this) a serious problem with public servants. Whilst I am all for balancing the books so that my children do not have to pay for our largesse, you post is a contender for worst post of the year. If I was to guess, you probably left a relatively cushy PS job yourself and now regret your decision. By the way, I've done work for lots of organisations myself, mostly private but some public and I can say without doubt that dossing goes on everywhere.
> 
> For what it's worth, I had a completely different experience the last time my accountant set up a company for me - it was done pronto.
> 
> Firefly.


 
Please attack the ball, not the man.


----------



## Bill Struth

celebtastic said:


> For example, I went to the Companies Registration Office in Dublin recently, and it looked like an episode out of Fr Ted with half of them drinking tea or staring out the window.


 Were you there as a customer at the public counter?


----------



## Ceist Beag

celebtastic said:


> For example, I went to the Companies Registration Office in Dublin recently, and it looked like an episode out of Fr Ted with half of them drinking tea or staring out the window. Why arent these roles automated or outsourced to someone who could run it as a profit centre?
> 
> This sort of waste when the country is broke is a real scandal.



You quote one episode where you saw people drinking tea as an example of "waste" and a "real scandal"? Arguments are seriously weakened when hysterical conclusions are drawn from such limited data!


----------



## RonanC

celebtastic said:


> For example,  Why arent these roles automated or outsourced to someone who could run it as a profit centre?



What reason did you visit the CRO? Could you not have filed the document electronically? Was is an information visit? Where you looking for copies of documents or blank forms? All this available online and more or less fully automated. That is public service reform right there. Your one line comment and one off experience is an insult to all public servants.


----------



## Kine

Will the last person to leave the country please turn off the lights..


----------



## dereko1969

celebtastic said:


> + 1 to all that.
> 
> Sad to see that increments haven't been frozen. Automatic pay rises based on time served, rather than ability, are a disgrace.
> 
> *Is the "flexi" impacted at all?*
> 
> Fully agree that these measures should have been implemented years ago.


 
Flexi is going from 1 1/2 days per 4 week period to 1 day per 4 week period. Plus given most staff will now have to work more hours per week will mean you have to work double the "extra" hours to get a day off in future.


----------



## TarfHead

RonanC said:


> Your one line comment and one off experience is an insult to all public servants.


 
Ah lads, would ye not be feeding the trolls ! They'll only come back for another mouthful .

I don't work in the publlic service, am not a member of a trade union, and would be very agitated if this were being proposed for my current employment.

But, I am also a tax payer and current budget deficit has to be reduced. What was the counter-proposal, from employee representatives, for reducing the cost of the public service by €1bn. ?


----------



## Bill Struth

celebtastic said:


> Is the "flexi" impacted at all?


 You've been told time and again that flexi time benefits both management and staff.

What's your problem with it?


----------



## Birroc

Public servants are indeed getting hit again but it is still true that any private sector workers would jump at the chance of getting an equivalent job in the public sector.

And so we have a plan to save another €1,000,000,000 from the budget deficit, what about the other €14,000,000,000??
5 years of austerity, its very very slow progress (?) and many billions for our kids and grandkids to pay back.


----------



## cork

An opportunity to reform the public sector was missed.

Why hit hurses & keep tiers of administration?

What is wrong with reforming how services are delivered?


----------



## Teatime

cork said:


> An opportunity to reform the public sector was missed.
> 
> Why hit hurses & keep tiers of administration?


 
Agreed, the biggest problem with the HSE and it's budget is the back office bureaucracy. It is simply rediculous. So so many back office resources/roles doing zero value add work. You will not fix the HSE without completely restructuring it and that must include major compulsory redundancies (which should have happened when the health boards were merged) or major redeployments. The front line nurses and doctors are cracking up with the amount of process/admin/paperwork.


----------



## NOAH

this is worrying from the IT today "The document also says that ?there will be full co-operation by the parties with the review (of travel and subsistence arrangements) and the implementation of a standardised system of travel and subsistence across the public service?."  

Does this mean they ie the PS workers will get same T&S as our TD's???


And am I right in assuming that TD's are part of the PS and as they all earn over 65k they will get hit and not get an increase for the next 3 years ie into the next electoral period?  If true i am well happy but they should ie the TD's get cut a lot more.

noah


----------



## Marion

there are many public sector/service workers hurting badly  because of the impact of Croke Park2.

Many of us have mortgages to pay. 

Marion


----------



## Leper

Teatime said:


> .. . . The front line nurses and doctors are cracking up with the amount of process/admin/paperwork.


 
1. Do the nurses/doctors want to do this work? Have we got Medical Staff doing what clerical officers should be doing? How much overtime does the average nurse do? What overtime pay do they get? What weekend allowances are they paid? What other additional payments do they receive and for what?

2. What clerical work is done by doctors?

3. From what I have listend to from Irish Nurses union representatives is that they are not to do clerical work. Why is this still happening?

I understand much clerical staff in our health boards do not get overtime and must spend unpaid hours trying to catch up on anything necessary. I understand nurses do loads of overtime and that many hospital doctors work in excess of 100 hours per week with overtime of course. Furthermore, Freedom of Information dictates that any patient or former patient must provide details of charts/files pertaining to him. Obviously, these need to be photocopied and sent to the patient; I presume its is clerical staff process these cases? Obviously, the work is unproductive and necessary.  If we want this service the taxpayer foots the bill.

We live in a haven for litigation and until this ceases all clerical costs in our health services will be expensive.


----------



## gianni

Birroc said:


> Public servants are indeed getting hit again but it is still true that any private sector workers would jump at the chance of getting an equivalent job in the public sector.


 
They should have been looking at


----------



## celebtastic

gianni said:


> They should have been looking at




Where the Terms and Conditions offered for any advertised role are far less generous than those enjoyed by incumbent public servants.

So even within the PS, there are now two tiers: one for the existing unionised workforce, and one for new joiners.

You couldn't make it up!!

Ni neart go cur le cheile


----------



## Bill Struth

celebtastic said:


> Where the Terms and Conditions offered for any advertised role are far less generous than those enjoyed by incumbent public servants.
> 
> So even within the PS, there are now two tiers: one for the existing unionised workforce, and one for new joiners.
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it up!!
> 
> Ni neart go cur le cheile


 
Any chance of an answer to the below???


Bill Struth said:


> Were you there as a customer at the public counter?


 


Bill Struth said:


> You've been told time and again that flexi time benefits both management and staff.
> 
> What's your problem with it?


----------



## Sunny

celebtastic said:


> Where the Terms and Conditions offered for any advertised role are far less generous than those enjoyed by incumbent public servants.
> 
> So even within the PS, there are now two tiers: one for the existing unionised workforce, and one for new joiners.
> 
> You couldn't make it up!!
> 
> Ni neart go cur le cheile



And private sector companies aren't offering new employees new terms and conditions that are lower than existing employees to reflect new economic reality and the fact that there are more people chasing the same jobs?? Believe me they are because I am one of those doing the chasing. 

I think someone above said you were trolling. I have to agree so continue to write what you want but I am not responding anymore.


----------



## blueband

Marion said:


> there are many public sector/service workers hurting badly because of the impact of Croke Park2.
> 
> Many of us have mortgages to pay.
> 
> Marion


many people in the private sector have mortgages to pay and are hurting badly too, only dfference is they dont have job scurity or fat pensions to look forward to.


----------



## Protocol

NOAH said:


> And am I right in assuming that TD's are part of the PS and as they all earn over 65k they will get hit and not get an increase for the next 3 years ie into the next electoral period? If true i am well happy but they should ie the TD's get cut a lot more.


 
YES, this is the third pay cut for TDs, same as for other PS workers.


----------



## cork

Will the deal get the votes to get through?


----------



## Purple

I find it disturbing that people seem to take pleasure in Public Sector employees getting their pay cut.
It is absolutely necessary and has to happen but it’s also unfair and very harsh on those affected.

The problem is that the massive pay increases that were given by Bertie and the boys should never have been given but people adjust their lifestyle accordingly and took on debt that still had to be serviced. The bad guys here aren’t the current government, it’s the last government(s) and the fat-cat union leaders who sold the country down the river during a decade of Social(ist) Partnership. 

There are only two countries in the EU that have collective bargaining for Public Servants; Ireland and Greece.
There are 5 countries in the EU where Public Sector workers get paid more than their direct counterparts in the Private Sector; Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain.

We rank at the bottom of the pile in the OECD for value for money and efficiency in our Health Service. I would be very surprised if we weren’t in the same place for the rest of our Public Services.

The bad guys here are the incompetent management, the previous populist governments and the greedy and self-serving unions that thwart all attempts at real reform for the sake of it because they are ideologically  hostile to management because of their stupid bankrupt socialist dogma.

The problems we face are systemic and vast. The solution isn’t to cut wages till input costs balance out waste, it’s to reduce the levels of waste and inefficiency until the wage costs are sustainable. At that stage if wage reductions are required then they must be imposed.

Most people want to work well and do a good job. When the system they work within in structurally inefficient and wasteful it’s very hard not to become demoralised and give up. People are the greatest resource any organisation has. If it doesn’t use them efficiently no amount of money will deliver good services or product.


----------



## Deiseblue

Any Trade Unions overlying premise is to protect & if possible enhance the terms of conditions of it's members .

It is hugely unfair to state that Unions have always objected to reform , the advent of the Social Partnership model being a case in point - the success of which lead in no small part to the advent of the Celtic Tiger , unfortunately all thrown away by the elite cadre of our Banks & Developers aided by the manifestly unethical FF led Government.

A further case in point is the Unions involvement in the original Croke Park Agreement which undoubtedly has delivered major reform.

I do agree that if CPA 2 is voted in then we will be left with a hugely demotivated Public Sector workforce who will I would think operate a work ethic that will simply be to do the strict minimum required of them - indeed a mate of mine in the PS said that the approx. 30 minutes additional daily time required of him will be spent sulking at his desk - disappointing I know but understandable as well !


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Any Trade Unions overlying premise is to protect & if possible enhance the terms of conditions of it's members .


 I agree and due to their greed and bullying through ten years of socialist partnership during which time union leaders usurped the role of the people in the democratic process they have done huge damage to the medium term pay and T&C’s of their members. 



Deiseblue said:


> It is hugely unfair to state that Unions have always objected to reform , the advent of the Social Partnership model being a case in point - the success of which lead in no small part to the advent of the Celtic Tiger , unfortunately all thrown away by the elite cadre of our Banks & Developers aided by the manifestly unethical FF led Government.


Nonsense; Socialist Partnership added an unsustainable cost burden on the state and has cost this country tens of billions. The Union fat-cats were at the top table with the bankers and developers and their respective pet politicians carving up this country. The most apt image is the last few pages of Animal Farm. 



Deiseblue said:


> A further case in point is the Unions involvement in the original Croke Park Agreement which undoubtedly has delivered major reform.


 “Major” is in the eye of the beholder. 



Deiseblue said:


> I do agree that if CPA 2 is voted in then we will be left with a hugely demotivated Public Sector workforce who will I would think operate a work ethic that will simply be to do the strict minimum required of them - indeed a mate of mine in the PS said that the approx. 30 minutes additional daily time required of him will be spent sulking at his desk - disappointing I know but understandable as well !


 I’m still waiting to hear what the Brethren will suggest instead, other than hot air and waffle.


----------



## Firefly

blueband said:


> many people in the private sector have mortgages to pay and are hurting badly too, only dfference is they dont have job scurity or fat pensions to look forward to.



Hi blueband,

Regarding security: this is a very subjective thing. In the aggregate you are probably right, but personally, I would feel very _insecure_ if my future livelihood was totally dependent on one, single employer as many in the public sector, I fear, are.

Regarding pensions: one of the side-effects regarding the unions fixation with avoiding job losses, is that it puts more pressure on the future generation to fund all these pensions. Considering that the pension reserve fund is low, our national debt is massive (and growing) and that the future generation will obviously have to pay for their own public services, then I personally wouldn't be feeling too plum if that's all I had coming to me. I won't go into specifics but we are due a public sector pension ourselves for about 15 years service, but view it as a bonus if it's paid.


----------



## Deiseblue

The Trade Unions were simply doing their job , if you have a difficulty with the terms & conditions negotiated freely with the employers then I can only suggest that your main gripe is surely with those who acquiesced to the terms granted.

Over the course of the last decades the Social partnership model guaranteed industrial peace in exchange for modest wage increases & advantageous tax reforms - I do not recall any bullying taking place , instead we experienced decades of Industrial peace as opposed to the industrial mayhem that prevailed in the years preceding partnership leading to the Celtic Tiger which was thrown away by the lightly regulated free market.

The wage increases granted under the various national wage agreement were indeed modest ( I know I received them ! ) - people's biggest bugbear appears to be with the various benchmarking exercises , it should be remembered however that this was a Government initiative & was not driven by either Trade Union requests or demands.

Management clearly failed appallingly in this regard as the Unions once again agreed to a variety of reforming measures as part of the benchmarking process but management failed to pursue the delivery of such reforms assiduously - it most certainly was not a case of Unions blocking such reform.

One way or the other we are going to be left with a hugely bolshy , disincentivised workforce whose morale will be at an all time low & the quality of our public services is going to plummet alarmingly .

The Unions views on raising the required monies are myriad , I would suggest a good place to start is www.impact.ie under news archives.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> The Trade Unions were simply doing their job , if you have a difficulty with the terms & conditions negotiated freely with the employers then I can only suggest that your main gripe is surely with those who acquiesced to the terms granted.
> 
> Over the course of the last decades the Social partnership model guaranteed industrial peace in exchange for modest wage increases & advantageous tax reforms - I do not recall any bullying taking place , instead we experienced decades of Industrial peace as opposed to the industrial mayhem that prevailed in the years preceding partnership leading to the Celtic Tiger which was thrown away by the lightly regulated free market.
> 
> The wage increases granted under the various national wage agreement were indeed modest ( I know I received them ! ) - people's biggest bugbear appears to be with the various benchmarking exercises , it should be remembered however that this was a Government initiative & was not driven by either Trade Union requests or demands.
> 
> Management clearly failed appallingly in this regard as the Unions once again agreed to a variety of reforming measures as part of the benchmarking process but management failed to pursue the delivery of such reforms assiduously - it most certainly was not a case of Unions blocking such reform.
> 
> One way or the other we are going to be left with a hugely bolshy , disincentivised workforce whose morale will be at an all time low & the quality of our public services is going to plummet alarmingly .
> 
> The Unions views on raising the required monies are myriad , I would suggest a good place to start is www.impact.ie under news archives.



We've been around the block enough times to know that we won't agree on this issue.
I am of the opinion that those who were the drivers in the Socialist Partnership golden circle are responsible for their actions and that their actions have had negative consequences far beyond the vested interest groups that those people represented.

I also believe that those people looked for short term gains which were unsustainable and are responsible for the medium to long term impact of their actions on those they represented. 

If a child eats too many sweets and doesn’t brush then their parents are responsible for their rotten teeth.
If an adult does the same thing then they are responsible for their own teeth.
Your hypothesis seems to be that the Union Fat-Cats are like children, not responsible for the consequences of their actions. My view is that they wanted to sit at the table with the grown-up’s and so have to be held to account as if they were grown-ups, even if their understanding of economics and simplistic world view indicates otherwise.


----------



## Deiseblue

Agreed - we are not going to agree 

My opinion remains unchanged , Unions primarily exist to protect & if possible enhance the terms & conditions of it's members .

The Unions were pragmatic enough to enter into social partnership which in my opinion led to the advent of the Celtic Tiger which was then thwon away.

Actually as I read the above it strikes me you are right we are simply retreading old ground - I have no doubt we will debate the issue again , perhaps around the time the union members cast their votes ?


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Agreed - we are not going to agree
> 
> My opinion remains unchanged , Unions primarily exist to protect & if possible enhance the terms & conditions of it's members .
> 
> The Unions were pragmatic enough to enter into social partnership which in my opinion led to the advent of the Celtic Tiger which was then thwon away.
> 
> Actually as I read the above it strikes me you are right we are simply retreading old ground - I have no doubt we will debate the issue again , perhaps around the time the union members cast their votes ?



I find that these circular discussions eventually grind to a halt if they are not lubricated with beer.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> The Unions were pragmatic enough to enter into social partnership which in my opinion led to the advent of the Celtic Tiger which was then thwon away.





 My opinion is that unicorns exist and live in the forests of Eastern Russia but, just like you, I have to evidence to support my opinion


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> The Trade Unions were simply doing their job



I agree with this and think that the union should be doing everything in its power to represent its members. However, I don't think they did. There are in effect 3 groups of civil servants of interest now. (1) Those who entered in the Celtic Tiger, who, in a "normal" economy would not have been hired (2) Those working in the public sectors for many years and joined prior to the Celtic Tiger and (3) those recently retired. Groups (1) and (3) are the winners, IMO. Group 2 are effectively having their pay cut to finance those in group (1). Group 3 were always going to get away relatively unscathed because we haven't hit the bottom yet. The unions and government are responsible for killing the golden goose by expanding the numbers in the public sector in the way that they did. You mention below that the wage increases under bench-marking were not anything great and I agree. However, reversing this benchmarking via paycuts can only go so far before it becomes obvious that it's a head-count issue. If I was in group 2 I would be livid with my union. 



Deiseblue said:


> Over the course of the last decades the Social partnership model guaranteed industrial peace


I often wonder about that. In the grand scheme of things, what's wrong with a few strikes or are well all gone soft?  You'd also have to ask yourself what kind of support those striking would receive from the general public...




Deiseblue said:


> Management clearly failed appallingly


Considering that management themselves are in unions is it any wonder they didn't implement reform? Why should they when they are so protected?



Deiseblue said:


> One way or the other we are going to be left with a hugely bolshy , disincentivised workforce whose morale will be at an all time low & the quality of our public services is going to plummet alarmingly .



I totally agree and those paying for the service will ultimately pay. Would it not have been fairer to shutdown the servcices deemed least important/unaffordable whilst safeguarding the remaining workers and services?


----------



## Deiseblue

Purple said:


> My opinion is that unicorns exist and live in the forests of Eastern Russia but, just like you, I have to evidence to support my opinion



As a pragmatic Trade Unionist living in the real world I must tell you that unicorns do not exist - as a group they decided not to avail of Trade Union membership & were ultimately wiped out by a running dogs of capitalism pack 

I have better news for you though on the existence of the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus _ _ _


----------



## Sunny

Deiseblue said:


> As a pragmatic Trade Unionist living in the real world I must tell you that unicorns do not exist - as a group they decided not to avail of Trade Union membership & were ultimately wiped out by a running dogs of capitalism pack
> 
> I have better news for you though on the existence of the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus _ _ _



Surely Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are shining examples of capitalist pigs so hated by trade unions? Maybe not the original versions but they have sold their image rights and are probably not paying a penny in tax. They probably have tax arrangements set up like google and do the double Irish.


----------



## mandelbrot

Birroc said:


> Public servants are indeed getting hit again but it is still true that any private sector workers would jump at the chance of getting an equivalent job in the public sector.


 
This kind of generalisation really grinds my gears in the whole public/private debate - I know people who have turned down some of the few public sector jobs (in lower/middle management) on offer in recent times, because the package on offer - lower pay than they could command in private sector, but better terms (working hours, holidays) - couldn't justify the loss of earnings for comparative employment in the private sector.

Similarly, I know of a competition to recruit staff for ICT roles in the last year or so, where they were unable to fill all positions because of the gap between the market rates, and the public sector payscales for those roles.

For recent & current entrants, myself included, there is a healthy skepticism about the value of our supposed "gold-plated" pensions - I can't afford to assume that it'll be there waiting for me in 35 years, but I am paying just over 10% of my salary in there already (if you include the pension levy) without any say in the matter, so I suppose I just have to hope for the best... I took a job which involved about 15-20% drop in gross pay, and a bigger drop in net pay if you factor in the pension levy/contribution that I would have opted out of if I could. The incremental scale and what I now consider an overestimation of the value of my pension, and job security, were critical to my decision. I now have to have a long hard look at my position - ironically my private sector employability has improved as a result of my public sector employment.

The mantra of not being able to afford to continuing to pay "excessive" wages to PS staff is all well and good, but the reality is that if you pay peanuts you will only ever get monkeys. For example:

The young, mobile, highly educated/qualified, recent entrants to the PS will head back to the private sector ASAP, as the arithmetic will no longer add up to be in there - longer hours for less pay and less flexible working, and as I already mentioned, less value being placed on the promise of pension. With increments being messed around with, and advancement by way of promotion non-existent (redeployment being the order of the day to fill vacant roles, with scant regard for how suitable the candidate is for the role), the brightest and best simply cannot and will not stay. 

This will reduce headcount, but not by getting rid of the deadwood - the people who are "lifers"; the ones everyone has heard stories about, who occasionally sit at their desk in between tea breaks, and are largely left alone because it's easier to do so than to waste others' time trying to cajole normal levels of productivity out of them. These people are inevitably the last ones to leave; they know they're onto a good thing (though they'd never admit it of course), so they're going nowhere until either a package is offered to entice them out, or they reach retirement. I see nothing in this deal to put skates under these people - they are a small but costly minority of the PS workforce, everyone knows they exist, and they should be the ones weeded out.

This for me is the real failure of the process, by both sides involved; they took yet more relatively easy decisions that will just cause more problems further down the line, rather than agreeing on real public sector reform.


----------



## Sunny

Well said.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> As a *pragmatic* *Trade Unionist **living in the real world *




I didn’t think it was possible to fit two oxymoron’s into the same sentence


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Well said.



+1 excellent post.


----------



## DerKaiser

Purple said:


> I didn’t think it was possible to fit two oxymoron’s into the same sentence


 
The 'Pragmatic' in 'Pragmatic Trade Unionism' refers to the pragmatism of defending your own patch rather than a pragmatism on the state of the country. It's the definition of pragmatism to try ensure that you're not the sucker who takes the hit.

I think Deiseblue has always been up front and honest about the self interest element of trade unionism as opposed to any utopian socialist ideal.

I've no doubt you're an advocate of capitalism as it serves your self interest.

You guys are the same really!

99% of us are in pursuit of self interest, should we really care about the form (capitalism, socialism, etc) it takes?


----------



## Purple

DerKaiser said:


> You guys are the same really!


I know; if only he'd just admit it!


----------



## Leper

I think Croke Park 2 is dead in the water.  The real affects are trickling down and those who have been beaten down are set to be beaten down more.  

The Gardaí are not buying the deal and although on the peripheral of talks have long opted out.  The Nurses have thrown their hat at the negotiations also.  So have some other trades unions.  But, the CPSU (Civic and Public Services Union) have now abandoned Croke Park 2.  Remember the CPSU up to a few short years ago were the laughing stock of trades unions with as much clout as a sick maggot.  They have copped themselves on over the recent years and have become a lot less toothless.  

SIPTU and IMPACT are still trying to sell Croke Park 2 to their members.  I wonder if they can withstand the migration of their members shortly? Croke Park 2 is dead.


----------



## Deiseblue

The Irish Federation of University Teachers with 2000 members & the TUI with 15000 members are both to recommend that the terms of the proposed deal be rejected.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> The Irish Federation of University Teachers with 2000 members & the TUI with 15000 members are both to recommend that the terms of the proposed deal be rejected.


Higher paid so-called "Front Line" state employees are all against the deal.
They are victims of their own misinformation; for years they have quoted their basic salary when talking about pay levels and ignored the fact that a  large proportion of their pay was made up of allowances that would not have been given in any other job or, in the case of yard supervision payments for teachers, used to be part of their core function and was carried out without extra payments for over 50 years. Now those allowances are being targeted and because the people receiving them have always minimised their scale and value the general public don’t see the big deal, in fact many see them as excessive perks that shouldn’t have been paid in the first place.
The allowance for the Gardai are even greater than those for teachers.


----------



## Bill Struth

mandelbrot said:


> This kind of generalisation really grinds my gears in the whole public/private debate - I know people who have turned down some of the few public sector jobs (in lower/middle management) on offer in recent times, because the package on offer - lower pay than they could command in private sector, but better terms (working hours, holidays) - couldn't justify the loss of earnings for comparative employment in the private sector.
> 
> Similarly, I know of a competition to recruit staff for ICT roles in the last year or so, where they were unable to fill all positions because of the gap between the market rates, and the public sector payscales for those roles.
> 
> For recent & current entrants, myself included, there is a healthy skepticism about the value of our supposed "gold-plated" pensions - I can't afford to assume that it'll be there waiting for me in 35 years, but I am paying just over 10% of my salary in there already (if you include the pension levy) without any say in the matter, so I suppose I just have to hope for the best... I took a job which involved about 15-20% drop in gross pay, and a bigger drop in net pay if you factor in the pension levy/contribution that I would have opted out of if I could. The incremental scale and what I now consider an overestimation of the value of my pension, and job security, were critical to my decision. I now have to have a long hard look at my position - ironically my private sector employability has improved as a result of my public sector employment.
> 
> The mantra of not being able to afford to continuing to pay "excessive" wages to PS staff is all well and good, but the reality is that if you pay peanuts you will only ever get monkeys. For example:
> 
> The young, mobile, highly educated/qualified, recent entrants to the PS will head back to the private sector ASAP, as the arithmetic will no longer add up to be in there - longer hours for less pay and less flexible working, and as I already mentioned, less value being placed on the promise of pension. With increments being messed around with, and advancement by way of promotion non-existent (redeployment being the order of the day to fill vacant roles, with scant regard for how suitable the candidate is for the role), the brightest and best simply cannot and will not stay.
> 
> This will reduce headcount, but not by getting rid of the deadwood - the people who are "lifers"; the ones everyone has heard stories about, who occasionally sit at their desk in between tea breaks, and are largely left alone because it's easier to do so than to waste others' time trying to cajole normal levels of productivity out of them. These people are inevitably the last ones to leave; they know they're onto a good thing (though they'd never admit it of course), so they're going nowhere until either a package is offered to entice them out, or they reach retirement. I see nothing in this deal to put skates under these people - they are a small but costly minority of the PS workforce, everyone knows they exist, and they should be the ones weeded out.
> 
> This for me is the real failure of the process, by both sides involved; they took yet more relatively easy decisions that will just cause more problems further down the line, rather than agreeing on real public sector reform.


A massive +1.

By the way, the 'lifers' you mentioned, I'm surrounded by them. Men and women in their 50's and 60's sitting at the top of the pay scale, mortgages paid off, children grown up. Doing the absolute bare minimum, because a 1 or 2 in their so called 'annual review' doesn't matter anyway, and management letting it happen. Happy to collect their pay cheque every friday.
These people are the real winners from CP2.

Meanwhile the likes of myself has been in the Civil Service for 10+ years, have got consistently high annual review grades, and is still a Clerical Officer. It is soul destroying to see my colleagues happy to float along, not doing much at all, while I work hard for less money and no prospects of career advancement whatsoever.

I did a head count the other day. We have 40 people from Service Officer up to Assistant Principal in this office. 
If I was running my own business, I would employ 7 of them. At a stretch.

If the CPSU thinks I'm going out on strike to protect the lifers, they have another thing coming. I've got a mortgage to pay and a daughter to feed.


----------



## Purple

Bill Struth said:


> A massive +1.
> 
> By the way, the 'lifers' you mentioned, I'm surrounded by them. Men and women in their 50's and 60's sitting at the top of the pay scale, mortgages paid off, children grown up. Doing the absolute bare minimum, because a 1 or 2 in their so called 'annual review' doesn't matter anyway, and management letting it happen. Happy to collect their pay cheque every friday.
> These people are the real winners from CP2.
> 
> Meanwhile the likes of myself has been in the Civil Service for 10+ years, have got consistently high annual review grades, and is still a Clerical Officer. It is soul destroying to see my colleagues happy to float along, not doing much at all, while I work hard for less money and no prospects of career advancement whatsoever.
> 
> I did a head count the other day. We have 40 people from Service Officer up to Assistant Principal in this office.
> If I was running my own business, I would employ 7 of them. At a stretch.
> 
> If the CPSU thinks I'm going out on strike to protect the lifers, they have another thing coming. I've got a mortgage to pay and a daughter to feed.



What that tells us it that the problem is overstaffing and under performance and what’s happening is that the Government and Unions are cutting your pay so that your inputs can cover your salary and that of the person beside you who does nothing. Your pay is being cut because you are subsidising wasters. How do you not blow a fuse with them every day?


----------



## Bill Struth

Purple said:


> What that tells us it that the problem is overstaffing and under performance and what’s happening is that the Government and Unions are cutting your pay so that your inputs can cover your salary and that of the person beside you who does nothing. Your pay is being cut because you are subsidising wasters. How do you not blow a fuse with them every day?


 I could, but where would that get me? It wouldn't change a thing.


----------



## Deiseblue

Bill Struth said:


> A massive +1.
> 
> By the way, the 'lifers' you mentioned, I'm surrounded by them. Men and women in their 50's and 60's sitting at the top of the pay scale, mortgages paid off, children grown up. Doing the absolute bare minimum, because a 1 or 2 in their so called 'annual review' doesn't matter anyway, and management letting it happen. Happy to collect their pay cheque every friday.
> These people are the real winners from CP2.
> 
> Meanwhile the likes of myself has been in the Civil Service for 10+ years, have got consistently high annual review grades, and is still a Clerical Officer. It is soul destroying to see my colleagues happy to float along, not doing much at all, while I work hard for less money and no prospects of career advancement whatsoever.
> 
> I did a head count the other day. We have 40 people from Service Officer up to Assistant Principal in this office.
> If I was running my own business, I would employ 7 of them. At a stretch.
> 
> If the CPSU thinks I'm going out on strike to protect the lifers, they have another thing coming. I've got a mortgage to pay and a daughter to feed.



I do sympathise with your older colleagues ( lifers seems a touch pejorative  )- they have already suffered 2 payouts & are heading into a third as despite your assertion to the contrary they will not remain unaffected by CPA2 , they continue to do their job even if it is the bare minimum & to be honest it's hard to blame them given the circumstances for basically doing nothing more than their contract demands.

I believe that a huge number of PS employees are going to adopt the aforementioned working model , I was struck by 2 comments I read in the comments section of the papers. - one was from a HSE hospital manager who worked 50 hours a week to keep on top of his role even though his contracted working week was 37 hours ( the additional 13 hours were unpaid as he was not entitled to claim overtime ) , he mentioned that in his experience hospital staff , contrary to some media reports , always weighed in in doing any job when the occasion demanded it however from a managerial point of view he has said that the dreaded word ( from a managerial point of view  ) " demarcation " is rearing it's head again as staff are hugely angry - he said he's giving up & is only going to do contracted hours.

The other comment was from a teacher in a disadvantaged area who organised a night class for 40 pupils on a weekly basis but is just demoralised , unappreciated & has cancelled it.

Bill , you are to be commended for doing excellent work during trying times but surely with pay being constantly attacked & promotion unlikely - sometimes you must say to yourself - what's the point ?

One way or the other we are going to see an increasingly angry Public Sector & this is undoubtedly going to be reflected in the services provided


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> I do sympathise with your older colleagues ( lifers seems a touch pejorative  )- they have already suffered 2 payouts & are heading into a third as despite your assertion to the contrary they will not remain unaffected by CPA2 , *they continue to do their job even if it is the bare minimum* & to be honest it's hard to blame them given the circumstances for basically doing nothing more than their contract demands.


The point is that they are not doing their jobs to the bare minimum even to the very low standards that the unions have the bar set at. Because of this their pay is subsidised by their colleagues. The rest of your post is constructed on the false premise that they are in fact doing their job properly.


----------



## Purple

Bill Struth said:


> I could, but where would that get me? It wouldn't change a thing.



There would be no point. A unionised workforce and a unionised management ensures that no meaningful change takes place (i.e. non-performing staff are sacked). 
The only thing you would get would be constructive dismissal. As a friend of mine in a 3rd level college says “There’s no bullying like union bullying”.


----------



## Kine

I would guess it will get similar to many Private Sector institutions which have suffered over the past few years - younger, more liquid people will eventually move on while senior, higher paid, people can't as it generally involves a large pay reduction. Banking would be a case in point.


----------



## Purple

Kine said:


> I would guess it will get similar to many Private Sector institutions which have suffered over the past few years - younger, more liquid people will eventually move on while senior, higher paid, people can't as it generally involves a large pay reduction. Banking would be a case in point.



Agreed. Smaller organisations in the real private sector will fail and go out of business, which is a good thing. Those in the protected sector, such as banking and the so-called "commercial" semi-states are more of a problem.
They can increase prices and charges as much as they want and still make a profit because they are not exposed to real competition. That in turn pushes up costs throughout the rest of the economy and so endangers jobs in the productive, open, real economy.
If the employees in the ESB earned the average industrial wage then our energy bills would be 25% lower than they are now.


----------



## Delboy

Deiseblue said:


> I do sympathise with your older colleagues ( lifers seems a touch pejorative  )- they have already suffered 2 payouts & are heading into a third as despite your assertion to the contrary they will not remain unaffected by CPA2 , they continue to do their job even if it is the bare minimum & to be honest it's hard to blame them given the circumstances for basically doing nothing more than their contract demands.
> 
> I believe that a huge number of PS employees are going to adopt the aforementioned working model , I was struck by 2 comments I read in the comments section of the papers. - one was from a HSE hospital manager who worked 50 hours a week to keep on top of his role even though his contracted working week was 37 hours ( the additional 13 hours were unpaid as he was not entitled to claim overtime ) , he mentioned that in his experience hospital staff , contrary to some media reports , always weighed in in doing any job when the occasion demanded it however from a managerial point of view he has said that the dreaded word ( from a managerial point of view  ) " demarcation " is rearing it's head again as staff are hugely angry - he said he's giving up & is only going to do contracted hours.
> 
> The other comment was from a teacher in a disadvantaged area who organised a night class for 40 pupils on a weekly basis but is just demoralised , unappreciated & has cancelled it.
> 
> Bill , you are to be commended for doing excellent work during trying times but surely with pay being constantly attacked & promotion unlikely - sometimes you must say to yourself - what's the point ?
> 
> One way or the other we are going to see an increasingly angry Public Sector & this is undoubtedly going to be reflected in the services provided



that's an unbelievable twisting of what Bill Struth said, but so typical of a Union die hard.
If the possibility existed to fire these people, they might start working normally and the likes of Bill would be rewarded for his hard work....and wait for it, the public would get a better 'public service'....but that's always secondary to protecting the useless, inept and downright dishonest within the system


----------



## liaconn

Bill Struth

I think some of your comments (or what's implied by them) are a little unfair. Yes, there are some 'lifers' in the civil service who have been there for years, have no incentive or initiative and think they're killed working if they have to put a few files away. But there are also lots of civil servants who have worked in the civil service for years who are hardworking, talented and make a huge contribution to public service in this country.

Likewise not every civil servant who joined in the last ten years is a bright sharp young thing full of great ideas. Some of them are, some of them are complete dossers and most of them are perfectly normal average reasonably hard working people. However, some of them have joined the civil service with the attitude that they are somehow 'better' or superior to those that were there before them; often with no evidence whatsoever to back up that opinion of themselves.

Re Croke Park 2, I think it will be passed but not as enthusiastically as Croke Park 1. Civil servants are getting weary of being the constant target for blame, criticism and high  handed remarks from some people in the private sector that 'they should all take a ten percent cut' etc. Particularly when all of us know or have had dealings with plenty of private sector workers who have not taken pay cuts, continue to get a Christmas bonus, or are lazy, inefficient or unreliable. Any good will or willingness to 'share the pain' has been drained out of civil servants in the last few years. It really has.

Yes, I know there are  people in the Private Sector suffering and I feel sorry for them. But I also feel sorry for public servants who are struggling or worrying about their mortgage or working long, long hours and then have to read in the paper that they're doing nothing, are overpaid, should work more hours etc. Believe me, such public servants do exist.


----------



## Purple

Liaconn,  the difference is that the Public Servants employer, the state, is bankrupt.
The fact that public servants are paid using taxes is aso an issue as people don't have a choice as to whether they pay for the waste.


----------



## Bill Struth

Liaconn

All I'm doing is speaking from my own experience. I have seen it. The indifference of these people going into their annual review meetings because 'it won't matter anyway.' I have seen the way they don't listen whenever they ask me the same thing for the umpteenth time. I have seen the way that they constantly transfer calls to their colleagues such as myself, rather than find out the answer and answer the query themselves.
I'm sick of them and I'm sick of people making excuses for them. They give us all a bad name.


----------



## liaconn

Bill Struth said:


> Liaconn
> 
> All I'm doing is speaking from my own experience. I have seen it. The indifference of these people going into their annual review meetings because 'it won't matter anyway.' I have seen the way they don't listen whenever they ask me the same thing for the umpteenth time. I have seen the way that they constantly transfer calls to their colleagues such as myself, rather than find out the answer and answer the query themselves.
> I'm sick of them and I'm sick of people making excuses for them. They give us all a bad name.



Yes, Bill, of course these people exist - at all levels in the civil service. But it is not endemic among longer serving civil servants and it is unfair to imply that all older civil servants behave like this. The vast majority of them don't, but some of them do.
Likewise amongst newer recruits there are some who need a good kick up the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language. The vast majority of them work hard, but some don't.


----------



## Purple

I've a question for the Civil and Public Servants here;
Would you like to see the X% of wasters sacked and your wages not cut by X% or are you happy to take a pay cut in order to continue to carry these people?


----------



## Delboy

Purple said:


> I've a question for the Civil and Public Servants here;
> Would you like to see the X% of wasters sacked and your wages not cut by X% or are you happy to take a pay cut in order to continue to carry these people?



I can assure you in my case it's the 1st option...and it could easily be done if there was a will in Govt to fight for it, and the Unions saw the light and stopped defending the indefensible.
But when a crisis like this one, probably as big a crisis as we'll ever encounter in our lifetimes from an national economic point of view, is only seeing minor reforms and death by a thousand cuts....well then, major reform and modernisation of the Civil/Public Service is never going to happen, never


----------



## Deiseblue

Delboy said:


> that's an unbelievable twisting of what Bill Struth said, but so typical of a Union die hard.
> If the possibility existed to fire these people, they might start working normally and the likes of Bill would be rewarded for his hard work....and wait for it, the public would get a better 'public service'....but that's always secondary to protecting the useless, inept and downright dishonest within the system



Relax !

I simply pointed out that the assertion that his older colleagues would be unaffected by the putative CPA2 was incorrect.

The same colleagues are doing the bare minimum in line with their contractual obligations & as I said who can blame them after suffering 2 payouts with another one in the offing.

I then simply illustrated my belief that the bare minimum as per the various contracts across the PS is likely to be the norm with 2 examples .

Disagree with Billsruth - yes , twisted his comments - no !

Unlesss you would like to provide me with an example ?


----------



## Deiseblue

Delboy said:


> I can assure you in my case it's the 1st option...and it could easily be done if there was a will in Govt to fight for it, and the Unions saw the light and stopped defending the indefensible.
> But when a crisis like this one, probably as big a crisis as we'll ever encounter in our lifetimes from an national economic point of view, is only seeing minor reforms and death by a thousand cuts....well then, major reform and modernisation of the Civil/Public Service is never going to happen, never



I am shocked 

Just goes to say you never can tell , I never realised you were working in the Public Sector.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> I am shocked
> 
> Just goes to say you never can tell , I never realised you were working in the Public Sector.



Not everyone in the Public Sector is a union supporting waster; many are hard working and want to do a good job serving the state. You need to get away from that negative stereotype to the Public Sector


----------



## Deiseblue

Purple said:


> Not everyone in the Public Sector is a union supporting waster; many are hard working and want to do a good job serving the state. You need to get away from that negative stereotype to the Public Sector



I always thought Delboy worked in finance , I never for a moment thought that it could possibly be the Dept. of Finance for example - presumptuous of me I admit.

Perhap's Delboy is a member of a Union but is somewhat peeved at their current stance , perhaps he will elucidate ?


----------



## Marion

Purple said:


> Not everyone in the Public Sector is a union supporting waster



Did you mean to write this?

I am a union member  in the Public Service (you mentioned Public Sector, but sometimes they are mentioned as being the same) and I certainly would not consider myself a "union supporting waster".

"The Union" is made up of its members who will ultimately vote and decide union policy. 

Marion


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> The same colleagues are doing the bare minimum in line with their contractual obligations & as I said who can blame them after suffering 2 payouts with another one in the offing.



I took it from Bill's post that these fine beacons of the public service operated at these same low levels of productivity before the cuts started. Perhaps Bill could confirm?


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> ...the TUI with 15000 members are both to recommend that the terms of the proposed deal be rejected.



Lots of teachers on 65k+ ?


----------



## Marion

Firefly said:


> Lots of teachers on 65k+ ?


There are a number of teachers in my college working less than 12 hours a week.

One guy told me how "lucky" he was to be teaching 6 hours a week - up from 4 the previous month. He has been qualified for the past 6 years. So that would put him at  29 years of age. 18 + 3 year degree + masters + PGDE. 

Marion


----------



## Deiseblue

Firefly said:


> Lots of teachers on 65k+ ?



God , I had to help you on on the number of pay cuts inflicted on the PS & then assist you on the % maximum pension for retirees - this time you can help yourself www.tui.ie


----------



## Leper

liaconn said:


> Bill Struth
> 
> I think some of your comments (or what's implied by them) are a little unfair. Yes, there are some 'lifers' in the civil service who have been there for years, have no incentive or initiative and think they're killed working if they have to put a few files away. But there are also lots of civil servants who have worked in the civil service for years who are hardworking, talented and make a huge contribution to public service in this country.
> 
> Likewise not every civil servant who joined in the last ten years is a bright sharp young thing full of great ideas. Some of them are, some of them are complete dossers and most of them are perfectly normal average reasonably hard working people. However, some of them have joined the civil service with the attitude that they are somehow 'better' or superior to those that were there before them; often with no evidence whatsoever to back up that opinion of themselves.
> 
> Re Croke Park 2, I think it will be passed but not as enthusiastically as Croke Park 1. Civil servants are getting weary of being the constant target for blame, criticism and high handed remarks from some people in the private sector that 'they should all take a ten percent cut' etc. Particularly when all of us know or have had dealings with plenty of private sector workers who have not taken pay cuts, continue to get a Christmas bonus, or are lazy, inefficient or unreliable. Any good will or willingness to 'share the pain' has been drained out of civil servants in the last few years. It really has.
> 
> Yes, I know there are people in the Private Sector suffering and I feel sorry for them. But I also feel sorry for public servants who are struggling or worrying about their mortgage or working long, long hours and then have to read in the paper that they're doing nothing, are overpaid, should work more hours etc. Believe me, such public servants do exist.


 
I am with Liaconn here.  I have worked in the Public Service, Privave Sector family run businesses and have been self employed.  There are excellent workers everywhere just like there are non-performers everywhere.

I'm facing retirement in the not too long distance future and looking forward to it.  Like the Johnny Cash song says "I've seen them come and go and seen them die and long ago I stopped asking why" - The song was about San Quentin prison.  If I had a euro for everybody I met along the way saying he was going to be a world beater I wouldn't be doing the lotto every Saturday.  

The Public Service employees are being made the Bad Guy today.  Remember it was not the Public Service workers that broke Ireland Inc.  It was crooked Bankers, crooked Private Sector People, crooked politicians that broke Ireland Ltd. None of these crooked people will ever see the inside of any prison.

The government has split the Irish workforce into (a) Private Sector and (b) Public Sector.  At the end of the day most of us are employees.  Then the master-stroke:- the Public Sector has been split further into (i) Front Line Staff (ii) Back Office Support Staff.  The so-called back office support staff have become everybody's cannon fodder as a result.  

The government has planted a seed that is germanating in a way for which it was never intended.  You dont have to be a genius to predict that the dreaded Blue Flu is on the horizon.  Irish Nurses fought for decades to have their working hours reduced and now are to be increased again.  Not only are they being increased to 39 hours per week, the first hour overtime is to be worked free every week.  So anybody queing up for overtime will have to work 40 hours.  The so-called back office staff are being called upon to work an extra 2 hours per week.  Sounds like there is nothing much here but this 2 hours extra will be worked to kill overtime in other work areas.

SIPTU and IMPACT are walking a tightrope the thickness of thread.  The hierarchy of both unions cannot see the wood from the trees and have for too long been farting in silk.  It is about time they did what they have been paid to do and represent their members.


----------



## Purple

Marion said:


> Did you mean to write this?
> 
> I am a union member  in the Public Service (you mentioned Public Sector, but sometimes they are mentioned as being the same) and I certainly would not consider myself a "union supporting waster".
> 
> "The Union" is made up of its members who will ultimately vote and decide union policy.
> 
> Marion



I wrote that comment as a tongue-in-cheek response to Deiseblue’s comment.
Deiseblue’s comment expressed surprise that another poster worked in the Public Sector because of their progressive views. I was pointing out that there are many views held by people in the Public Sector, not just the stereotypical militant union member.
Unions are lead by people with a certain political view that subscribe to a particular ideological dogma.
Those that oppose that view will get short shrift. A close friend of mine worked in a Public Sector body and spoke out against proposed industrial action. He said that the isolation and ostracisation he experienced, let in a deliberate and open way by the union activists where he worked, forced him to change jobs.


----------



## Betsy Og

Purple said:


> I've a question for the Civil and Public Servants here;
> Would you like to see the X% of wasters sacked and your wages not cut by X% or are you happy to take a pay cut in order to continue to carry these people?


 
+1

I think this is the crux of modern trade unionism, despite what the bearded ones say, there is no spectre of 1913 lockouts any more, we have employment law coming out our ears, worker exploitation is a thing of the past. 

Its a global labour market, Ireland is making itself uncompetitive and the trade union movement is a large part of the problem. Those who want or need to work hard are being held back, in the private sector its with a view to a cosy redundancy and hang the young people who wanted to work on, in the public sector its exactly as set out above with jobs for life the order of the day.

I think in answering the question above you need to decide which camp are you in, waster or not, & in conclusion the only ones who have an interest in a strong union movement are a) the fat cat union bosses and b) the wasters.


----------



## Delboy

Deiseblue said:


> I always thought Delboy worked in finance , I never for a moment thought that it could possibly be the Dept. of Finance for example - presumptuous of me I admit.
> 
> Perhap's Delboy is a member of a Union but is somewhat peeved at their current stance , perhaps he will elucidate ?



work in the PS in finance, not the Dept of Finance. My career has been spent roughly 50-50 Privateublic thus far so I've seen both sides

Never have been a member of a Union, never will be. I work hard, very hard and am passionate about my job and delivering results so feel I have nothing to fear from 'big bad mgmt'. 
If I ever do get 'shafted' for some reason, I'll go find myself an employment legal bod and drag all to the courts/labour appeals mechanism....there's enough employment law out there to protect me from that kind of carry on, no need to be in a Union IMO 
If I want a pay rise, I go for a promotion and let my achievements speak for me. 
If I tire of my job/Dept/organisation, I get a new job elsewhere and move on....job for life attitude stinks and will never subscribe to it


----------



## Purple

Delboy said:


> work in the PS in finance, not the Dept of Finance. My career has been spent roughly 50-50 Privateublic transfer so I've seen both sides
> 
> Never have been a member of a Union, never will be. I work hard, very hard and am passionate about my job and delivering results so feel I have nothing to fear from 'big bad mgmt'.
> If I ever do get 'shafted' for some reason, I'll go find myself an employment legal bod and drag all to the courts/labour appeals mechanism....there's enough employment law out there to protect me from that kind of carry on, no need to be in a Union IMO
> If I want a pay rise, I go for a promotion and let me achievements speak for me.
> If I tire of my job/Dept/organisation, I get a new job elsewhere and move on....job for life attitude stinks and will never subscribe to it



Now all we need 30 or 40 thousand more people in the public sector with that attitude!


----------



## blueband

Betsy Og said:


> +1
> 
> I think this is the crux of modern trade unionism, despite what the bearded ones say, there is no spectre of 1913 lockouts any more, we have employment law coming out our ears, worker exploitation is a thing of the past.
> 
> worker exploitation is alive and well is many parts of this country today!


----------



## Purple

blueband said:


> worker exploitation is alive and well is many parts of this country today!



In the Public Sector?
From my experience if there is any real exploitation unions are useless.


----------



## Delboy

Purple said:


> Now all we need 30 or 40 thousand more people in the public sector with that attitude!



to be fair Purple, there is probably 30-40,000+ in the PS/CS with that attitude as that would be just 10% of the total. The whole system would collapse if there was'nt a big minority holding it together.


----------



## Purple

Delboy said:


> to be fair Purple, there is probably 30-40,000+ in the PS/CS with that attitude as that would be just 10% of the total. The whole system would collapse if there was'nt a big minority holding it together.



Fair point.
It's to their credit as well since they are doing it despite the system they work within, not because of it.


----------



## Firefly

@Deise & Marion. Post updated re all those 65k euro +  teachers!


----------



## Deiseblue

Delboy said:


> work in the PS in finance, not the Dept of Finance. My career has been spent roughly 50-50 Privateublic thus far so I've seen both sides
> 
> Never have been a member of a Union, never will be. I work hard, very hard and am passionate about my job and delivering results so feel I have nothing to fear from 'big bad mgmt'.
> If I ever do get 'shafted' for some reason, I'll go find myself an employment legal bod and drag all to the courts/labour appeals mechanism....there's enough employment law out there to protect me from that kind of carry on, no need to be in a Union IMO
> If I want a pay rise, I go for a promotion and let my achievements speak for me.
> If I tire of my job/Dept/organisation, I get a new job elsewhere and move on....job for life attitude stinks and will never subscribe to it



I thought pay rises were out of the question as there is a moratorium on promotions with the public service - unfortunately your achievements currently count for nought as it's pay cuts all the way.

Indeed there is employment law to protect you - thanks mainly to the efforts of the Irish Trade Union & the wider Trade Union movement.


----------



## Deiseblue

Delboy said:


> to be fair Purple, there is probably 30-40,000+ in the PS/CS with that attitude as that would be just 10% of the total. The whole system would collapse if there was'nt a big minority holding it together.



Pure speculation unencumbered by any proof.

Unless of course you can provide a link ?


----------



## The_Banker

Betsy Og said:


> +1
> 
> I think this is the crux of modern trade unionism, despite what the bearded ones say, there is no spectre of 1913 lockouts any more, we have employment law coming out our ears, worker exploitation is a thing of the past.
> 
> Its a global labour market, Ireland is making itself uncompetitive and the trade union movement is a large part of the problem. Those who want or need to work hard are being held back, in the private sector its with a view to a cosy redundancy and hang the young people who wanted to work on, in the public sector its exactly as set out above with jobs for life the order of the day.
> 
> I* think in answering the question above you need to decide which camp are you in, waster or not, & in conclusion the only ones who have an interest in a strong union movement are a) the fat cat union bosses and b) the wasters*.


 
Im not a fat cat union boss and I am a member of a union. I believe it is essencial that there is a strong union movement.

So, I am a waster?

Thats a big leap.


----------



## mandelbrot

Deiseblue said:


> Pure speculation unencumbered by any proof.
> 
> Unless of course you can provide a link ?


 
Why should he have to post a link to express an opinion - that's clearly what his post was.

Just as your posts on this thread are opinion too. This is the letting off steam forum remember.

_In my opinion_ every workforce (public or private) is made up of a few different categories of worker - 

The backbreakers who are fully committed, take the initiative and I presume these are the 10% Delboy refers to as carrying organisations.
The regular Joe/Jane Soap who will come in and do a good job for you, but don't live for the job - they may occasionally need encouragement to keep them performing.
The semi-chancers - people who will come into work but without any real pride in the job, and who're only doing it for a pay-check - these people will doss if left to their own devices but can/will produce properly as long as they are well managed/supervised, and may even move back into the category above, but over time they may also evolve into....
The complete chancers - people who have no interest in the job, zero. they just want to get paid, and their main aim is to do that with the absolute bare minimum of effort on their part. No sense of needing to earn their pay or justify their existence. A completely unjustified sense of entitlement.
_In my opinion_ all 4 categories exist in both private & public sector, of course they do. But the proportion of the last category in the public sector is higher - the reason being, _in my opinion, _that due to poor management, excessive levels of unionisation, and institutional nature of the PS (i.e. the fact that people may work 40 years in the same organisation).

To answer Purple's simple question - of course I would prefer to see these people weeded out rather than suffer a paycut, but it's not my job to sort these things out, I have enough on my plate dealing with things that are already my problem without bringing my bearded friends down upon me...!


----------



## cork

My main gripe with the public sector is the amount of sick leave taken?

Why is this so common in the public sector?


----------



## celebtastic

Deiseblue said:


> I thought pay rises were out of the question...


 
Really?

Have these automatic "increments", or pay rises by the back door for 90%+ of the PS, been stopped?

Good to hear.


----------



## Delboy

Deiseblue said:


> I thought pay rises were out of the question as there is a moratorium on promotions with the public service - unfortunately your achievements currently count for nought as it's pay cuts all the way.
> 
> Indeed there is employment law to protect you - thanks mainly to the efforts of the Irish Trade Union & the wider Trade Union movement.



As I said...If I want a payrise, I go for a promotion....vacancies are still being filled in the PS.

And as Celebtastic says above me...increments are automatic pay rises (though I'm top of the small band of scales in the grade I'm in for the past couple of years so they don't apply to me in relation to what I said in my posts). Had you forgotten about them!


----------



## Delboy

cork said:


> My main gripe with the public sector is the amount of sick leave taken?
> 
> Why is this so common in the public sector?



surplus of staff, meaning work can be put back a few days
lack of interest in the job/career
attitude of 'this Organisation' is here to serve me', not the other way around
number of uncertified sick days is seen as a target to be hit or gotten very close to
newer staff observe the more established staff and the way they work the system, so they copy it...so the practice becomes engrained
weak management


----------



## Deiseblue

Mandelbrot .
It would be extremely churlish not to say hypocritical of me to deny anybody their opinion.

As you may have gathered I believed that Delboy's assertion that 10% + (amended ) of the PS employees were carrying the rest on their back was wildly speculative however in fairness I did ask for some form of proof to clarify the situation - if none is forthcoming then my opinion remains unchanged.

Indeed I know that this is " Letting off Steam " forum - how could I forget , we've already had comments that all Union members are wasters & more recently Celebastic's statistics are once again to the fore -90% ( sorry I forgot the + ) of PS workers currently receive increments !

I'm off for a scatter of pints , I've had enough for today !


----------



## Delboy

clarification: I never mentioned 10%.....I sad to Purple that it had to be a lot more than 10% which was what his figures equated to


----------



## celebtastic

Deiseblue said:


> ... more recently Celebastic's statistics are once again to the fore -90% ( sorry I forgot the + ) of PS workers currently receive increments !
> 
> ...


 

You are quite right - the figure is 99.9%:



> ...(In 2011) only 30 out of around 30,000 civil servants were denied increments for poor performance.
> 
> Under the current five-point PMDS rating system, staff can qualify for increments with a rating of just two, which effectively means they are underperforming.


 
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0726/330750-civil-servants-to-face-tougher-performance-ratings/

Disgraceful really.


----------



## RonanC

celebtastic said:


> You are quite right - the figure is 99.9%:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0726/330750-civil-servants-to-face-tougher-performance-ratings/
> 
> Disgraceful really.



But how many of the 30,000 are still entitled to/or qualify for increments?


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> , we've already had comments that all Union members are wasters


Who said that?


----------



## Betsy Og

The_Banker said:


> Im not a fat cat union boss and I am a member of a union. I believe it is essencial that there is a strong union movement.
> 
> So, I am a waster?
> 
> Thats a big leap.


 
You just need to believe in yourself, leave the herd behind and rise to the top.

OK - maybe I was a bit OTT in the original statement - but the essential point is that talented people dont need unions, good people are a scarce commodity in any economy in any country at any time, so why do you subscribe to a system that penalises you for the sake of subsidising those that wont pull their weight.

As regards 'good people are always a scarce commodity' - you might say what about all the architects and solicitors - I'll bet you they wont spent the rest of their lives unemployed, they didnt get where they were without brains & effort, that will get them back working eventually - you cant keep a good man down.


----------



## Bill Struth

celebtastic said:


> Really?
> 
> Have these automatic "increments", or pay rises by the back door for 90%+ of the PS, been stopped?
> 
> Good to hear.


 


Bill Struth said:


> Any chance of an answer to the below???


 
In your own time...


----------



## Firefly

According to Dan O'Brien in today's Irish Times:

"...public sector workers, despite having suffered net income reductions, have, on average, retained a large part of the gains from bubble-era pay increases.
The average gross pay packet in the public sector* was €63,305 last year, down by €1,300 from the peak registered in 2009. But it remains well up on the €58,170 paid in 2007 just as the bubble burst"

So even though cuts have been made, wages are still higher, on average, than they were at the height of the boom..


----------



## Bill Struth

Now if only I was paid the average wage...


----------



## Firefly

Bill Struth said:


> Now if only I was paid the average wage...



Sounds like you need to get on to your union


----------



## Deiseblue

Betsy Og said:


> You just need to believe in yourself, leave the herd behind and rise to the top.
> 
> OK - maybe I was a bit OTT in the original statement - but the essential point is that talented people dont need unions, good people are a scarce commodity in any economy in any country at any time, so why do you subscribe to a system that penalises you for the sake of subsidising those that wont pull their weight.
> 
> As regards 'good people are always a scarce commodity' - you might say what about all the architects and solicitors - I'll bet you they wont spent the rest of their lives unemployed, they didnt get where they were without brains & effort, that will get them back working eventually - you cant keep a good man down.



A bit OTT !

You underestimate yourself .


----------



## celebtastic

In your own time...


----------



## Leper

I have just visited the IMPACT website and glanced through the additional harsh details that are being put to its membership for acceptance/rejection.  I cant believe that a trades union prepared this document; even the government could not have presented worse. 

I feel IMPACT will have a lot less members within a few weeks.


----------



## Deiseblue

RonanC said:


> But how many of the 30,000 are still entitled to/or qualify for increments?



19,710 in 2012 of 31,618 civil servants ( 63% ) - the majority of whom are lower paid workers.

Obviously Celebtastic's figure of 99.9 %  includes VAT !


----------



## celebtastic

Deiseblue said:


> 19,710 in 2012 of 31,618 civil servants ( 63% ) - the majority of whom are lower paid workers.
> 
> Obviously Celebtastic's figure of 99.9 %  includes VAT !




Source please?


----------



## Deiseblue

www.thejournal.ie/nearly-two-thirds...ne-for-pay-increase-this-year-426336-Apr2012/


----------



## celebtastic

Thanks for that

The headline, I think, instructive:
*"Nearly two-thirds of civil servants in line for pay increase this year"

*It gives the lie to all this guff about "pay freezes"


----------



## Deiseblue

celebtastic said:


> Thanks for that
> 
> The headline, I think, instructive:
> *"Nearly two-thirds of civil servants in line for pay increase this year"
> 
> *It gives the lie to all this guff about "pay freezes"



On the bright side we have managed to bring the percentage receiving increments down from your 99.9% to 63% - you really are going to have to stop exaggerating/inventing statistics , it has gone beyond tiresome !


----------



## RonanC

Deiseblue said:


> On the bright side we have managed to bring the percentage receiving increments down from your 99.9% to 63% - you really are going to have to stop exaggerating/inventing statistics , it has gone beyond tiresome !



And that percentage is dropping fast every year considering no promotions or recruiting.


----------



## mandelbrot

celebtastic said:


> Thanks for that
> 
> The headline, I think, instructive:
> *"Nearly two-thirds of civil servants in line for pay increase this year"
> 
> *It gives the lie to all this guff about "pay freezes"



You don't appear to understand what an incremental payscale means, or are choosing not to - as a result it's you who is talking guff.

Paying someone in accordance with their existing contract and not increasing the salary scales is a pay FREEZE.

Not paying someone an increment which under their contract they are  entitled to (subject to satisfactory performance), is a pay CUT. i.e.  the effect of the action is that the individual is being paid less than  their contract of employment states they should be paid - that is the  very definition of a pay cut surely?

Not honouring the contracts of PS workers is only going to result in the  people who actually have real-world marketable skills/experience  jumping ship - the dead wood that the PS bashers believe is causing all  of the inefficiencies will stay on to the bitter end. That's what you  get when you use a blunt instrument to perform delicate surgery.


----------



## dereko1969

celebtastic said:


> You are quite right - the figure is 99.9%:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0726/330750-civil-servants-to-face-tougher-performance-ratings/
> 
> Disgraceful really.


 
Yet again you are using statistics incorrectly. A significant number of staff would not be getting increments due to being at the top of the scale already, staff get two long service increments after having reached the top of the scale, after 3 years and then 5 years (could be wrong on the latter).

However, the numbers not getting 1 or 2 is a disgrace.


----------



## orka

To clarify what the statistics mean/where they come from: the numbers originally came from a Dail question. The question asked about performance ratings, not increments awarded/denied.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/26/00132.asp 

This showed that of the 77% of civil servants who had their assessment completed (about 23,000, my calc), only 0.1% (about 23, my calc) of them scored a 1 which is the level at which an increment is denied. Various news outlets than made up some stats of their own by applying the 0.1% to the whole population of civil servants (30,000) to come up with the number, 30, of civil servants who were denied increments. This (news outlets) calculation ignored a couple of things: (a) the 23% of people who didn't have assessments, (b) the fact that not every civil servant is eligible for an increment every year because of long service/top of scale issues and (c) the possibility of grade differences in an increment-eligible year vs a non-eligible year. 

So 30 increment denials is not a correct number (actual is likely to be lower...) but it is correct to state that 0.1% of those assessed got a 1 on their assessment - and so 99.9% got a 2 or above (the qualifying level for an increment if the employee is eligible in that year).


----------



## Firefly

orka said:


> 99.9% got a 2 or above (the qualifying level for an increment if the employee is eligible in that year).



Aren't we lucky we have such a performant public sector?


----------



## Delboy

thanks God for Benchmarking that brought in such a comprehensive Annual Review system. I recall it also introduced courses on how to use the internet. Classic stuff


----------



## cork

Firefly said:


> Aren't we lucky we have such a performant public sector?



Yes, the financial regulator, Central Bank, ESRI and Dept Of Finance worked well during the Cetic Tiger era.


----------



## Purple

cork said:


> Yes, the financial regulator, Central Bank, ESRI and Dept Of Finance worked well during the Cetic Tiger era.



You forgot the "" there Cork.
I presume that you're joking, given that you are clever enough to write, dress yourself, cross the road, you know, basic higher brain functions. Given that I know you are joking.


----------



## cork

Only joking - I am afraid.

The sad thing is that reform is needed on how the public sector works.

This is not happening.

Do we really need so many quangos and local authorities?

They then target mobility allowances and the disabled.


----------



## celebtastic

cork said:


> The sad thing is that reform is needed on how the public sector works.
> 
> This is not happening.



+1

The sad thing is that, as can be seen from some of the union defenders on here, that needed government services will continue to suffer in the absence of real reform in the PS.

What is needed is to freeze all increments (or pay rises by the back door), eliminate flexi and paid overtime, chop all these "allowances", and get rid of the sort of clock watching culture that leads to taking sick days as an automatic entitlement.

The reality is that if these sort of very reasonable changes were implemented, then there would not be such a need for the modest pay cuts proposed or the dramatic cuts to front line services now being experienced by many.

Sadly, with SIPTU bankrolled Labour in gubbernment, little change will happen and the debts will just snowball for future generations.


----------



## mandelbrot

celebtastic said:


> What is needed is to freeze all increments (or pay rises by the back door),


 
This interests me - how would you structure & manage pay in the absence of incremental scales then? (And by the way I see you'

You seem to disdain incremental salary scales (as opposed to many people who simply think that proper performance management needs to be put in place so that there's a bell curve applied). In the absence of incremental pay, staff have no financial incentive for performance - bear in mind that only a fairly limited number can be promoted.

The only logical conclusion of flat pay scales is that no-one will ever stay in a PS job for any length of time (except someone who knows they are pretty unemployable elsewhere - just the kind of person you want to have around long-term!); as soon as they are experienced/skilled enough they will simply have to move on to a better paying job in the private sector (again, only a small proportion can be promoted in a relatively short term).

Or maybe you think that a very high staff turnover would somehow be a good thing for the machinery of the state? If so you might explain the benefits, as I don't really see how they would outweigh the costs (substantial HR admin costs of constant recruitment, inability to attract/motivate suitably qualified candidates due to the flat pay structure, lack of continuity resulting in difficulties implementing long-term projects / policies). 

For example - I'll ask you this, from a context I'm familiar with - what qualified accountant / tax consultant / solicitor (this is the job requirement), will be happy to join Revenue as an Administrative Officer on a salary of €29,922, with no prospect of any increase in that salary other than a possibility of promotion at some point somewhere in their future, or any prospect of other professional work on the side to augment their income, due to ethics/conflict of interest issues? The answer is none worth their salt.

By the way you do realise that the actual pay for a particular grade is the top of the scale, not the bottom? I'll be perfectly happy to be immediately put at the top of my scale on a permanent basis until I get promoted..! 

Oh, and you conveniently never responded to my earlier post, so here it is again:



mandelbrot said:


> You don't appear to understand what an incremental payscale means, or are choosing not to - as a result it's you who is talking guff.





mandelbrot said:


> Paying someone in accordance with their existing contract and not increasing the salary scales is a pay FREEZE.
> 
> Not paying someone an increment which under their contract they are entitled to (subject to satisfactory performance), is a pay CUT. i.e. the effect of the action is that the individual is being paid less than their contract of employment states they should be paid - that is the very definition of a pay cut surely?
> 
> Not honouring the contracts of PS workers is only going to result in the people who actually have real-world marketable skills/experience jumping ship - the dead wood that the PS bashers believe is causing all of the inefficiencies will stay on to the bitter end. That's what you get when you use a blunt instrument to perform delicate surgery.


----------



## orka

mandelbrot said:


> In the absence of incremental pay, staff have no financial incentive for performance


That's quite a statement. So getting paid (and keeping your job) aren't enough financial incentive?

I think one option would be to have a quota of increments each year - rather than doing away with them completely (which could only ever be a short-term measure), maybe 20% (or 50% or 80%) of staff eligible for increments would be allowed one. So the top performers would still see progress and the middling performers would effectively have to compete to outperform their colleagues. If it became the norm in the public sector, there would be a knock-on effect to those looking to move out because they felt underpaid - the private sector recruiter could ask about the person's increment performance - so a non-performer. non-increment earner couldn't move so easily because they were fed up with lack of increments.


----------



## Purple

Cutting peoples pay because they work in an inefficient organisation is unfair. Make the organisation efficient and then if pay cuts are needed look at that option. 
The problem is that the people in charge don’t seem to have the ability to change the structures and even if they did the unions will attempt to stymie any real reforms in order to protect their underperforming members. Therefore the current situation will remain where the majority of public sector employees who are diligent and hard working are subsidising their underperforming colleagues and are penalised because of the structural inefficiencies within their organisations. 
I’d love to see a grass-roots lobby group of Public Sector/ Civil Service employees from all levels put forward their own plan for real reform; Title it “Don’t cut my pay, do this instead”, but while both management and non-management levels are so heavily unionised I can’t see that happen.


----------



## mandelbrot

orka said:


> That's quite a statement. So getting paid (and keeping your job) aren't enough financial incentive?



Choose to misinterpret what I said if you like; I'm pretty sure it's clear what I meant, which was performance beyond the bare minimum, as in being considered a performer rather than a plodder.


----------



## orka

Outside of the big organisations like banks and insurance companies, many private sector companies don't have incremental scales - you get hired at a certain salary level so in theory there is no financial incentive to do more than plod. However, if you are a plodder you probably won't move off your starting salary (and if you don't like it you can leave) but if you are a performer, you will probably see your pay rise. The problem with incremental scales (in both public and private sector) is the near-automatic progression. I know there'll be the usual clamour of 'oh, no you have to earn it...' but really, hand on heart, unless you are truly terrible at your job, what chance is there of not getting your increment? 
That's why I think some sort of quota system would work well: if only 50% of people eligible got increments, that would save 50% of the cost of increments. The performers are kept happy and those who didn't get an increment will be incentivised to up their performance next year. I don't see any downside.


----------



## dereko1969

celebtastic said:


> +1
> 
> The sad thing is that, as can be seen from some of the union defenders on here, that needed government services will continue to suffer in the absence of real reform in the PS.
> 
> *What is needed is to freeze all increments (or pay rises by the back door), eliminate flexi and paid overtime, chop all these "allowances", and get rid of the sort of clock watching culture that leads to taking sick days as an automatic entitlement.*
> 
> The reality is that if these sort of very reasonable changes were implemented, then there would not be such a need for the modest pay cuts proposed or the dramatic cuts to front line services now being experienced by many.
> 
> Sadly, with SIPTU bankrolled Labour in gubbernment, little change will happen and the debts will just snowball for future generations.


 
You have still not stated why you find flexi-time such an appalling thing. You do realise that many organisations use it, not just the public sector?

Doing away with paid overtime could lead to a requirement for additional staff to be recruited which isn't going to happen.

There has already been significant changes to sick leave management recently, it is monitored much more closely than before.


----------



## mandelbrot

orka said:


> Outside of the big organisations like banks and insurance companies, many private sector companies don't have incremental scales - you get hired at a certain salary level so in theory there is no financial incentive to do more than plod. However, if you are a plodder you probably won't move off your starting salary (and if you don't like it you can leave) but if you are a performer, you will probably see your pay rise. The problem with incremental scales (in both public and private sector) is the near-automatic progression. I know there'll be the usual clamour of 'oh, no you have to earn it...' but really, hand on heart, unless you are truly terrible at your job, what chance is there of not getting your increment?
> That's why I think some sort of quota system would work well: if only 50% of people eligible got increments, that would save 50% of the cost of increments. The performers are kept happy and those who didn't get an increment will be incentivised to up their performance next year. I don't see any downside.


 
On the one hand you say _"The problem with incremental scales (in both public and private sector) is the near-automatic progression"_, but on the other you say it needs to be fundamentally changed to a quota based system. Surely if the problem is as you say, then the solution, quite simply is to ensure proper management of the PMDS system as is already there. 

2 suggestions to provide a quick and effective remedy:

Firstly (and I think this may already be in train?) a 3 should be the required score for incremental progression.

Secondly, mid- and senior- management *CANNOT* get a score of 3 in their own performance review unless the PMDS scores of the staff in their teams / units are within a "normal" range. I think this would ensure that there would be a more realistic spread of performance scores, and a higher proportion of non-increments.


----------



## Purple

mandelbrot said:


> On the one hand you say _"The problem with incremental scales (in both public and private sector) is the near-automatic progression"_, but on the other you say it needs to be fundamentally changed to a quota based system. Surely if the problem is as you say, then the solution, quite simply is to ensure proper management of the PMDS system as is already there.
> 
> 2 suggestions to provide a quick and effective remedy:
> 
> Firstly (and I think this may already be in train?) a 3 should be the required score for incremental progression.
> 
> Secondly, mid- and senior- management *CANNOT* get a score of 3 in their own performance review unless the PMDS scores of the staff in their teams / units are within a "normal" range. I think this would ensure that there would be a more realistic spread of performance scores, and a higher proportion of non-increments.



What happens when 99% of people start getting a 3?


----------



## orka

Purple said:


> What happens when 99% of people start getting a 3?


When 99% of people start getting a 3?  The only publicly available stats are that 99% already get a 3! I think it should be a minimum of a properly graded and assessed 4, subject to a maximum of 20% of people getting increments.


mandelbrot said:


> On the one hand you say _"The problem with incremental scales (in both public and private sector) is the near-automatic progression"_, but on the other you say it needs to be fundamentally changed to a quota based system.


I see no inconsistency in saying that the solution to a badly working system is a fundamentally different system.  Sure, a better working of the existing badly-operated system is one solution but it’s not the only solution.





mandelbrot said:


> Surely if the problem is as you say, then the solution, quite simply is to ensure proper management of the PMDS system as is already there.


We have two problems – the badly-operated system and the country’s financial condition.  Fixing the operation of the existing system might help towards the finances but it will be difficult to quantify an impact and an overnight shift is unlikely – a wholesale revision of grading from 99% at 3 and above is unlikely to happen overnight.  The existing system with a maximum quota of increments at eg 20% would give an immediate saving which could be estimated fairly accurately.


----------



## mandelbrot

99% don't get 3 and above surely?! Is there a source for that?

We know >99% of those eligible get their increment, but as I said that's because a 2 has thus far been sufficient to get it. Surely there's at least a few % of 2's knocking around... Not as many as there should be, but more than 1% I'd say.


----------



## mandelbrot

Purple said:


> What happens when 99% of people start getting a 3?



I think you missed the point of my suggestion.

If 99% of people got 3's then hardly anyone with responsibility for more than (say) 10 staff would qualify for their own increment, as they would not have properly overseen the PMDS process.

I'm pretty sure managers wouldn't have too much difficulty grading their staff more honestly if their own increment depended on it.


----------



## Leper

Hey Guys, don't get caught up in marking performance anywhere (especially in the public service).  Line Managers tend to go down the middle on the assumption that if they give an excellent mark and the prospect fails to perform later he/she (line manager) will not look good.  On the other hand, if a low mark is provided and the prospect performs well later the line manager still looks bad.  

It's not rocket-science; they go down the middle.


----------



## Firefly

Do people who get a grade of 2 get the same (full) increment as someone who gets a 3 or a 4 (please tell me this is not true )???


----------



## Kine

I thought everywhere generally follows a Bell Curve...few get 1's and 5's with 2-4 getting the vast majority (i.e. 60-70%) - so no matter what system you set up it will always result in a forced distribution Bell Curve?


----------



## orka

mandelbrot said:


> 99% don't get 3 and above surely?! Is there a source for that?


Yes, 99% get 3 and above in the only data available (on 23,000 civil servants) – see my post #119 and http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/26/00132.asp  8% got a 5, 56% got a 4, 35% got a 3, 0.9% got a 2 and 0.1% got a 1. So 64% got 4 or better, 99% got a 3 or better and 99.9% got a 2 or better.





mandelbrot said:


> If 99% of people got 3's then hardly anyone with responsibility for more than (say) 10 staff would qualify for their own increment, as they would not have properly overseen the PMDS process.


How do you decide whether an individual manager has properly overseen the process?  How do you decide what is an acceptable range of outcomes – either on an organisation-wide basis or on a smaller team basis?  A manager of 20 people could have 20 strong performers deserving of 4s – does he have to downgrade some so that he appears to have managed well in producing a wide range of grades?


----------



## Bill Struth

Firefly said:


> Do people who get a grade of 2 get the same (full) increment as someone who gets a 3 or a 4 (please tell me this is not true )???


No it isn't. Since 'Croke Park 1' the grading system of 1-5 has been replaced with a grading system as follows:

Exceptional Performance
High Standard
Fully Achieved Expectations
Needs to Improve
Unsatisfactory

A grade of at least 'fully achieved expectations' is required to receive an increment.


----------



## Purple

orka said:


> Yes, 99% get 3 and above in the only data available (on 23,000 civil servants) – see my post #119 and http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/26/00132.asp  8% got a 5, 56% got a 4, 35% got a 3, 0.9% got a 2 and 0.1% got a 1. So 64% got 4 or better, 99% got a 3 or better and 99.9% got a 2 or better.How do you decide whether an individual manager has properly overseen the process?  How do you decide what is an acceptable range of outcomes – either on an organisation-wide basis or on a smaller team basis?  A manager of 20 people could have 20 strong performers deserving of 4s – does he have to downgrade some so that he appears to have managed well in producing a wide range of grades?



This sort of discussion comes up quite a bit when talk of performance management, efficiency and accountability comes up in the Public Sector.
A friend of mine is a teacher and he said that it was impossible to come up with a system that would measure teachers performance. When I disagreed he challenged me to tell him how it could be done.
My response was to say it was impossible to make aeroplanes and if he disagreed to prove me wrong by telling me in detail how they were made. He said I was being stupid, how would he know, he’s not an aerospace engineer. I said “exactly”.


----------



## orka

Bill Struth said:


> No it isn't. Since 'Croke Park 1' the grading system of 1-5 has been replaced with a grading system as follows:


If it's since Croke Park 1 (2010?), why does the Dail question/answer refer to grades 1-5 for the 2011 year?


----------



## Purple

(5) Exceptional Performance
(4) High Standard
(3) Fully Achieved Expectations
(2) Needs to Improve
(1) Unsatisfactory

Wow, that’s some really great reform.
I presume there was extensive re-training to explain the new system to staff.


----------



## Firefly

Bill Struth said:


> No it isn't. Since 'Croke Park 1' the grading system of 1-5 has been replaced with a grading system as follows:
> 
> Exceptional Performance
> High Standard
> Fully Achieved Expectations
> Needs to Improve
> Unsatisfactory
> 
> A grade of at least 'fully achieved expectations' is required to receive an increment.



Hi Bill,

If 2 staff members are on the same level and one gets a 3 and the other gets a 5 do they get the same increment, or does the person who gets a 5 get a higher amount?

Firefly.


----------



## dereko1969

Firefly said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> If 2 staff members are on the same level and one gets a 3 and the other gets a 5 do they get the same increment, or does the person who gets a 5 get a higher amount?
> 
> Firefly.


 
Yes. Ratings are supposed to taken into consideration in promotion competitions but I'd say rarely are.

Instructions to managers are to use the bell-curve.

How are staff rated in your organisation? Do annual reviews take place?


----------



## Bill Struth

Firefly said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> If 2 staff members are on the same level and one gets a 3 and the other gets a 5 do they get the same increment, or does the person who gets a 5 get a higher amount?
> 
> Firefly.


 Both employees move up one point on their pay scale, regardless of whether they got a 3 or a 5.


----------



## Bill Struth

orka said:


> If it's since Croke Park 1 (2010?), why does the Dail question/answer refer to grades 1-5 for the 2011 year?


 Sorry, the change was mooted in CP1, but was implemented only this year.


----------



## Firefly

Bill Struth said:


> Both employees move up one point on their pay scale, regardless of whether they got a 3 or a 5.



Sounds like a good deal for those committed


----------



## Leper

Up to the 1990's I worked in the Public Service.  I was as junior a clerk as you could find.  Then along came confined internal competitions to become the most junior of the management grade (Admin. Officer or perhaps it was Acting Admin. Officer).  Two clerical officers (both with wide range experience and plenty of cop on etc) were not allowed to go further in the competition i.e they were not allowed to present their cv just for the interview. Both were informed by Line Maagers that they were not of the standard required (a load of rubbish, incidentally).

The two "failures" resigned shortly after the competition.  One is now lecturing in Kings Inns and the other received a Phd after returning to college.

So much for other peoples' opinions and the subsequent interviews.


----------



## Purple

Leper, your story demonstrates the structural failings of the Public Sector perfectly.
The greatest resource any organisation has is its people. If they are not motivated and utilised properly there will always be massive waste and inefficiency.

One of the things I try to do at work is make myself redundant; I  try to make sure that other people can do my job. That way I can create the space to do new things and expand my reach and function. 
Once I have learned something and designed the systems and procedures to implement it the next step is to train someone else to do that part of my job so I can move on to the next thing. That’s what makes work interesting.


----------



## dereko1969

Leper said:


> Up to the 1990's I worked in the Public Service. I was as junior a clerk as you could find. Then along came confined internal competitions to become the most junior of the management grade (Admin. Officer or perhaps it was Acting Admin. Officer). Two clerical officers (both with wide range experience and plenty of cop on etc) were not allowed to go further in the competition i.e they were not allowed to present their cv just for the interview. *Both were informed by Line Maagers that they were not of the standard required (a load of rubbish, incidentally).*
> 
> The two "failures" resigned shortly after the competition. One is now lecturing in Kings Inns and the other received a Phd after returning to college.
> 
> So much for other peoples' opinions and the subsequent interviews.


 
Did they challenge that assertion?


----------



## Birroc

Purple said:


> (5) Exceptional Performance
> (4) High Standard
> (3) Fully Achieved Expectations
> (2) Needs to Improve
> (1) Unsatisfactory
> 
> Wow, that’s some really great reform.
> I presume there was extensive re-training to explain the new system to staff.


 
I worked in the public sector for several years (and made a stupid decision to leave) and you'd have to douse your manager in petrol and start flicking a lighter to get a poor rating (especially if you were in the union). Increments were/are an entitlement. Twice I saw two utterly useless individuals getting excellent performance reviews for the simple reason that they could then be promoted out of our section. What the public sector really needs is a round of compulsory redundancies to root out the dossers and send a message of real reform. All people managers would be grateful.


----------



## gianni

Leper said:


> Up to the 1990's I worked in the Public Service.  I was as junior a clerk as you could find.  Then along came confined internal competitions to become the most junior of the management grade (Admin. Officer or perhaps it was Acting Admin. Officer).  Two clerical officers (both with wide range experience and plenty of cop on etc) were not allowed to go further in the competition i.e they were not allowed to present their cv just for the interview. Both were informed by Line Maagers that they were not of the standard required (a load of rubbish, incidentally).
> 
> The two "failures" resigned shortly after the competition.  One is now lecturing in Kings Inns and the other received a Phd after returning to college.
> 
> So much for other peoples' opinions and the subsequent interviews.



I assume that there were clearly defined minimum requirements for the position that these individuals did not meet (at the time of application).

It is admirable that they then excelled in their chosen fields. Perhaps their realisation that they fell short in the minimum requirements for a junior management post encouraged them to better their future prospects via education/training/etc..


----------



## Leper

Nice post Purple, but with over 5000 posts here you probably would make yourself redundant (especially if you were working for me)[dont know how to insert a winking smilie here]. Nice to see you training your colleagues though (another mistake, when will you be cast aside as a result?).

Dereko asked if the two "failures" challenged the assertion. The answer is an emphatic "No" - they could not be bothered. I meet both of them separately and occasionally and we have a laugh at the people who used to assess us. Amazing power for such assessors and although they are now retired they are as dull as ever. They are golfers and the only thing they cannot do is hit their balls straight down the middle.

Gianni, of course there were clearly defined minimum requirements, but that had nothing to do with anything in the minds of the assessors. Believe me the two never fell short of anything (in fact were excellent performers). I reckon they were so talented that they had to be stopped in their tracks by people who did not want to be surpassed by talent.

Therefore, any assessing was done (like the Bing Crosby song says) "Straight down the Middle."


----------



## gianni

Leper said:


> Gianni, of course there were clearly defined minimum requirements, but that had nothing to do with anything in the minds of the assessors. Believe me the two never fell short of anything (in fact were excellent performers). I reckon they were so talented that they had to be stopped in their tracks by people who did not want to be surpassed by talent.
> 
> Therefore, any assessing was done (like the Bing Crosby song says) "Straight down the Middle."



To be frank, if they met the minimum requirements and didn't submit CV's just because of the opinion of their line managers..more fool them.


----------



## Leper

gianni said:


> To be frank, if they met the minimum requirements and didn't submit CV's just because of the opinion of their line managers..more fool them.


 
If the line manager assessed somebody below par, it meant you could not submit your cv i.e. you fell at the first hurdle.


----------



## Teatime

Sen Maurice Hayes having a go at the civil service. Hard to argue with it.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/civil-service-putting-own-privileges-before-state-29120374.html


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Nice post Purple, but with over 5000 posts here you probably would make yourself redundant (especially if you were working for me)[dont know how to insert a winking smilie here]. Nice to see you training your colleagues though (another mistake, when will you be cast aside as a result?).




Yep, an average of just under 2 posts a day; I'm really dossing all the time in work. 
Most jobs change and evolve as new technology comes along or better work practices are develop. In most cases that constant change is just part of the job and one of the things that both challenges people and removes some of the monotony that most of us face in aspects of our work. 
The problem with overly structured employment contracts or rigid work structures is that it stops the flow of evolution within the work place. That costs the organisation efficiency, destroys competitiveness and leads to frustrated and under motivated employees. 
Everyone where I work is training someone else to do their job. If they are not doing that then they are damaging the future of the organisation and so the long term prospects of everyone who works here.


----------



## Firefly

Firefly said:


> According to Dan O'Brien in today's Irish Times:
> 
> "...public sector workers, despite having suffered net income reductions, have, on average, retained a large part of the gains from bubble-era pay increases.
> The average gross pay packet in the public sector* was €63,305 last year, down by €1,300 from the peak registered in 2009. But it remains well up on the €58,170 paid in 2007 just as the bubble burst"
> 
> So even though cuts have been made, wages are still higher, on average, than they were at the height of the boom..



Dan O'Brien has a follow up piece in today's IT:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ble-era-public-sector-pay-anomalies-1.1319592

"
Although many in the public sector acknowledge that they enjoyed annual increases, benchmarking increases and other increments, for many others, including the letter writer above, it is a case of eaten bread is soon forgotten.
The degree to which public sector workers benefited from the unsustainable inflow of tax revenues during the property bubble years should not be in question. Not only did the public sector pay bill rise faster than any other public sector in the EU after the turn of the century, but inflation-adjusted average earnings increases were hugely greater than those in the private sector.

Not only were average weekly nominal earnings in the private sector already well below those in the public sector when the bubble began to inflate, the gap widened over the course of the bubble years, as the chart below shows.
The gains public sector workers made when compared with their private sector counterparts are much more stark when inflation is taken into account. While average weekly wages in the private sector rose by less than 15 per cent in the period between 2003 and 2009, those in the public sector enjoyed an average increase of 38 per cent.

Given that the consumer price index over that six-year period rose by 13.4 per cent, in real terms, average private earnings were effectively stagnant in the six years to 2009, while those in the public sector grew by more than one quarter.

Since 2009, public sector workers have suffered a larger decline in earnings than those in the private sector, but their real incomes are still well ahead of a decade ago.

On the other hand, in real terms, average private sector earnings are now lower than 10 years ago.

Should people who earn less on average and who have experienced falling real incomes really pay more tax to fund the incomes of those who are richer and retain most of their bubble-era gains?
"


----------



## Purple

Thanks for the link Firefly. Excellent piece and some very good comments below it as well.


----------



## Deiseblue

Interesting Firefly but Mr O'Brien's figures are totally at variance with CSO published data which shows that average Public Sector is €48,126.52.

Mr O'Brien's average of approx €63,305 seems very high when you consider that it is estimated that 1 in 7 of PS employees will suffer arbitrary pay cuts under the putative CPA2 & the threshold is €65,000 - also I believe that stats show that 82 % of PS employees earn less than €60,000.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Interesting Firefly but Mr O'Brien's figures are totally at variance with CSO published data which shows that average Public Sector is €48,126.52.
> 
> Mr O'Brien's average of approx €63,305 seems very high when you consider that it is estimated that 1 in 7 of PS employees will suffer arbitrary pay cuts under the putative CPA2 & the threshold is €65,000 - also I believe that stats show that 82 % of PS employees earn less than €60,000.



Can you post a link please?
I don't see thse figures in his piece. Has it been edited?


----------



## ashambles

> Can you post a link please?
> I don't see thse figures in his piece. Has it been edited?


I think that comes from here
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ting-insiders-freezes-the-young-out-1.1316421
which in turn comes from here
http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

However the figure is a mistake, he took the total pay+pensions number and divided by the WTE number of employees only.

Careless, but I think the PER could present the information better and be a bit less obviously trying to put a positive spin on the data.


----------



## Firefly

Deiseblue said:


> God , I had to help you on on the number of pay cuts inflicted on the PS & then assist you on the % maximum pension for retirees - this time you can help yourself www.tui.ie



Well, looks like I wasn't too far of the mark afterall - from the paper of record no less....

"One in four teachers would be affected by a proposed 5 per cent cut in salaries over €65,000. "


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/educ...-lrc-proposals-on-public-sector-pay-1.1345818


----------



## Delboy

Another 'good news story' from the Croke Park Agreement.....getting paid 12k for work you no longer do! That word so beloved of the PS/CS gets an airing also in the article...'entitled/entitlements'. 

Why we had 33 VEC boards and therefore 33 Chief Execs on roughly 100k each is a whole other discussion

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...-allowances-of-vec-chief-executives-1.1410607

A High Court judge has ruled that the Minister for Education had no power to terminate a €12,500 annual allowance paid to two Vocational Education Committee chief executives.

The State had argued it was entitled to revoke the allowance as administering the school transport scheme had not been part of the role of chief executive for some two years.
The case was brought by Galway chief executive Seosamh Mac Donncha, a former GAA president, and Mayo chief executive Dr Katie Sweeney. They are on annual salaries of some €100,000 and claimed the axing of the allowance would affect their pension entitlements.


----------

