# No payrises in benchmarking ? "Shock"



## Pique318

> *Public servants to get no pay rise under benchmarking*
> 
> The Benchmarking Body is reportedly set to recommend no pay rises for the majority of public sector employees when its latest set of proposals are published this week.
> 
> Reports this morning say the body has concluded that pay increases are not justified due to the high value of public-sector pensions compared to those in the private sector.
> It will reportedly point out that public-sector pensions are 15% more valuable than those in the private sector.
> The Benchmarking Body was set up to review the salaries of around 300,000 public sector employees and ensure they are in line with equivalent wage rates in the private sector.


 
Finally !!!

What will the unions do if this happens ? Freak out ? Strike ? Fall in behind FG ?


----------



## RonanC

Believe it or no I actually got a pay cut in the last round of public service benchmarking !!! And if nobody believes me I have the payslips to prove it.... 

Benchmarking is in line with inflation and for some of us its less than that !!


----------



## redstar

Great !!

Now perhaps they'll experience what some of us in the private sector have to put up with in the real world.


----------



## triplex

Does this mean that someone earning 35K in public sector has the same amount of disposable income as someone earning 35K in private sector? private sector has higher disposable income...that is not taken into account.. 

private sector person just chooses not to put it into a pension!


----------



## z107

> private sector has higher disposable income...that is not taken into account..



How do you come to that conclusion?


----------



## Purple

triplex said:


> Does this mean that someone earning 35K in public sector has the same amount of disposable income as someone earning 35K in private sector? private sector has higher disposable income...that is not taken into account..
> 
> private sector person just chooses not to put it into a pension!


Rubbish. The public sector pensions are paid for partially by those who enjoy their benefits but mainly by taxes paid by private sector workers. Valuing the public sector pension as being worth an extra 15% top up on salary is very conservative. When better terms and conditions, a generally better working environment and a laughably short week are taken into account the figure should be higher again. 
If this round of benchmarking delivers significant pay cuts across the board in the public sector then the benchmarking body will be doing its job. Anything less will fall short.

I heard some joker from the unions on RTE’s morning Ireland today spouting about how benchmarking was about reducing pay inequality etc. and pay increases for those who run semi-state companies would have to be looked at etc. Well the good news, Comrade, is that we do not live in a communist “utopia” and one of the things that western democracies have in common is that if you are very good at your job and you work you ass off to get to the top you are paid accordingly. If the market price for a CEO for a major company is half a million then that’s what they are worth and that’s what they should get paid. I know the unions would like some spineless stooge running the show that they can push around so that they could screw up the company (which is what they are good at), but thankfully the revolution is a while off yet…


----------



## Welfarite

As a public servant, I am not surprised, and did not expect, a payrise under Benchmarking. The reason the benchmarking body was set up was to try and equalise pay rates between public and private sector. At that time, I was considering leaving the public sector as friends of mine in the private sector were getting more money than me for similar type employment. Benchmarking delivered a rise that brought me up that pay level and I hung on in there. Since then, their position has worsened and I now find myself ahead of them. 

The problem with Public Sector Pay is that it is set in stone due to the security of tenure that that sector enjoys, whereas private sector turns over staff frequently and therefore can set a new rate of pay as economy/demand dictates when advertising posts.


----------



## Purple

Welfarite said:


> As a public servant, I am not surprised, and did not expect, a payrise under Benchmarking. The reason the benchmarking body was set up was to try and equalise pay rates between public and private sector. At that time, I was considering leaving the public sector as friends of mine in the private sector were getting more money than me for similar type employment. Benchmarking delivered a rise that brought me up that pay level and I hung on in there. Since then, their position has worsened and I now find myself ahead of them.
> 
> The problem with Public Sector Pay is that it is set in stone due to the security of tenure that that sector enjoys, whereas private sector turns over staff frequently and therefore can set a new rate of pay as economy/demand dictates when advertising posts.



Good post, good points.


----------



## Westbound

The unions seem to assume that benchmarking is simply another phrase for big round of payrises and seem to forget that payrises are awarded under 'sustaining progress' and that this is due for renegotiation this year. in my mind the benchmarking report will show that there is now parity between public and private sector workers (finally taking into account the pensions etc) and that there is no need for rises to ensure this equality - so what's the unions major issue?

I also read in the Irish times that they have threatened to stop 'modernisation' if they don't see their members get payrises etc.


----------



## Purple

Westbound said:


> I also read in the Irish times that they have threatened to stop 'modernisation' if they don't see their members get payrises etc.


 What, unions holding the country to ransom?! That will never happen.


----------



## rabbit

Purple said:


> The public sector pensions are paid for partially by those who enjoy their benefits but mainly by taxes paid by private sector workers. Valuing the public sector pension as being worth an extra 15% top up on salary is very conservative. When better terms and conditions, a generally better working environment and a laughably short week are taken into account the figure should be higher again.
> If this round of benchmarking delivers significant pay cuts across the board in the public sector then the benchmarking body will be doing its job. Anything less will fall short.


 
Well said.   Everyone around the world who looks at Irish public sector pay and conditions, hours, pensions etc is truly shocked.   Do not forget that despite the massive aid we have received from Europe over the past number of decades, the Irish govt still had to borrow tens of billions of euro to keep the show on the road.   Money which the Irish productive sector will have to pay back sometime - plus interest , in an increasingly changing and competitive world.


----------



## Green

rabbit said:


> Well said. Everyone around the world who looks at Irish public sector pay and conditions, hours, pensions etc is truly shocked.


 
Given that Irish politicans linked themselves to public service pay, dont expect change anytime soon...The German Ambasador was so spot on..


----------



## redstar

Westbound said:


> I also read in the Irish times that they have threatened to stop 'modernisation' if they don't see their members get payrises etc.



I can see it now .... placards with "NO MORE MODERNISATION - WE LIKE THINGS AS THEY ARE NOW"
or "PRESERVE THE PAST - NO MORE CHANGE"

Isn't the word 'conservative' used to describe resistance to 'modernisation' ? The Unions would be showing themselves up as the bastions of conservatism that they really are.


----------



## Sunny

Westbound said:


> I also read in the Irish times that they have threatened to stop 'modernisation' if they don't see their members get payrises etc.


 
I don't know how they can threaten to stop something that hasn't even started!


----------



## Green

Westbound said:


> I also read in the Irish times that they have threatened to stop 'modernisation' if they don't see their members get payrises etc.


 
There is no need to threaten to stop modernisation, they are already doing it, as evidenced by that one guy who went on unofficial strike and stopped Dublin - Cork train services this week.


----------



## Purple

They are a cancer on society. They seek to drag up back into 1920's style collectivism and punish hard work and entrepreneurial activity.


----------



## Pique318

What is the actual cost of employing the public servants ?

How much would it cost to dump 20% of them onto the redundancy list and make the rest cover their roles?
 Considering the amount of inefficiency, it wouldn't amount to much additional work anyway. They may have to cut down on the number of tea breaks and actually work the 35 hour week tho, so I can't see them agreeing to that !


----------



## bamboozle

Why should people receive pay rises for inefficiency of a gross kind. They get pensions & annual leave that those in the private sector can only dream of and lets not even mention job security.
I heard recently of a Civil Service dept which moved offices to a new fully modernized building, less than 200 meters from existing building…to compensate for this trauma and upheaval all staff received 3 days annual leave to compensate


----------



## Pique318

Awh bless, the poor dears must have needed counselling to help them recover!


----------



## Purple

bamboozle said:


> Why should people receive pay rises for inefficiency of a gross kind. They get pensions & annual leave that those in the private sector can only dream of and lets not even mention job security.
> I heard recently of a Civil Service dept which moved offices to a new fully modernized building, less than 200 meters from existing building…to compensate for this trauma and upheaval all staff received 3 days annual leave to compensate


Sickening. They put their hand into your pocket for the cash to pay for it as well.


----------



## MrMan

Speaking as a neutral, if the public sector have things so easy, why aren't you going for those jobs and getting out of the private sector.


----------



## csirl

> What is the actual cost of employing the public servants ?


 
According to the 2008 Book of Estimates, the Civil Service pay & allowances (A1 subhead) cost is:

€1,466,813,000 

Civil Service pension costs is:

€265,159,000

Total Cost = €1,831,972,000

Assuming that there are c.2 million workers in the country, it costs approx. €916 per annum per taxpayer to fund the pay, pensions and allowances of the entire Civil Service.


----------



## Purple

What about the rest of the public sector?


----------



## csirl

> How much would it cost to dump 20% of them onto the redundancy list and make the rest cover their roles?


 
20% of €916 per week would mean each taxpayer would have to pay €183 per year less tax i.e. a saving of c.€3.50 per week !!!!

Cost of Civil Service has little impact on the Budget. The big spending is on the "programme" side and the big wage bill is for non-civil servants, mainly employed by private organisations, who's pay is indirectly funded by taxpayers through programme costs.


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> 20% of €916 per week would mean each taxpayer would have to pay €183 per year less tax i.e. a saving of c.€3.50 per week !!!!


 
Grand. I will take it. Better off in my pocket


----------



## Pique318

Simplistically speaking, 20% of 1.8 Billion is 360 Million.

Now I wonder if we could do with 360 million extra in the exchequer every year?
Oh yeah, that's right, we could have dry schools, or hospitals with actual beds in actual rooms, or maybe roads without potholes, or a contract hit on every politician so they do their job properly or the hitman does 'his' properly 


Note: (ok, ok you have to take out the amount contributed in tax by those people, but assuming they get another job somewhere it'll all balance out...ish)


----------



## ubiquitous

csirl said:


> According to the 2008 Book of Estimates, the Civil Service pay & allowances (A1 subhead) cost is:
> 
> €1,466,813,000
> 
> Civil Service pension costs is:
> 
> €265,159,000
> 
> Total Cost = €1,831,972,000
> 
> Assuming that there are c.2 million workers in the country, it costs approx. €916 per annum per taxpayer to fund the pay, pensions and allowances of the entire Civil Service.



This doesn't sound right. Are you sure about your statistics?
Afaik, the Health Service budget is around €10 billion per year. The education budget is also several billions per year. A large part of both is accounted for by staff costs. On that basis, an estimate of €2 billion as the annual cost of the civil service pay bill sounds hopelessly optimistic.


----------



## bamboozle

MrMan said:


> Speaking as a neutral, if the public sector have things so easy, why aren't you going for those jobs and getting out of the private sector.


 
Here’s a few reasons why I’d rather not work in public service…..ambition, job satisfaction, dealing with clients (as in actually helping/assisting them) working to my potential, I’d be bored silly twiddling my thumbs at work all day, using the skills I picked up in my degree & professional studies….

A few reasons why I’d like to work there…….job security, lack of accountability, lots of holidays, I’d like to improve my golf swing, pensions, pensions, pensions, short working day but long lunch breaks,  pay rises don’t seem to be based on ability merely time in job!


----------



## MrMan

> Here’s a few reasons why I’d rather not work in public service…..ambition, job satisfaction, dealing with clients (as in actually helping/assisting them) working to my potential, I’d be bored silly twiddling my thumbs at work all day, using the skills I picked up in my degree & professional studies….
> 
> A few reasons why I’d like to work there…….job security, lack of accountability, lots of holidays, I’d like to improve my golf swing, pensions, pensions, pensions, short working day but long lunch breaks, pay rises don’t seem to be based on ability merely time in job!



So in simple terms those entering the public sector have no ambition and work within themselves whilst private sector sees those with ambition and drive and are in it to provide the best possible service. If that is the case then why can't private sector employees simply get on with their ambitious, driven careers and not take pot shots at those that they obviously look down on.


----------



## Caveat

MrMan said:


> Speaking as a neutral, if the public sector have things so easy, why aren't you going for those jobs and getting out of the private sector.


 
The internal politics can be nothing short of poisonous in a lot of cases - that's the main thing that would put me off.


----------



## gipimann

ubiquitous said:


> Afaik, the Health Service budget is around €10 billion per year.


 
Health Service staff are not Civil Servants, they are Public Servants, so most likely aren't included in csirl's figures.


----------



## bamboozle

MrMan said:


> So in simple terms those entering the public sector have no ambition and work within themselves whilst private sector sees those with ambition and drive and are in it to provide the best possible service. If that is the case then why can't private sector employees simply get on with their ambitious, driven careers and not take pot shots at those that they obviously look down on.


 

No, its not the people it’s the system/structure that doesn’t allow ambition or hard work to prosper, I’ve spoken to enough folk who are expected to take the ½ hour tea break in the morning and full lunch break, unions have negotiated work conditions to such an extent that it seems minimal amounts of work and efficiency are expected


----------



## MrMan

> The internal politics can be nothing short of poisonous in a lot of cases - that's the main thing that would put me off.





> No, its not the people it’s the system/structure that doesn’t allow ambition or hard work to prosper, I’ve spoken to enough folk who are expected to take the ½ hour tea break in the morning and full lunch break, unions have negotiated work conditions to such an extent that it seems minimal amounts of work and efficiency are expected



Fair enough, when its put like that it makes sense, I'm far from a supporter of unions but I genuinely didn't view such a difference between private and public.


----------



## csirl

> Afaik, the Health Service budget is around €10 billion per year. The education budget is also several billions per year. A large part of both is accounted for by staff costs. On that basis, an estimate of €2 billion as the annual cost of the civil service pay bill sounds hopelessly optimistic.


 
There are very few civil servants working in either the health or education sectors (asides from departmental staff).

The vast majority of schools and hospitals in Ireland are privately owned organisations who's staff costs are paid out of State funding they receive. Though the wages paid to these staff members are ultimately paid out of taxpayers money, they are NOT State employees - they remain as employees of the private organisation that owns the school/hospital. The majority of these private organisations may well be religious order owned non-profit organisations, but, nevertheless, they are not owned by the State and the owners e.g. the religious order, actually employ the employees. 

Ireland doesnt really have a public sector health or education service. What we have is public services that are provided by private sector organisations who receive funding from the State for the provision of these services.

Most Health sector and education sector workers, though referred to as "public servants" by most people are not public sector workers - they are private sector workers who work in public services.


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> There are very few civil servants working in either the health or education sectors (asides from departmental staff).
> 
> The vast majority of schools and hospitals in Ireland are privately owned organisations who's staff costs are paid out of State funding they receive. Though the wages paid to these staff members are ultimately paid out of taxpayers money, they are NOT State employees - they remain as employees of the private organisation that owns the school/hospital. The majority of these private organisations may well be religious order owned non-profit organisations, but, nevertheless, they are not owned by the State and the owners e.g. the religious order, actually employ the employees.
> 
> Ireland doesnt really have a public sector health or education service. What we have is public services that are provided by private sector organisations who receive funding from the State for the provision of these services.
> 
> Most Health sector and education sector workers, though referred to as "public servants" by most people are not public sector workers - they are private sector workers who work in public services.


 They are paid out of my pocket by the government and they fulfil the definition of a public sector i.e. job for life, can’t be sacked, pension that they don’t pay for, short hours and long holidays and pay increases for just being there. 
The rest is semantics.


----------



## Green

Purple said:


> They are paid out of my pocket by the government and they fulfil the definition of a public sector i.e. job for life, can’t be sacked, pension that they don’t pay for, short hours and long holidays and pay increases for just being there.
> The rest is semantics.


 

Lets not fool ourselves, the people of the banana republic are most happy with this situation, and the quality of public services, sure haven't they elected the same Government for the last 10, and soon to be 15 years!


----------



## shnaek

csirl said:


> According to the 2008 Book of Estimates, the Civil Service pay & allowances (A1 subhead) cost is:
> 
> €1,466,813,000
> 
> Civil Service pension costs is:
> 
> €265,159,000
> 
> Total Cost = €1,831,972,000
> 
> Assuming that there are c.2 million workers in the country, it costs approx. €916 per annum per taxpayer to fund the pay, pensions and allowances of the entire Civil Service.




According to the benchmarking body - its report said the cost of its recommendations would be around €50m a year, representing an average increase of 0.3% in total pay costs.

If 50million is .3%, then the total cost is 16.666 Billion (or am I off in my maths here?) Either way, what is covered by benchmarking (and thus this topic) is a hell of a lot more than the 1  and a half billion mentioned.


----------



## rabbit

bamboozle said:


> Why should people receive pay rises for inefficiency of a gross kind. They get pensions & annual leave that those in the private sector can only dream of and lets not even mention job security.
> I heard recently of a Civil Service dept which moved offices to a new fully modernized building, less than 200 meters from existing building…to compensate for this trauma and upheaval all staff received 3 days annual leave to compensate


 

As someone else said, the German Ambasador was so spot on a few months ago ......  the world laughs at us.      The public sector has pay , pensions and conditions way out of line with that "enjoyed" by the private sector, which pays for it all.


----------



## shnaek

"SIPTU (said it) would examine the report over the coming weeks, but warned that increasing disparities in pay between middle and junior public servants and higher and top level public servants were 'not sustainable'."

Wow! They compare with private sector, and then switch to higher sector public servants when it suits them. What next? Benchmarking against Bill Gates?


----------



## csirl

> They are paid out of my pocket by the government and they fulfil the definition of a public sector i.e. job for life, can’t be sacked, pension that they don’t pay for, short hours and long holidays and pay increases for just being there.
> The rest is semantics.


 
This is more political that legal.

For example, if the Government decided not to use a particular hospital for whatever reason for the provision of public services, it would have no LEGAL responsibility to the employees. It would be up to the owners of the hospital to either lay off the staff and pay redundancy or find alternative private medical work to enable them to afford to keep the staff. Legally speaking, the Government is not responsible for the employees. 

However, for political reasons, our politicians have decide not to do this. And even where the State decides to stop using hospitals, our politicians decide to bail out the employees usually giving all the former employees jobs in other hospitals or new hospitals.

Though watch this issue over the coming years. There are potential procurement problems ahead in that none of these private sector organisations appear to have ever won their contracts through a competitive tender !!!


----------



## csirl

> According to the benchmarking body - its report said the cost of its recommendations would be around €50m a year, representing an average increase of 0.3% in total pay costs.
> 
> If 50million is .3%, then the total cost is 16.666 Billion (or am I off in my maths here?) Either way, what is covered by benchmarking (and thus this topic) is a hell of a lot more than the 1 and a half billion mentioned.


 
These costs are for consequential pay increases in private sector organisations doing public services where the Government has agreed to increase the payments it makes to these organisations in line with civil and public service pay rates. Again, done for politicial reasons rather than legal reasons. There is no reason why the Government should be determining the pay of private sector employees in hospitals - it should be up to the hospital owners to negotiate pay with their own staff and set their own rates.


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> These costs are for consequential pay increases in private sector organisations doing public services where the Government has agreed to increase the payments it makes to these organisations in line with civil and public service pay rates. Again, done for politicial reasons rather than legal reasons. There is no reason why the Government should be determining the pay of private sector employees in hospitals - it should be up to the hospital owners to negotiate pay with their own staff and set their own rates.



You are forgetting that the government has to answer to SIPTU, who have a vote on all of these decisions (politically and practically speaking).


----------



## ubiquitous

csirl said:


> These costs are for consequential pay increases in private sector organisations doing public services where the Government has agreed to increase the payments it makes to these organisations in line with civil and public service pay rates. .... There is no reason why the Government should be determining the pay of private sector employees in hospitals - it should be up to the hospital owners to negotiate pay with their own staff and set their own rates.



With respect, it makes no sense to suggest that the HSE (for example) is a private sector organisation - especially when its staff only agreed to its establishment on condition that their existing entitlements as public sector employees would remain unchanged ad infinitum.


----------



## triplex

Purple, 

your bitterness is shocking....get back to work to contribute to the nations taxes..

seriously, many civil servants are frustrated at the 'yes minister' attitude and lack of career progression, are very professional in their work, are not members of unions, pay full PRSI etc - the media just ignores them, so no-one ever hears about them! 

in the private sector, if you work hard, it's recognised. In the civil service, that doesn't happen.... 

the other thing is that managers in civil service do not have any way to deal with underperformance of lower grades - or underperformance of higher grades! When a person is on the same salary for the rest of their lives, and there are no additional bonuses/perks, that person isn't likely to give a toss...

giving staff 3 days off due to move buildings a short walk away is utterly ridiculous...


----------



## Purple

triplex said:


> Purple,
> 
> your bitterness is shocking....get back to work to contribute to the nations taxes..


  OK



triplex said:


> seriously, many civil servants are frustrated at the 'yes minister' attitude and lack of career progression, are very professional in their work, are not members of unions, pay full PRSI etc - the media just ignores them, so no-one ever hears about them!
> 
> 
> in the private sector, if you work hard, it's recognised. In the civil service, that doesn't happen....
> 
> the other thing is that managers in civil service do not have any way to deal with underperformance of lower grades - or underperformance of higher grades! When a person is on the same salary for the rest of their lives, and there are no additional bonuses/perks, that person isn't likely to give a toss...


 So how many of them would cross the picket if the government tried to change things so that those who work hard and well are rewarded and the dead wood was removed (i.e. the idiots were sacked)?


----------



## triplex

_So how many of them would cross the picket if the government tried to change things so that those who work hard and well are rewarded and the dead wood was removed (i.e. the idiots were sacked)?_ 

i think a clean sweep would be great!  Need to start at the dead wood at the top - Yes Minister!  

Wasn't one of the condition of Towards 2016 that public & civil servants gave up the 'right' to strike?


----------



## Purple

triplex said:


> i think a clean sweep would be great!  Need to start at the dead wood at the top - Yes Minister!
> 
> Wasn't one of the condition of Towards 2016 that public & civil servants gave up the 'right' to strike?


 So you would cross the picket line?


----------



## triplex

yes - not in union, so no strike pay from union, so if i don't work i don't get paid, so i can't pay the mortgage so i lose my home.. 

just like the private sector!


----------



## RainyDay

As one of the few people round here who has actual first-hand experience on both sides of the fences (recent move to public sector after many years in private sector), I would just like to point out that the descriptions of public sector environment/people on this thread do not have even the slightest connection with the reality of my world. 

The difference between the two sides is actually considerably less than I expected. To correct some specific points of factual error on this thread;

- many public sector staff contribute to their own pensions
- not all public sector staff have defined benefit pensions
- public sector staff do have performance reviews, and annual increments are subect to satisfactory performance and review
- not all public sector staff are unionised
- public sector staff (unionised and non-union) do cross pickets

etc etc. People need to get real.


----------



## ashambles

Perhaps posters here aren't the only people who'd want to get real, quoting from http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0110/benchmarking.html here's IFUT (?)



> 'It beggars belief that the Benchmarking Body could have recommended a zero pay increase for university lecturers who earn between €10,000 and €15,000 less per year than their average ex-students who graduated only three to five years ago,' the International Federation of University Teachers said.'


Lecturers here are extremely well paid 70 - 80k typically - how many grads would be earning 90k or so after a few years. Lecturers as well as highly paid are so under worked that a resourceful one managed to have two "full time" jobs at separate colleges. (He resigned recently when found out.)


Here's ASTI

'





> The joint submission made on behalf of all teachers clearly showed a significant gap between the lifetime earnings of teachers and those working in comparable careers in the public and private sectors,'



Hmm  "lifetime earnings" a curious distinction - nothing to do with early retirement, career breaks and the like I'd hope.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> - many public sector staff contribute to their own pensions


 Contribute is the key word here. They don’t fund there own pensions, they throw a few bob into the pot and the rest of us make up the balance (i.e. most of it).


RainyDay said:


> - not all public sector staff have defined benefit pensions


 Yes but most do.


RainyDay said:


> - public sector staff do have performance reviews, and annual increments are subect to satisfactory performance and review


 Yea, and how many don’t get their pay increase? BTW a system where you get a pay increase for just not screwing up it nothing to be proud of, especially when it’s other peoples money that they are being paid with.


RainyDay said:


> - not all public sector staff are unionised


 Yes, but most are.


RainyDay said:


> - public sector staff (unionised and non-union) do cross pickets


 Yes, but most don’t.


RainyDay said:


> People need to get real.


 We agree at last.


----------



## rabbit

ashambles said:


> Lecturers here are extremely well paid 70 - 80k typically - how many grads would be earning 90k or so after a few years. Lecturers as well as highly paid are so under worked that a resourceful one managed to have two "full time" jobs at separate colleges. (He resigned recently when found out.)


 
Not only that, but most lecturers I know ( well in to the double figures ) have a "side" business, they operate as nixers, in their "spare" time, holidays, days off etc.    EG some do quantity surveying / building drawings work, snag lists + consultancy for builders + disputes ; others work in "outdoor education / sports" area during  the long summer holidays  ; another does homeopathy from home in the evenings / weekends etc.   Yet they all have a great day job , great hours, conditions + security , etc


----------



## csirl

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *csirl* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=553131#post553131
> _These costs are for consequential pay increases in private sector organisations doing public services where the Government has agreed to increase the payments it makes to these organisations in line with civil and public service pay rates. .... There is no reason why the Government should be determining the pay of private sector employees in hospitals - it should be up to the hospital owners to negotiate pay with their own staff and set their own rates._
> 
> With respect, it makes no sense to suggest that the HSE (for example) is a private sector organisation - especially when its staff only agreed to its establishment on condition that their existing entitlements as public sector employees would remain unchanged ad infinitum.


 
HSE HQ staff are public servants, though not civil servants. In fact, when the HSE was established, civil servants were barred from moving to the HSE, even if their job did.

Most staff paid by HSE funds are NOT public servants. Staff in hospitals and most other organisations delivering health care, including the admin staff, are private sector employees whos wages are paid from HSE funds. These private sector workers make up the vast bulk of the health sector employees and use up the vast bulk of the HSE funds set aside for salaries. When people in the media etc talk about the large amount of funds spent on heatlh sector wages, they are including the private organisation employees in their figures.


----------



## ubiquitous

csirl said:


> Most staff paid by HSE funds are NOT public servants. Staff in hospitals and most other organisations delivering health care, including the admin staff, are private sector employees whos wages are paid from HSE funds. These private sector workers make up the vast bulk of the health sector employees and use up the vast bulk of the HSE funds set aside for salaries. When people in the media etc talk about the large amount of funds spent on heatlh sector wages, they are including the private organisation employees in their figures.



I'm still trying to figure out what relevance this distinction has to this particular debate (ie benchmarking) as HSE staff were one of the largest groups standing to gain or lose as a result of the benchmarking body's report.


----------



## Purple

ubiquitous said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what relevance this distinction has to this particular debate (ie benchmarking) as HSE staff were one of the largest groups standing to gain or lose as a result of the benchmarking body's report.


 Good point.


----------



## shnaek

Indeed. The distinction is akin to the type of distractions magicians use as they pull the wool over your eyes and steal your watch and wallet.


----------



## Pique318

Whether they're public servants, civil servants or private sector workers on a looooong-term contract for Govt body, they ALL get paid from the exchequer purse.


----------



## gipimann

I think HSE staff (including myself) just want to make the distinction between ourselves and civil servants because of the different pension arrangements - public servants pay towards their pension, civil servants do not.   That's all.

I wasn't expecting anything from benchmarking this time, so it didn't come as a shock to me, despite what the newspapers said!


----------



## ajapale

To add to Rainyday's "not all public sector employees" list.

Not all public sector employees are subject to the benchmarking process.



gipimann said:


> . public servants pay towards their pension, civil servants do not.



I dont think this statement is correct.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> Contribute is the key word here. They don’t fund there own pensions, they throw a few bob into the pot and the rest of us make up the balance (i.e. most of it).
> Yes but most do.
> Yea, and how many don’t get their pay increase? BTW a system where you get a pay increase for just not screwing up it nothing to be proud of, especially when it’s other peoples money that they are being paid with.
> Yes, but most are.
> Yes, but most don’t.
> We agree at last.



I'll take these moans seriously when you provide meaningful comparisons. So for private sector employees, how are their pensions funded (majority funded by the employer, right?). I contribute towards my bank's income through bank charges, so do I get to moan about my bank's contribution to my bank manager's pension?[I know your answer will say that I can change my bank, but not my public servant - so what? What's the alternative? Do you want no public services?] The balance isn't made up by 'the rest of us'. It is made up by 'all of us' - us public servants pay taxes too.

And when you do your comparison, don't forget to include the many low-level public sector staff who get little benefit from their pension contributions, given that the standard OAP is deducted before the pension is paid.

How many private sector staff don't get increments following a performance review? How many private sector staff will pass pickets etc. Otherwise, this is just a meaningless B&M session.



ashambles said:


> Lecturers here are extremely well paid 70 - 80k typically - how many grads would be earning 90k or so after a few years. Lecturers as well as highly paid are so under worked that a resourceful one managed to have two "full time" jobs at separate colleges. (He resigned recently when found out.)


These salary figures represent the cream of the profession. There are many, many lecturers in public institutions earning much less that - many on part-time or fixed-term contracts with little or no security. The double-jobber story was quite funny, mind you.



rabbit said:


> Not only that, but most lecturers I know ( well in to the double figures ) have a "side" business, they operate as nixers, in their "spare" time, holidays, days off etc.    EG some do quantity surveying / building drawings work, snag lists + consultancy for builders + disputes ; others work in "outdoor education / sports" area during  the long summer holidays  ; another does homeopathy from home in the evenings / weekends etc.   Yet they all have a great day job , great hours, conditions + security , etc


Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not just lecturers (from both public & private educational institutions) who run side businesses. Many architects, architectural technicians, engineers, plumbers, ICT people etc run side businesses too. The homeopath that I know is an ICT developer in a bank by day, and homeopathist by night. 
So what? Can I conclude that all these private sector employees have great day jobs, great hours, great conditions, great security etc? Jeez, you guys moan about the lack of entrepreneurial thinking in the public sector, and then you moan when someone does show entrepreneurial spirit! Sounds like another B&M session.

This thread is long, long way off from any meaningful discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the public sector.


----------



## dodo

Pique318 said:


> Finally !!!
> 
> What will the unions do if this happens ? Freak out ? Strike ? Fall in behind FG ?


I am so delighted with this outcome, I really am and my wife works in a semi state job. They are spoilt, they had a xmas party and it cost the company 150.00 euros a head. 
That is tax payers money. Six months of sick fully paid, unbeliveable if you ask me.


----------



## RainyDay

dodo said:


> they had a xmas party and it cost the company 150.00 euros a head...Six months of sick fully paid, unbeliveable if you ask me.


Sounds like the terms & conditions of most private sector organisations that I've worked for. Sick leave of course is dependant on doctor's certification, both own doctor and company doctor if necessary.


----------



## John Rambo

*Re: Public Service Benchmarking Body Report (Factual Disucssion)*

I have serious issues with the benchmarking process as I don't feel comparisons between the public and private sectors are valid. 

The unions like to through extreme examples like BOI head Brian Goggin around to try and muddy the waters but the fact remains public sector workers enjoy far greater job security and their pension situation is superior.

The Department of Finance themselves have said that a public sector salary of €176,000 with the normal pension entitlements is the equivalent of a salary of €500,000 in the private sector with no pension benefits. 

This is a salient point, so where the idea that the civil service pension is only worth a 12% discount when "benchmarking" is beyond me. 

And is benchmarking an upwards only process? 

Crying foul when a recommendation of maintaining the status quo is handed down is outrageous.


----------



## RainyDay

*Re: Public Service Benchmarking Body Report (Factual Disucssion)*



John Rambo said:


> The Department of Finance themselves have said that a public sector salary of €176,000 with the normal pension entitlements is the equivalent of a salary of €500,000 in the private sector with no pension benefits.


WHen/where did they say this?


----------



## cole

*Re: Public Service Benchmarking Body Report (Factual Disucssion)*



John Rambo said:


> The Department of Finance themselves have said that a public sector salary of €176,000 with the normal pension entitlements is the equivalent of a salary of €500,000 in the private sector with no pension benefits.


 
So in general terms, a public salary of X with pension is equivalent to a private sector salary of 2.84X? In that case I'll take almost three times my salary without the pension contributions.


----------



## John Rambo

*Re: Public Service Benchmarking Body Report (Factual Disucssion)*



cole said:


> So in general terms, a public salary of X with pension is equivalent to a private sector salary of 2.84X? In that case I'll take almost three times my salary without the pension contributions.


 
Why would you do that...because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?!


----------



## Guest127

so the atm is out of cash. build a wall and get over it. civil and  public servants are not entitled to automatic wage increases without delivering. and deliver for the 1st round they certainly didn't.  and for the likes of me dont know how retired staff were able to join in this little merrygoround. how exactly did a retired person increase their productivity?


----------



## cole

*Re: Public Service Benchmarking Body Report (Factual Disucssion)*



John Rambo said:


> Why would you do that...because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?!


 
No. Because I'll be far better off financially.


----------



## John Rambo

*Re: Public Service Benchmarking Body Report (Factual Disucssion)*



cole said:


> No. Because I'll be far better off financially.


 
You might be, but only through superior investments made by yourself.I too would prefer the €500,000 no pension option but from a the same start point there is parity.


----------



## cole

*Re: Public Service Benchmarking Body Report (Factual Disucssion)*



John Rambo said:


> I too would prefer the €500,000 no pension option but from a the same start point there is parity.


 
There is parity when the pension = 324k per annum.


----------



## John Rambo

*Re: Public Service Benchmarking Body Report (Factual Disucssion)*



cole said:


> There is parity when the pension = 324k per annum.


 
Not true. In simple terms the pension goes on until you die, plus you get a lump sum, plus there's taxation and contribution limits to consider.


----------



## RainyDay

cole said:


> So in general terms, a public salary of X with pension is equivalent to a private sector salary of 2.84X? In that case I'll take almost three times my salary without the pension contributions.





John Rambo said:


> Why would you do that...because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?!





cole said:


> No. Because I'll be far better off financially.





John Rambo said:


> You might be, but only through superior investments made by yourself.I too would prefer the €500,000 no pension option but from a the same start point there is parity.





cole said:


> There is parity when the pension = 324k per annum.





John Rambo said:


> Not true. In simple terms the pension goes on until you die, plus you get a lump sum, plus there's taxation and contribution limits to consider.



Gentlemen - I'm pretty sure you are arguing about fictional numbers, unless/until John Rambo shows a source for his Dept Finance claim.


----------



## ajapale

I enjoyed this blog:
The Uncivil Servant's Rant: I don't like Benchmarking anymore.



> I'm a civil servant and I'm OK, I sleep all night and I work half the day, I like benchmarking, big long tea breaks and sleeping on the job.
> 
> The ramblings and insane witterings of a junior manager in the Irish Civil Service posted in the public domain for the amusement of anyone who happens to give a .. .. .


----------



## dodo

RainyDay said:


> Sounds like the terms & conditions of most private sector organisations that I've worked for. Sick leave of course is dependant on doctor's certification, both own doctor and company doctor if necessary.


Yes fair point but private sector sick's are not paid by the tax payer but by the company itself.


----------



## RainyDay

dodo said:


> Yes fair point but private sector sick's are not paid by the tax payer but by the company itself.


So what? Are you suggesting that public sector employees should accept terms & conditions that are generally lower than the norm, simply because they are public employees?


----------



## Howitzer

RainyDay said:


> So what? Are you suggesting that public sector employees should accept terms & conditions that are generally lower than the norm, simply because they are public employees?


I thought this round of benchmarking empirically established that public sector wages WEREN'T lower than the norm? Isn't that the whole point?


----------



## Sherpa

RainyDay said:


> Gentlemen - I'm pretty sure you are arguing about fictional numbers, unless/until John Rambo shows a source for his Dept Finance claim.


 
The following Irish Independent article includes this quote:


"The report put the value of pensions at 12pc of salary, but business group Chambers Ireland said that was too low. 
"The Department of Finance itself calculated that a pensionable public service salary of €186,000 was equivalent to a non-pensionable salary of €500,000 a year," said its chief executive, John Dunne."


----------



## RainyDay

Howitzer said:


> I thought this round of benchmarking empirically established that public sector wages WEREN'T lower than the norm? Isn't that the whole point?



My comment was specifically in response to Dodo's apparent concern that public sector staff had similar sick leave policies to other staff. I'll set Dodo respond.



Sherpa said:


> The following Irish Independent article includes this quote:
> 
> 
> "The report put the value of pensions at 12pc of salary, but business group Chambers Ireland said that was too low.
> "The Department of Finance itself calculated that a pensionable public service salary of €186,000 was equivalent to a non-pensionable salary of €500,000 a year," said its chief executive, John Dunne."



Thanks for the link. Obviously, this is still a 3rd-party claim. Unless/until I see the relevant Dept Finance comment, I'll take this with a large pinch of salt. I've emailed Chambers Ireland to ask them for their source.


----------



## triplex

Rainyday, you are the only one making sense - everyone else just seems to be moaning about common perceptions with very little evidence. 

Gipimann:
_'I think HSE staff (including myself) just want to make the distinction between ourselves and civil servants because of the different pension arrangements - public servants pay towards their pension, civil servants do not. That's all.'_

Completely incorrect. Civil servants have no choice in the matter - pension contributions are deducted from salary. 

_"The Department of Finance itself calculated that a pensionable public service salary of €186,000 was equivalent to a non-pensionable salary of €500,000 a year," said its chief executive, John Dunne."_

The above relates to a very senior grade in the civil service - senior executive level. Not ordinary rank and file. Again, perspective...

now, instead of moaning, some positive ideas to improve public services please!


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> I'll take these moans seriously when you provide meaningful comparisons. So for private sector employees, how are their pensions funded (majority funded by the employer, right?). I contribute towards my bank's income through bank charges, so do I get to moan about my bank's contribution to my bank manager's pension?[I know your answer will say that I can change my bank, but not my public servant - so what? What's the alternative? Do you want no public services?] The balance isn't made up by 'the rest of us'. It is made up by 'all of us' - us public servants pay taxes too.
> 
> And when you do your comparison, don't forget to include the many low-level public sector staff who get little benefit from their pension contributions, given that the standard OAP is deducted before the pension is paid.
> 
> How many private sector staff don't get increments following a performance review? How many private sector staff will pass pickets etc. Otherwise, this is just a meaningless B&M session.


Well the big news is that most Irish people don't work in IT or for big Multinationals. Most of them work for small businesses that don't have employer funded pension plans and don't have structured performance reviews. They just work their asses off and hope they will have a job next week. I don't know anyone working in the private sector whose pension is majority funded by their employer. I don't know anyone in the private sector who doesn't count their employers contribution toward their pension as part of their salary. 

Every week we hear another story about gross waste in the public sector (and you, in the real world that includes the HSE). 
Last week it was the report on patient abuse in the nursing home in the phoenix park that took TWO YEARS and we not find that they didn't interview everyone so they have to start again. If the person in charge of compiling the report didn't follow procedure they should be sacked. If their boss didn't put a procedure in place then they should be sacked. But it won't happen, it never does. We have a public sector that is unaccountable, inefficient and overstaffed which, for the most part, delivers a shoddy service to the public which it is laughable meant to serve. In that context, and taking their very short week and fantastic terms and conditions into account, I consider them to be overpaid. No off topic ramblings about bank managers will change this view.
Do I want a public service? Yes, but I want one that serves the public, not itself.


----------



## Purple

triplex said:


> Completely incorrect. Civil servants have no choice in the matter - pension contributions are deducted from salary.



A contribution towards pensions is deducted from their salary. The majority of the funding for their pension comes from the exchequer. This is a massive cost to the country and is ignored by the unions when they are deciding how the country is run.
I would like to country to be run by the government and I would like managers to be allowed to manage. We all hear about vested interest groups like the building industry lobby and how they are damaging the country. No vested interest group does more to damage the country or further disenfranchise the poorest in our communities than the public sector unions. Their policy of lobbying for wealth redistribution from the poor to the protected parts of the middle classes is the most cynical sell-out of any supposedly socialist group I have ever heard of. They are a cancer in this economy and this society.


----------



## Sunny

triplex said:


> now, instead of moaning, some positive ideas to improve public services please!


 
1) Reduce the numbers employed in public services. 
2) Change work practices to reflect the modern economy and the realities faced in the private sector. 
3) Increased accountabiliity for senior civil servants and semi state bodies CEO's. If they want to be benchmarked against the private sector for pay, they can be benchamarked for performance as well and face the consequences. 
4) Recuce the bureaucratic nature of much of the public sector.
5) Embrace technology. It is 2008, not 1908!
6) Train staff in project management
7) Incentivise staff with promotions, pay rises and bonuses based on merit. From what I gather this is not happening.
8) Reduce the influence of trade unions.
9) Get rid of alot of the dead wood that I would say has built up over the years
10) Reliase that taxpayers don't mind paying for a public sector but they expect something better than what they are getting. That is why so many people have such a problem with benchmarking. 

Oh and I would also target politicians by reducing number of TD's, reforming the Seanad, change pension to defined contribution and jail whoever is reponsible for things like e-voting machines!!


----------



## triplex

Sunny, 

At last - great stuff..have been saying it for years myself- completely agree- bring it on!


----------



## Purple

Excellent post Sunny. Your suggestions are reasonable, logical and fair. It'll never happen.


----------



## csirl

> Whether they're public servants, civil servants or private sector workers on a looooong-term contract for Govt body, they ALL get paid from the exchequer purse.


 
This is true. But, it should not be. Employees of private organisations (e.g. hospitals) should NOT Be included in Benchmarking and the State should NOT be taking employment risk on behalf of their employers and should NOT be setting their pay and conditions.

The pay and conditions of these employees should be between the employees and their employers - same as any other private sector employees - and should be set by the market rate. 

This is essentially the problem with the health service in Ireland. The employees (and employers), through clever political manipulation over the decades, have got themselves in a position whereby the State has ended up with all the pay risks and they dont have the productivity demands that private sector workers delivering a service should have. We've even got the crazy situation whereby the State is even adminstering their payrolls and getting stung for doing so - PPARS. 

The State needs to stop dealing with these employees directly. Hospitals should have to tender for State contracts and should receive payment proportionate to volumne of services actually provided for State patients. 

Next time you see a bunch of nurses on strike, remember that the State does NOT employ them - their employer is a privately owned hospital. Why is the State even talking to nurses unions? If their employers cant handle their own IR issues, they should withdraw from the medical business and let someone else tender for the contract. 

Thinking aloud, apart from the obvious procurement issues, shouldnt the Competition Authority be looking at why every privately owned hospital in the State that delivers public health has EXACTLY the same pay scales? Isnt this price fixing?


----------



## Purple

Stop making sense! Next you will be saying that socialist collectivism is a bad thing and that the individual is more important than the state. If you had your way we would all be judged and valued based on how smart we were and how hard we worked. If that happened we'd have a fair society and a successful economy. Where do you get off?


----------



## Pique318

Purple said:


> Stop making sense! Next you will be saying that socialist collectivism is a bad thing and that the individual is more important than the state. If you had your way we would all be judged and valued based on how smart we were and how hard we worked. If that happened we'd have a fair society and a successful economy. Where do you get off?


 
LOL...thanks Purple, I now have to clean my keyboard of the coffee I spat all over it !!!


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> Well the big news is that most Irish people don't work in IT or for big Multinationals. Most of them work for small businesses


Source please?


Purple said:


> I don't know anyone working in the private sector whose pension is majority funded by their employer.


I do.


Purple said:


> Every week we hear another story about gross waste in the public sector (and you, in the real world that includes the HSE).
> Last week it was the report on patient abuse in the nursing home in the phoenix park that took TWO YEARS and we not find that they didn't interview everyone so they have to start again. If the person in charge of compiling the report didn't follow procedure they should be sacked. If their boss didn't put a procedure in place then they should be sacked. But it won't happen, it never does.


Indeed, there are frequent reports of waste and error in the public sector, which the right-wing media delight in giving maximum coverage. And of course, there are frequent reports of waste and error in the private sector. Almost weekly, we have reports of how the financial institutions made 'errors' in applying fees to customers. We get reports of delayed and abandoned ICT projects in both public and private sectors. Of course, many of the problems in private organisations remain private, as we don't have a C&AG which investigates AIB and NTL etc. 



Purple said:


> Their policy of lobbying for wealth redistribution from the poor to the protected parts of the middle classes is the most cynical sell-out of any supposedly socialist group I have ever heard of.


Please mention one union policy which seeks to redistribute wealth from the poor to the middle classes.



Purple said:


> We have a public sector that is unaccountable, inefficient and overstaffed which, for the most part, delivers a shoddy service to the public which it is laughable meant to serve. In that context, and taking their very short week and fantastic terms and conditions into account, I consider them to be overpaid. No off topic ramblings about bank managers will change this view.
> Do I want a public service? Yes, but I want one that serves the public, not itself.



Your positioning of public & private sector as extreme opposites is just fiction.  Both are made of generally good people, who do generally good work most of the time. We're not that different, really...


----------



## Howitzer

_


			
				Purple said:
			
		


			Their policy of lobbying for wealth redistribution from the poor to the protected parts of the middle classes is the most cynical sell-out of any supposedly socialist group I have ever heard of.
		
Click to expand...

_


RainyDay said:


> Please mention one union policy which seeks to redistribute wealth from the poor to the middle classes.


 
Whilst Purple may have been joking I would actually agree with the conclusion drawn from it. For the most part Trade Unions in Ireland do not represent their traditional audience, they represent middle class members of the public sector (Public, Civil, HSE, whatever) or privatised ex public sector (Eircom, AL). 

What is the role of a Trade Union? If your job and pay conditions are guarenteed then what does it do?

The cases of the Gama workers and Irish Ferry employees have shed a very bad light on the Irish Trade Union movement and their motivations. 

Where the Irish tax payer is the one footing the bill, and the lower you go down the employment foodchain the greater a proportion of your wages you'll pay in taxes (inc VAT), then Purples assertation is factually correctish.

I have no references to back my opinions however it can be seen from this thread and many others that there is a huge amount of antipathy and downright antagonism directed against the Irish Trade Unions and their members. Why is that? It wasn't always that way.


----------



## shnaek

RainyDay said:


> Indeed, there are frequent reports of waste and error in the public sector, which the right-wing media delight in giving maximum coverage. And of course, there are frequent reports of waste and error in the private sector. Almost weekly, we have reports of how the financial institutions made 'errors' in applying fees to customers. We get reports of delayed and abandoned ICT projects in both public and private sectors. Of course, many of the problems in private organisations remain private, as we don't have a C&AG which investigates AIB and NTL etc.



Public purse wastage is paid for by the taxpayer. That is the difference. And while errors in fees etc by financial institutions are a disgrace, the taxpayer is yet to get their money back from wastage such as electronic voting etc. 

If a bank official or a company employee is found responsible for spending 50 million euros on a project which fails, they will be let go. 

Yet the water in Galway county was poisoned for months and I haven't heard of a single person being held responsible. Heck, the people responsible will end up gaining from national wage agreement pay rises! Do you really believe someone in the private sector would be rewarded for the same level of incompetence? Do you believe a company could continue in business if they offered this level of service?


----------



## triplex

Shneak:
_Do you believe a company could continue in business if they offered this level of service?_ 

Yes - what about when AIB bought a finacially unsound insurance company in the 1990's - the insurance company failed, placing AIB in danger, so the goverment GAVE AIB taxpayer's money to save bank. AIB have been making massive profits and the* taxpayer money has not yet been returned...*

Beat THAT!! 

[broken link removed]


----------



## Howitzer

triplex said:


> Shneak:
> _Do you believe a company could continue in business if they offered this level of service?_
> 
> Yes - what about when AIB bought a finacially unsound insurance company in the 1990's - the insurance company failed, placing AIB in danger, so the goverment GAVE AIB taxpayer's money to save bank. AIB have been making massive profits and the* taxpayer money has not yet been returned...*
> 
> Beat THAT!!
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
Calling all conspiracy theorists!

The extent to which big business and the Irish polical system became intertwined during the 80's and early 90's makes it irrelevant as a point of reference when discussing best practices.


----------



## ubiquitous

Howitzer said:


> Calling all conspiracy theorists!
> 
> The extent to which big business and the Irish polical system became intertwined during the 80's and early 90's makes it irrelevant as a point of reference when discussing best practices.



Agreed.


----------



## z103

There are some excellent points made in this thread.

The public sector is choking this country. Unless we have some Thatcheresque reforms fairly quickly, there will be very hard times ahead.

(BTW, I work in the private sector, and can't afford a pension.)


----------



## dodo

RainyDay said:


> So what? Are you suggesting that public sector employees should accept terms & conditions that are generally lower than the norm, simply because they are public employees?


Well I think there should be more investigating into their sick's like any job in the private sector that I have come across, when you have unions involved things are much more complicated than in the private sector,remember most semi states if not all pay 6 moths when out sick the same cant be said with private sector and I pay for their sick's and you


----------



## MOB

"Yes - what about when AIB bought a finacially unsound insurance company in the 1990's - the insurance company failed, placing AIB in danger, so the goverment GAVE AIB taxpayer's money to save bank. AIB have been making massive profits and the taxpayer money has not yet been returned..."

Is this true?   Certainly the linked article does not support the assertion.  It would appear that the government (via the Central Bank) put in £30m and got it all back: to paraphrase the article:

1.  The insolvent ICI was handed over for free to Icarom
2.  £100m was deposited with Icarom, £70m by AIB and £30m by the Central Bank, 
3.  AIB got a £76m settlement from their auditors in 1995, half of the £76m was given to ICI administrator Icarom.
4.  by September of 2000 Icarom paid AIB and the Central Bank back the £100m in full.
5.  AIB continues to pay £8.8m a year to the ICI administrator and will do so until 2013.

It is not clear whether the state got interest on its money, but if the newspaper article is accurate, then it certainly does not support the assertion that the taxpayers money has not yet been returned.


----------



## RainyDay

RainyDay said:


> Thanks for the link. Obviously, this is still a 3rd-party claim. Unless/until I see the relevant Dept Finance comment, I'll take this with a large pinch of salt. I've emailed Chambers Ireland to ask them for their source.


Chambers Ireland responded to my email, indicating that this claim was contained in "by the Department of Finance to the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Service". I can't find the content of any such submission on either the Dept Finance website of the Review body website www.reviewbody.ie - Can anyone else find this submission?



dodo said:


> Well I think there should be more investigating into their sick's like any job in the private sector that I have come across, when you have unions involved things are much more complicated than in the private sector,remember most semi states if not all pay 6 moths when out sick the same cant be said with private sector and I pay for their sick's and you


Now I'm confused. Didn't you agree in this post  that the sick pay conditions in public and private sector were generally the same? I've no problem with any reasonable investigation into those on long-term sick pay, in both public and private sector. I've never heard of a union standing in the way on any such reasonable investigations.



shnaek said:


> Public purse wastage is paid for by the taxpayer. That is the difference. And while errors in fees etc by financial institutions are a disgrace, the taxpayer is yet to get their money back from wastage such as electronic voting etc.


And private sector wastage is paid for by the taxpayer (aka the consumer) through the prices paid for goods and services.



shnaek said:


> If a bank official or a company employee is found responsible for spending 50 million euros on a project which fails, they will be let go.
> 
> Yet the water in Galway county was poisoned for months and I haven't heard of a single person being held responsible. Heck, the people responsible will end up gaining from national wage agreement pay rises! Do you really believe someone in the private sector would be rewarded for the same level of incompetence? Do you believe a company could continue in business if they offered this level of service?


I personally have seen a few major private sector multi-million project failures where no-one got fired, and most of the guilty got promoted or at worst moved sideways. And this was in agressive, competitive multi-national environments. It ain't all that different.



leghorn said:


> There are some excellent points made in this thread.
> 
> The public sector is choking this country. Unless we have some Thatcheresque reforms fairly quickly, there will be very hard times ahead.
> 
> (BTW, I work in the private sector, and can't afford a pension.)


Spend a bit of time checking out the impact of the Thatcheresque reforms on the rail service or local bus services in the UK, and then come back and tell me that this is really where we want to go.


----------



## z103

> Spend a bit of time checking out the impact of the Thatcheresque reforms on the rail service or local bus services in the UK, and then come back and tell me that this is really where we want to go.


I believe the UK transport system is far superior to the Irish one. They actually have rail links to their airports, for example. As far as I'm aware, most of Thatcher's transport policies haven't been reversed by New Labour.

To be honest, Irish transport infrastructure is an embarrassment.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Source please?


I’ll Google it and come back to you. My source was RTE 1 radio.



RainyDay said:


> I do.


 I don’t




RainyDay said:


> Indeed, there are frequent reports of waste and error in the public sector, which the right-wing media delight in giving maximum coverage. And of course, there are frequent reports of waste and error in the private sector. Almost weekly, we have reports of how the financial institutions made 'errors' in applying fees to customers. We get reports of delayed and abandoned ICT projects in both public and private sectors. Of course, many of the problems in private organisations remain private, as we don't have a C&AG which investigates AIB and NTL etc.


 So what? Your assertion in a later post that we pay for these mistakes as consumers shows the typical socialist lack of understanding of free market economics. With competition if one company screws up and adds cost to their product they cannot pass this cost on if it means that their good or service will be uncompetitive as a result. 




RainyDay said:


> Please mention one union policy which seeks to redistribute wealth from the poor to the middle classes.


 The unions have pushed hard for pay increases for their middle class public sector members for the last ten years as part of the agenda they set within social partnership. They have also demanded that direct taxation is not increased to fund these lavish tax increases. They did this in the full knowledge that this would result in an increase in indirect taxation (bin charges, water charges etc). These charges have a higher proportional impact the lower the income is of the person paying them. This goes against everything that unions fought for in their early years before they sold out the poor and became a lobby group.





RainyDay said:


> Your positioning of public & private sector as extreme opposites is just fiction.  Both are made of generally good people, who do generally good work most of the time. We're not that different, really...


 It doesn’t matter how smart or well someone works in a badly run organisation. Unions prevent management from managing. They prevent the lazy and the incompetent from being sanctioned and they prevent the hard working and smart from being rewarded. In short they set the bar as low as possible and they do everything to ensure that it stays there.


----------



## zephyro

RainyDay said:


> And private sector wastage is paid for by the taxpayer (aka the consumer) through the prices paid for goods and services.


 
I don't care about inefficiency and waste as long as I have the option of not subsidising it. I do with private sector services (e.g. the bank I use) but I don't with public sector services.


----------



## diarmuidc

RainyDay said:


> And private sector wastage is paid for by the taxpayer (aka the consumer) through the prices paid for goods and services.


You could drive a bus through the holes in that logic.


----------



## Purple

diarmuidc said:


> You could drive a bus through the holes in that logic.


LOL


----------



## Pique318

diarmuidc said:


> You could drive a bus through the holes in that logic.


 
Although is it Bus Eireann, Dublin Bus or a private company ?


----------



## ClubMan

Pique318 said:


> Although is it Bus Eireann, Dublin Bus or a private company ?


More to the point is it driven by an _NBRU _or a _SIPTU _driver!?


----------



## RainyDay

leghorn said:


> I believe the UK transport system is far superior to the Irish one. They actually have rail links to their airports, for example. As far as I'm aware, most of Thatcher's transport policies haven't been reversed by New Labour.
> 
> To be honest, Irish transport infrastructure is an embarrassment.



I wasn't referring to the infrastructure. I was referring to the policy which privatised the operation of much of the bus and rail network, all in the name of the great God of competition. Ask any UK commuter how that's working out for them.


zephyro said:


> I don't care about inefficiency and waste as long as I have the option of not subsidising it. I do with private sector services (e.g. the bank I use) but I don't with public sector services.


Of course you have choices with public sector services. If you don't like the way the Irish public sector works, go find another public sector that better meets your needs. It's slightly more difficult than changing bank, I grant you. But it is an option.



Purple said:


> So what? Your assertion in a later post that we pay for these mistakes as consumers shows the typical socialist lack of understanding of free market economics. With competition if one company screws up and adds cost to their product they cannot pass this cost on if it means that their good or service will be uncompetitive as a result.


Nice theory. Pity it doesn't work in practice. Markets are not perfect. Consumers display intertia.



Purple said:


> The unions have pushed hard for pay increases for their middle class public sector members for the last ten years as part of the agenda they set within social partnership. They have also demanded that direct taxation is not increased to fund these lavish tax increases. They did this in the full knowledge that this would result in an increase in indirect taxation (bin charges, water charges etc). These charges have a higher proportional impact the lower the income is of the person paying them. This goes against everything that unions fought for in their early years before they sold out the poor and became a lobby group.


DiarmudC's comment applies here. Here's the corrected version of the first sentence.

The unions have pushed hard for pay increases for their *lower class, *middle class*, and upper class* public sector members for the last ten years as part of the agenda they set within social partnership*, in partnership with IBEC, SFA, the farmers, the NGOs and indeed the Govt themselves*. 

Your economic arguement is of course selective in the extreme. There is no logic in blaming increases in indirect taxation on public sector salaries. This assumes that overall tax income was static, i.e. no growth in corporate tax, no growth in CGT, no growth in the numbers paying income etc - all flawed assumptions. Why single out public sector salaries? Why not blame the transport infrastructure spend? Or the capital programme spend in the health sector? Or all those pesky OAPs and other social welfare recipients who sought and received increases? Or all those farmers who get paid for not growing produce? The only reason for blaming public sector salaries is to scapegoat.



Purple said:


> It doesn’t matter how smart or well someone works in a badly run organisation. Unions prevent management from managing. They prevent the lazy and the incompetent from being sanctioned and they prevent the hard working and smart from being rewarded. In short they set the bar as low as possible and they do everything to ensure that it stays there.



Your description of union activity bears no resemblance to the real-world activities of the two union officials in my immediate family. I really think you are living in the past. Perhaps you've been watching reruns of 'On the buses' or some other seventies stuff. This isn't Ireland. [And let's not forget of course that not everyone in the public sector is unionised, and shock/horror - some private sector staff are unionised!]


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Of course you have choices with public sector services. If you don't like the way the Irish public sector works, go find another public sector that better meets your needs. It's slightly more difficult than changing bank, I grant you. But it is an option.


 So when did they introduce a second department of Foreign Affairs? If I don’t like the service I get from the department of social welfare which other department of social welfare should I call? (What are you talking about ?) 




RainyDay said:


> Nice theory. Pity it doesn't work in practice. Markets are not perfect. Consumers display intertia.


 The customer can choose not to move in the private sector, they have no choice with the public sector. Choice, get it? Individual freedom rather than collectivism. 



RainyDay said:


> The unions have pushed hard for pay increases for their *lower class, *middle class*, and upper class* public sector members for the last ten years as part of the agenda they set within social partnership*, in partnership with IBEC, SFA, the farmers, the NGOs and indeed the Govt themselves*.


 I no more want IBEC or the SFA than SIPTU usurping the function and duty of our elected government. I don’t like any of the lobby groups that have their feet under the table of government. My point is that unions within the euphemistically called social partnership framework sold out the poor long ago. They led the charge when the “give us the money but don’t increase direct taxes” policy was floated by all the smart lads at the “partnership” talks.  



RainyDay said:


> Your economic arguement is of course selective in the extreme. There is no logic in blaming increases in indirect taxation on public sector salaries. This assumes that overall tax income was static, i.e. no growth in corporate tax, no growth in CGT, no growth in the numbers paying income etc - all flawed assumptions. Why single out public sector salaries? Why not blame the transport infrastructure spend? Or the capital programme spend in the health sector? Or all those pesky OAPs and other social welfare recipients who sought and received increases? Or all those farmers who get paid for not growing produce? The only reason for blaming public sector salaries is to scapegoat.


 Capital spending is an investment for a return. Increasing pensions looks after vulnerable elderly members of society. I realise they don’t pay the union dues that keep the fat cats at the top of (the ironically named) Liberty Hall in double chins so they of little interest to unions that are nothing more than lobby groups for middle class employees in (for the most part)protected sector of our economy.  The thread is about Benchmarking which is a phenomenon which affects all tax payers in this country. Unfortunately most private sector tax payers feel its affect negatively. That’s what the thread is about so why would I bring capital spending into it? If you wish to introduce a straw man argument then by all means fire away but don’t expect me to do it for you. 





RainyDay said:


> Your description of union activity bears no resemblance to the real-world activities of the two union officials in my immediate family. I really think you are living in the past. Perhaps you've been watching reruns of 'On the buses' or some other seventies stuff. This isn't Ireland. [And let's not forget of course that not everyone in the public sector is unionised, and shock/horror - some private sector staff are unionised!]


I see unions that do all they can to protect the weak and dishonest and prevent chance and a focus on focusing public services on the public. 
I never saw on the buses so that one is lost on me.  What I have seen is 15 years of prosperity wasted by a bad government who have been kept in power by an opposition that is unelectable while they fall over themselves to give away the responsibility and duty they have to run the country to vested interest groups like IBEC and SIPTU. The same morons moan about all that is wrong but do all they can to prevent change and protect their own little corner.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> So when did they introduce a second department of Foreign Affairs? If I don’t like the service I get from the department of social welfare which other department of social welfare should I call? (What are you talking about ?)
> 
> 
> The customer can choose not to move in the private sector, they have no choice with the public sector. Choice, get it? Individual freedom rather than collectivism.


Sorry - I do realise I was a little obtuse here. This choice is to move to another country which better meets your needs. Find a Thatcherist regime somewhere that will create a divided society by exploiting public sector and other workers for the benefit of the few. Isn't that the ultimate step towards the great God of competition?

I'll get back on the other weak arguments later on - have to go serve the public now.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Sorry - I do realise I was a little obtuse here.


 Indeed you were.


RainyDay said:


> This choice is to move to another country which better meets your needs.


 The system is perfect, only the people are flawed. Is that it?
Us non-socialists value individual freedom and think that the state should serve the people, not the other way around. You'd get a round of applause in 1950's Red Square for that comment though 


RainyDay said:


> Find a Thatcherist regime somewhere that will create a divided society by exploiting public sector and other workers for the benefit of the few. Isn't that the ultimate step towards the great God of competition?


 No. Competition is a valuable tool as it penalises waste and inefficiency. Unions are the champions of socialism. They serve their members, not the people. They are a vested interest group that seeks to suck resources from the many and concentrate them in the hands of their middleclass members. Collectivism never benefits the many.



RainyDay said:


> I'll get back on the other weak arguments later on


  It's always fun.


RainyDay said:


> have to go serve the public now.


 Don't work too hard; you'll have the union down on top of you.


----------



## redstar

Now that the nurses union are threatening to use the 'nuclear option' I wonder what the reaction would be if it was an employer who threatened a 'nuclear option' ?

Aren't such threats a form of intimidation ie 'give me what I want or else' ?


----------



## Purple

redstar said:


> Now that the nurses union are threatening to use the 'nuclear option' I wonder what the reaction would be if it was an employer who threatened a 'nuclear option' ?
> 
> Aren't such threats a form of intimidation ie 'give me what I want or else' ?


The crux of their position is that they will abide by the findings of an independent body as long as they like the findings. If they don't they will break their word, showing that their leaders were lying from the start, and screw the country for more money. 
Can you imagine the new levels of apoplectic self-righteous indignation that our left wing media (RTE and the Irish Times) would indulge in if employers tried that?


----------



## ubiquitous

RainyDay said:


> This choice is to move to another country which better meets your needs.



This takes the biscuit. To paraphrase: "there is no need to reform our system. If people don't like it they can emigrate." Are you reading Mugabe at the moment, by any chance?



Purple said:


> I no more want IBEC or the SFA than SIPTU usurping the function and duty of our elected government. I don’t like any of the lobby groups that have their feet under the table of government.



Me neither. 

Anyone who thinks that IBEC/SFA represent the country's employers, IFA represent the country's farmers and SIPTU and ICTU represent the country's workers is either codding themselves or has a vested interest in maintaining this pretence. 

IBEC/SFA (ultimately the same organisation, btw, SFA is a direct subsidiary of IBEC) is dominated the the major employers including the banks and semi-state bodies such as RTE, ESB etc. Hence the existence of ISME and other bodies outside the partnership process.

IFA represents only the large better-off farmers. Hence the proliferation of other farm representative organisations outside the partnership process.

ICTU, SIPTU and the other unions represent a declining share of the country's workers, predominantly those in the highly-protected public sector.

The "Partnership" process is a scam.


----------



## Purple

ubiquitous said:


> Anyone who thinks that IBEC/SFA represent the country's employers, IFA represent the country's farmers and SIPTU and ICTU represent the country's workers is either codding themselves or has a vested interest in maintaining this pretence.
> 
> IBEC/SFA (ultimately the same organisation, btw, SFA is a direct subsidiary of IBEC) is dominated the the major employers including the banks and semi-state bodies such as RTE, ESB etc. Hence the existence of ISME and other bodies outside the partnership process.
> 
> IFA represents only the large better-off farmers. Hence the proliferation of other farm representative organisations outside the partnership process.
> 
> ICTU, SIPTU and the other unions represent a declining share of the country's workers, predominantly those in the highly-protected public sector.
> 
> The "Partnership" process is a scam.


Excellent post. I couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## Howitzer

RainyDay said:


> Sorry - I do realise I was a little obtuse here. This choice is to move to another country which better meets your needs. Find a Thatcherist regime somewhere that will create a divided society by exploiting public sector and other workers for the benefit of the few. Isn't that the ultimate step towards the great God of competition?


This is the ultimate in one eyed, self serving, I'm all right Jackism. This is what the Unions are all about at the moment. You're doing a great job of proving everyone else's point.

Back to the 80's we go, time to dig out the Miami Vice suit and Duran Duran box set.


----------



## cole

Thatcher, Miami Vice and Duran Duran... ah ... happy days.


----------



## RainyDay

I'll 'fess up to a Duran Duran single, but not the whole album. And never the Miami Vice suit.

I'll also 'fess up that my emigration suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek. It does seem like the only solution for someone who is hugely unsatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system. It is highly unlikely that any of these will fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years, so what other options are available?

But back to the more important issues. Purple's tenuous linking of union lobbying on public sector to indirect taxation holds no water. There is no logical reason to link these two together. Public sector pay is no more or less responsible for increases in indirect taxation than any other aspect of public spending.

On the broader issue, this kind of 'four legs good, two legs bad' - 'private sector good, public sector bad' over-simplified analysis does not shine any light on important and complex issues. If anyone really wants to address the issues that do exist in the public sector, some deeper thinking will be required.

But maybe it's just easier to parrot out Daily Telegraph headlines....


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> I'll 'fess up to a Duran Duran single, but not the whole album. And never the Miami Vice suit.
> 
> I'll also 'fess up that my emigration suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek. It does seem like the only solution for someone who is hugely unsatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system. It is highly unlikely that any of these will fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years, so what other options are available?
> 
> But back to the more important issues. Purple's tenuous linking of union lobbying on public sector to indirect taxation holds no water. There is no logical reason to link these two together. Public sector pay is no more or less responsible for increases in indirect taxation than any other aspect of public spending.
> 
> On the broader issue, this kind of 'four legs good, two legs bad' - 'private sector good, public sector bad' over-simplified analysis does not shine any light on important and complex issues. If anyone really wants to address the issues that do exist in the public sector, some deeper thinking will be required.
> 
> But maybe it's just easier to parrot out Daily Telegraph headlines....


I don't read the Daily telegraph so I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. 
In your considered opinion what are the problems with the public sector and what are the solutions? Do you think the public sector is efficient and well run? Do you think that better management is possible without changing structures, incentives and penalties? Hell, do you think better management is possible while unions have an effective veto on management decisions?


----------



## ubiquitous

RainyDay said:


> I'll also 'fess up that my emigration suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek. It does seem like the only solution for someone who is hugely unsatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system. It is highly unlikely that any of these will fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years, so what other options are available?



Twenty years ago, plenty of people were "hugely dissatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system" and most people believed it  "highly unlikely that any of these (would) fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years". The country was in such a mess that the late Brian Lenihan Senior said at one stage that no one could expect such a small island to support all 3.5 million of its inhabitants.

Its easy to be fatalistic about economics and to believe that it is impossible to change things for the better. The Irish experience over the past 20 years shows clearly that such fatalism is misguided.


----------



## boris

To be honest you can't batter all the public/civil service with the same stick.

I sent off a form for a change of address on a car to Environment on Wednesday and got my new licencing certificate in the post this morning!!!

However I know someone else who has been trying to get a form from the Dept. of Agriculture for the last 6 weeks and keeps getting the wrong form everytime.

Under the SMI strategy launched when John Bruton was Taoiseach, the Civil Service tried to align themselves with the practices and changes undertaken by the New Zealand civil service. To a large degree there has been improvements and successes. However Unions/Bad Management/Driftwood etc. are always going to hold back or slow change. Most public/civil servants welcome change and not slow to adapt to it.

Whatever successes there have been have never received public attention or very little. The media are not interested in happy stories from the public service, they prefer just to keep battering away. Also civil/public servants can't talk as they are constrained from making comment (Confidentiality/Official Secrets Act etc.). This doesn't not give fair play for when success is achieved and it tends to be hijacked for political purposes (watch who attends the opening of any new facility even though they have had absolutely no input to it)

As a public servant myself I agree with a lot of what previous posts have said. However I would have to say that some of the perceptions stated were incorrect. One that I would definitely disagree is that Government employees get their pay increases even when they are inefficient. That is totally wrong. I have worked in 3 Departments for the last 15 years and have seen pay rises stopped for many reasons in all of them.

Most civil servants were happy with the first round of benchmarking and were very surprised that agreement was given to a second round so quickly. There were not any expectations for this one from many and so not a lot of surprise there. Just the traditionalists for moaning (nurses/teachers/guards).

However just because there is i[FONT=Times New (W1)]nefficiencies in one area does not mean that they are all the same. We too have to deal with these problems and are quiet annoyed/fustrated at times.[/FONT]

Now back to work


----------



## Raskolnikov

RainyDay said:


> I'll take these moans seriously when you provide meaningful comparisons. So for private sector employees, how are their pensions funded (majority funded by the employer, right?).


The fact that there are 900,000 people in this country who no pension provision at all would suggest otherwise.


----------



## pinkyBear

I think one of the draw backs with public sector pay is as a nurse - if you apply for a job in another hospital unless it is a promotion - pay remains the same. However atleast in the private sector wages are varied for each job. 

That doeos not mean that public sector workers should get a pay rise - their pension is worth 12% of a private sector contribution... No private sector worker has that privilage without AVC's...


----------



## Purple

pinkyBear said:


> I think one of the draw backs with public sector pay is as a nurse - if you apply for a job in another hospital unless it is a promotion - pay remains the same. However atleast in the private sector wages are varied for each job.


 That's what the unions wanted and that's what they got.


----------



## Pique318

the plus side of that is if you move from Dublin to the country, you keep your salary the same but everything else is cheaper (well, houses etc.).

The private sector get shafted if they leave Dublin as the wages drop dramatically, but the benefits of not being there make up for it 

Edit: Actually, considering the unionised state of nurses pay, does that mean that staff outside Dublin 'already' get pay on a par with their colleagues in Dublin, where things are more expensive ? Is there any benefit to being a nurse in Dublin ? Is there any drawback to being a nurse outside Dublin ?


----------



## Purple

Pique318 said:


> The private sector get shafted if they leave Dublin as the wages drop dramatically, but the benefits of not being there make up for it


 ...or it can be said that the market decides their level of remuneration. I don't see how this means that they are being shafted.


----------



## boris

Pique318 said:


> the plus side of that is if you move from Dublin to the country, you keep your salary the same but everything else is cheaper (well, houses etc.).
> 
> The private sector get shafted if they leave Dublin as the wages drop dramatically, but the benefits of not being there make up for it
> 
> Edit: Actually, considering the unionised state of nurses pay, does that mean that staff outside Dublin 'already' get pay on a par with their colleagues in Dublin, where things are more expensive ? Is there any benefit to being a nurse in Dublin ? Is there any drawback to being a nurse outside Dublin ?


 
PIQUE318 You mentioned that people that move out of Dublin and they have a net benefit from cheaper costs. However I have seen people taking promotions to Dublin in the Public Service where the net increase in pay would not even go towards covering their increased living costs. However they have to take the promotion as they might never get the chance again. So the reverse works as well.


----------



## pinkyBear

> Actually, considering the unionised state of nurses pay, does that mean that staff outside Dublin 'already' get pay on a par with their colleagues in Dublin, where things are more expensive ? Is there any benefit to being a nurse in Dublin ? Is there any drawback to being a nurse outside Dublin ?


 
Well the pay is the same no mater where you work.So absolutly nusring/teaching staff do very well down the country - however jobs may not be as bountiful. 



> The private sector get shafted if they leave Dublin as the wages drop dramatically


 - in some roles certainly, but I know loads of people who work from home and live in the country.


----------



## Pique318

Purple said:


> ...or it can be said that the market decides their level of remuneration. I don't see how this means that they are being shafted.


Absolutely, I agree that the market dictates this, but there is the notion that just because you live in the country, you are automatically worth less even though you do the same job (sometimes for the same company!)


boris said:


> PIQUE318 You mentioned that people that move out of Dublin and they have a net benefit from cheaper costs. However I have seen people taking promotions to Dublin in the Public Service where the net increase in pay would not even go towards covering their increased living costs. However they have to take the promotion as they might never get the chance again. So the reverse works as well.


Well, if I was offered a job in Dublin which made me worse off overall, I wouldn't take it, especially not in the Public Service. Promotions in the Private sector have the benefit of a 'career move' and you may only have to stay for a year or so before you can look elsewhere and have a better starting point for negotiations. Public service workers moving to Dublin may have to wiat for many years until a position opens up elsewhere and there may be dozens of others with longer service in the queue too. so why on earth would you take a promotion in those circumstances ?


pinkyBear said:


> Well the pay is the same no mater where you work.So absolutly nusring/teaching staff do very well down the country - however jobs may not be as bountiful.


Well why then are payrises 'across the board' for all, instead of being pragmatic about it and saying that for those staff in Dublin, well we'll give you more to make life worth it, or cut the wages in the regional hospitals ?


pinkyBear said:


> - in some roles certainly, but I know loads of people who work from home and live in the country.


True, but very few companies offer this benefit. Even in IT which I work in.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> I don't read the Daily telegraph so I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.
> In your considered opinion what are the problems with the public sector and what are the solutions? Do you think the public sector is efficient and well run? Do you think that better management is possible without changing structures, incentives and penalties? Hell, do you think better management is possible while unions have an effective veto on management decisions?



Sorry but I'm not going to answer this here. Partly because it's Friday night, and I'm knackered after a long week serving the public, and partly because I don't feel that this is a 'safe environment'. 

In order to work through solutions to any weaknesses (personal or organisational), I would need to feel that I'm in a safe, nurturing environment where those involved in the process are working positively towards a shared goal. Given the level of bile and invective on this thread and others, AAM is a long way from being a safe, nurturing environment for this kind of discussion.



ubiquitous said:


> Twenty years ago, plenty of people were "hugely dissatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system" and most people believed it  "highly unlikely that any of these (would) fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years". The country was in such a mess that the late Brian Lenihan Senior said at one stage that no one could expect such a small island to support all 3.5 million of its inhabitants.
> 
> Its easy to be fatalistic about economics and to believe that it is impossible to change things for the better. The Irish experience over the past 20 years shows clearly that such fatalism is misguided.


Maybe I'm getting cynical or pessimistic in my old age. My thinking was that there is unlikely to be any substantial political change over the next 20-30 years. We're going to have a series of centre-ish governments, maybe leaning left for one term, leaning right for a couple of terms and with the occasional appearance of the greens. I don't see any appetite among the Irish electorate for dramatic changes in any direction. Hence my assumption major changes in the public sector environment are unlikely.


----------



## room305

Having moved recently into the public sector from the private sector I can say that one thing I've definitely noticed is a dramatic fall in my AAM posting rate ...


----------



## z103

> Having moved recently into the public sector from the private sector I can say that one thing I've definitely noticed is a dramatic fall in my AAM posting rate ...


Is that because you're not in the office as much?


----------



## Purple

leghorn said:


> Is that because you're not in the office as much?


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Sorry but I'm not going to answer this here. Partly because it's Friday night, and I'm knackered after a long week serving the public, and partly because I don't feel that this is a 'safe environment'.
> 
> In order to work through solutions to any weaknesses (personal or organisational), I would need to feel that I'm in a safe, nurturing environment where those involved in the process are working positively towards a shared goal. Given the level of bile and invective on this thread and others, AAM is a long way from being a safe, nurturing environment for this kind of discussion.


That's a pity. Despite our differences of opinion on some issues I respect your opinion and would in very interested in your views on this. (I promise to be nice ).


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> Well the big news is that most Irish people don't work in IT or for big Multinationals. Most of them work for small businesses that don't have employer funded pension plans and don't have structured performance reviews. They just work their asses off and hope they will have a job next week. I don't know anyone working in the private sector whose pension is majority funded by their employer. I don't know anyone in the private sector who doesn't count their employers contribution toward their pension as part of their salary.


Those interested in views on IT project failures in both public and private sectors might be interested in [broken link removed].


----------



## z103

That's quite an interesting article rainyday. I thought this was a good quote;


> “Local indigenous companies should be given greater opportunities to win public sector contracts. They would have the local view and might be better aware of the
> cultural issues that could stymie change projects.”


The tendering process, as it stands, seems to often rule out local indigenous companies.


----------



## room305

leghorn said:


> The tendering process, as it stands, seems to often rule out local indigenous companies.


 
What makes you think this?


----------



## Howitzer

leghorn said:


> That's quite an interesting article rainyday. I thought this was a good quote;
> 
> The tendering process, as it stands, seems to often rule out local indigenous companies.


 
Tosh. The tendering process, any tendering process, works to get the best candidate. Where indigenous companies can't win a contract they need to look at the failings of their bid rather looking for a leg up based on some sort of affirmative action.


----------



## z103

> Tosh. The tendering process, any tendering process, works to get the best candidate. Where indigenous companies can't win a contract they need to look at the failings of their bid rather looking for a leg up based on some sort of affirmative action.


Maybe I should have said _small_ indigenous company.

Failing of their bid might be
 - not in business long enough
 - not enough turnover
 - not enough staff
 - not enough time/resources to do a more sexy or 'tailored' tender

Tell me how to address those issues.


----------



## Pique318

Howitzer said:


> Tosh. The tendering process, any tendering process, works to get the best candidate.


 
TBH, I would suspect that tendering processes have been highly influenced by who plays golf with who, backroom deals and personal opinions/favouritism rather than the 'best, most cost-effective and efficient' bid.


----------



## Howitzer

leghorn said:


> Maybe I should have said _small_ indigenous company.
> 
> Failing of their bid might be
> - not in business long enough
> - not enough turnover
> - not enough staff
> - not enough time/resources to do a more sexy or 'tailored' tender
> 
> Tell me how to address those issues.


A common method is to involve a bid partner on projects that have a logical split. Otherwise be very aggressive on price. This is generally the biggest factor on destinguishing between bids. Make a loss on the project but grow your referencability.

There are a million and one ways to get ahead, relying on hand me downs isn't one of the more constructive ones.


----------



## Howitzer

Pique318 said:


> TBH, I would suspect that tendering processes have been highly influenced by who plays golf with who, backroom deals and personal opinions/favouritism rather than the 'best, most cost-effective and efficient' bid.


Tosh, especially in relation to public sector contracts, though there are exceptions.


----------



## z103

> Make a loss on the project but grow your referencability.


Yeah, yeah... Or just don't bother with tenders and make a profit on every sale (like what we do now anyway).


----------



## Pique318

Howitzer said:


> Tosh, especially in relation to public sector contracts, though there are exceptions.


 
The exceptions still count 

Who's this Tosh person you keep talking to ?


----------



## Howitzer

leghorn said:


> Yeah, yeah... Or just don't bother with tenders and make a profit on every sale (like what we do now anyway).


So what's your problem? Whenever any company in any sphere tries to break into a new market they have to take some chances and/or make some initial losses. If you're happy in your current niche why are complaining that there are barriers to entry when it's your own lack of ambition that is the real barrier?


----------



## z103

> If you're happy in your current niche why are complaining that there are barriers to entry when it's your own lack of ambition that is the real barrier?


It isn't a lack of ambition that is the barrier, it's all the barriers mentioned in this thread. Lack of ambition wasn't one of them.
If we lacked ambition, we would have failed our current, extremely competitive, niche.


----------



## room305

Pique318 said:


> TBH, I would suspect that tendering processes have been highly influenced by who plays golf with who, backroom deals and personal opinions/favouritism rather than the 'best, most cost-effective and efficient' bid.


 
I can only speak from personal experience but this is almost certainly not true.



leghorn said:


> It isn't a lack of ambition that is the barrier, it's all the barriers mentioned in this thread. Lack of ambition wasn't one of them.
> If we lacked ambition, we would have failed our current, extremely competitive, niche.


 
So, many companies are willing to incur a loss in order to secure a public sector contract but your company is not. Fair enough, but how does this highlight a flaw in the tendering process? If anything it highlights its unique strength. The prestige of winning the contracts is such that companies will price below cost in order to obtain them.


----------



## z103

> So, many companies are willing to incur a loss in order to secure a public sector contract but your company is not. Fair enough, but how does this highlight a flaw in the tendering process? If anything it highlights its unique strength. The prestige of winning the contracts is such that companies will price below cost in order to obtain them.


The flaw in that argument is that the lowest price always wins the tender, which certainly isn't the case.
Lowest price isn't always the best, either.



> So, many companies are willing to incur a loss in order to secure a public sector contract but your company is not.


In reality, our company probably won't get the tender no matter what we quote for the cost. Therefore, why bother?


----------



## room305

leghorn said:


> The flaw in that argument is that the lowest price always wins the tender, which certainly isn't the case.
> Lowest price isn't always the best, either.


 
I'm not advocating that the lowest price bidder should always win the tender and from my own experience this would not be the case. If companies are willing to cannablise their profit margins to win public sector contracts, then this can only be a good from the prospective of the taxpayer. However, this should not be taken to imply the best tender always wins or that the process cannot be improved upon.



leghorn said:


> In reality, our company probably won't get the tender no matter what we quote for the cost. Therefore, why bother?


 
Again, I ask why? You began with the proposition that the public sector tender process is designed in such a manner as to preclude indigenous companies from winning the contracts. You have ended with the rather lamer assertion that the process specifically excludes your company from winning contracts it could not be bothered to bid for and would prefer not to win in case it would prohibitively dent your profit margin.


----------



## triplex

_Quote leghorn: In reality, our company probably won't get the tender no matter what we quote for the cost. Therefore, why bother?_



the successful tenderer is supposed to be the 

'Most Economically Advantageous Tender' - MEAT - cost is treated proportionately to time, method of approach to project, how project will be completed,  quality & skills of staff on the project etc.. 

obviously, you are not trying to be the 'most economically advantageous' so you are not offering value for money.. you need to look at the quality of your tender - AND make sure you get feedback on your tender and an explanation of why you didn't get it..


----------



## Howitzer

Completely contradicting everything I said before and repeating, almost verbatim, leghorn's points is this release from the Irish Software Association.

[broken link removed]

Have always held the ISA in low regard as their ISA company of the year has invariably tanked soon afterwards but it does appear that leghorn's views are the common consensus.


----------



## room305

Howitzer said:


> Completely contradicting everything I said before and repeating, almost verbatim, leghorn's points is this release from the Irish Software Association.


 
To be fair, their demands don't seem unreasonable either:



> "The ISA is calling on the public sector to engage more fully through an enhanced 'Technical Dialogue' procedure in advance of the tender being awarded, thereby enabling both parties to fully clarify requirements of the tender," Mr Dempsey said.


----------



## RainyDay

Howitzer said:


> Completely contradicting everything I said before and repeating, almost verbatim, leghorn's points is this release from the Irish Software Association.
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> Have always held the ISA in low regard as their ISA company of the year has invariably tanked soon afterwards but it does appear that leghorn's views are the common consensus.



Actually, I think the ISA are making a different point to leghorn. You could paraphrase the ISA blurb as follows;

It's just not fair. For years, we used to get away with pushing technology solutions to non-existant problems into the public sector. Just flash a few buzz-words and a Gartner 4-quadrant graph around, and they'd buy anything. But now the cheek of them - they actually tell us what they want, and we have to compete on price with the others. How degrading for us. It's just not fair.​


----------



## S.L.F

dodo said:


> I am so delighted with this outcome, I really am and my wife works in a semi state job. They are spoilt, they had a xmas party and it cost the company 150.00 euros a head.
> That is tax payers money. Six months of sick fully paid, unbeliveable if you ask me.



I'll bet your wife works for the ESB! They have some astonishing perks.
You can't compare semi state employees to public servants.

My wife worked in the private sector for many years then took a job in the civil service. Took a drop in wages for the security it offered. With decentralisation and all that if it was a private company you'd get something for moving down the country but with the civil service you get nothing. 

Regarding productivity....having checked the times of posts I've noticed that most of the people who ***** about goverment service do this during office hours, I'm sure their bosses would like it if they concentrated on their jobs instead of *doodling on computers *during work hours.


----------



## ajapale

S.L.F said:


> You can't compare semi state employees to public servants.



This is very true. The commercial semistates are part of the public *sector* but not part of  the public *service*. The commercial semistates were *not* a party to the Benchmarking process. The terms and conditions of the commercial semistates vary very much and in some respects resemble the arrangements in the private sector than the *public* service.

aj


----------



## Purple

ajapale said:


> This is very true. The commercial semistates are part of the public *sector* but not part of  the public *service*. The commercial semistates were *not* a party to the Benchmarking process. The terms and conditions of the commercial semistates vary very much and in some respects resemble the arrangements in the private sector than the *public* service.
> 
> aj


But the commercial semi-states get pay increases at or above the benchmarking rates so for the private sector guy or gal who is paying for the whole thing it makes no difference.
What “commercial” semi-state body operates in a fully open market and still makes money? As far as I can see the only thing that differentiates them from the rest of the state sector is that their inefficiencies are (mainly) paid for directly by the people whom they charge rather than indirectly through general tax revenue. The ESB being a case in point.


----------



## room305

S.L.F said:


> Regarding productivity....having checked the times of posts I've noticed that most of the people who ***** about goverment service do this during office hours, I'm sure their bosses would like it if they concentrated on their jobs instead of *doodling on computers *during work hours.


 
I have no doubt their bosses would but at least their "doodling" isn't paid for out of your taxes.


----------



## z103

> I have no doubt their bosses would but at least their "doodling" isn't paid for out of your taxes.


Yes. In addition, many posters may be working for themselves.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> What “commercial” semi-state body operates in a fully open market and still makes money?


NSAI?


----------



## MOB

Bad example; who are the NSAI's competitors?  

Mind you, they presumably have counterparts in other jurisdictions and the comparisons should be fairly close to like for like;  Assuming the data are available, it should be possible to benchmark some\most\all of their performance indicators in a fairly objective way.


----------



## RainyDay

MOB said:


> Bad example; who are the NSAI's competitors?


EIQA and other private ISO and quality consultants.


----------



## ajapale

As with many areas of the public service there is huge variation both within in and between such organisations.

In the case of NSAI there are some sections that operate in highly competitive areas and others that a old fashioned state monopolies.

*[broken link removed]*

The National Standards Authority of Ireland is, Ireland's Standards body. NSAI facilitates the development of voluntary standard documents. 

_No competitors that I  know about._ 


*[broken link removed]*

Certification is the process by which a body, e.g. the NSAI, certifies that an activity or process conforms to standards laid down for the markets in which that process takes place or into which resultant products may be Sold. 

_Several competitors SGS for instance_


*[broken link removed]*

A statutory body within the NSAI, (Metrology Acts 1980 to 98) LMS exercises regulation making and control functions with regard to measurements, mainly for the purpose of trade.

_This activity was taken over from An Guarda Siochana Weights and Measures. No competitors_


*[broken link removed]*

Agrément certification is specifically for new building products and processes that do not have a long history of use and for which published national standards do not yet exist. 

_No  competitors_ 

*[broken link removed]* 

_Thousand of competitors_

*NSAI Inc*

A full service registrar providing ISO certification to clients in all industries from small enterprise to Fortune 500 companies.

_Many hundreds of competitors_


----------



## Purple

ajapale said:


> As with many areas of the public service there is huge variation both within in and between such organisations.
> 
> In the case of NSAI there are some sections that operate in highly competitive areas and others that a old fashioned state monopolies.
> 
> *[broken link removed]*
> 
> The National Standards Authority of Ireland is, Ireland's Standards body. NSAI facilitates the development of voluntary standard documents.
> 
> _No competitors that I  know about._
> 
> 
> *[broken link removed]*
> 
> Certification is the process by which a body, e.g. the NSAI, certifies that an activity or process conforms to standards laid down for the markets in which that process takes place or into which resultant products may be Sold.
> 
> _Several competitors SGS for instance_
> 
> 
> *[broken link removed]*
> 
> A statutory body within the NSAI, (Metrology Acts 1980 to 98) LMS exercises regulation making and control functions with regard to measurements, mainly for the purpose of trade.
> 
> _This activity was taken over from An Guarda Siochana Weights and Measures. No competitors_
> 
> 
> *[broken link removed]*
> 
> Agrément certification is specifically for new building products and processes that do not have a long history of use and for which published national standards do not yet exist.
> 
> _No  competitors_
> 
> *[broken link removed]*
> 
> _Thousand of competitors_
> 
> *NSAI Inc*
> 
> A full service registrar providing ISO certification to clients in all industries from small enterprise to Fortune 500 companies.
> 
> _Many hundreds of competitors_



Great post AJ and good exapmles.
We are currently moving from the NSAI to a UK company for our ISO registrations. They are less than 30% of the cost and much better to deal with.


----------



## S.L.F

room305 said:


> I have no doubt their bosses would but at least their "doodling" isn't paid for out of your taxes.



Public and civil servants still work for an employer its the employer that pays there wages not the tax payer.
Someone who works for a phone company wouldn't consider a bill payer as their wage provider, doodling on a computer during office hours is costing their employer money and therefore ultimately the customer.
It just seems funny to me that people who are complaining about inefficiency should be on a computer during office hours (doodling that is).




leghorn said:


> Yes. In addition, many posters may be working for themselves.



Anybody who is self employed and has time to doodle on the net needs his or her head examined, there are far more important things to do. If you were self employed you'd know that. I certainly don't have time to mess with a PC during my long work hours.
S.L.F


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> Public and civil servants still work for an employer its the employer that pays there wages not the tax payer.
> Someone who works for a phone company wouldn't consider a bill payer as their wage provider, doodling on a computer during office hours is costing their employer money and therefore ultimately the customer.
> It just seems funny to me that people who are complaining about inefficiency should be on a computer during office hours (doodling that is).


Very true but if the cost of that inefficiency is passed on to the customer that customer can move to a different phone company. This is not the case in the public and civil service where such costs are passed on to the general public in the form of taxes.



S.L.F said:


> Anybody who is self employed and has time to doodle on the net needs his or her head examined, there are far more important things to do. If you were self employed you'd know that. I certainly don't have time to mess with a PC during my long work hours.
> S.L.F


 I have been in work since 7.30 and as taking a 10 minute break.


----------



## z103

> I have been in work since 7.30 and as taking a 10 minute break.


No. SLF knows best. Now back to work.


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> Very true but if the cost of that inefficiency is passed on to the customer that customer can move to a different phone company. This is not the case in the public and civil service where such costs are passed on to the general public in the form of taxes.



Yes but the phone company bills you directly and thus makes a profit whereas the govt service does not make a profit that's why its called a service.
There are many services that are provided by our civil and public service that could not be funded by private organizations.



leghorn said:


> No. SLF knows best.



Thank you leghorn I haven't heard that for quite a while.


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> Yes but the phone company bills you directly and thus makes a profit whereas the govt service does not make a profit that's why its called a service.


 I agree, it's about efficiency. The phone company needs to be efficient or it will loose customers due to high prices and bad service. The public sector should be efficient because it is spending other peoples money and has a duty to do so in an efficient manner.



S.L.F said:


> There are many services that are provided by our civil and public service that could not be funded by private organizations.


 Again I agree but there are also many that are provided by the public and civil service which shouldn't be.


----------



## shnaek

S.L.F said:


> Yes but the phone company bills you directly and thus makes a profit whereas the govt service does not make a profit that's why its called a service.



The ESB doesn't make a profit? That's news to me.


----------



## Purple

shnaek said:


> The ESB doesn't make a profit? That's news to me.


They are a commercial semi-state. This means that they can overcharge so much that not only can they cover their massive wage bill and compensate for their gross inefficiencies but they can have money left over when they are finished. The government, as the owner, then takes some of this "profit" as a "dividend". In real terms the tax payer foots the bill for an over paid and inefficient company which still operates in a monopolistic way in most of it's market and then we pay a top-up tax to the government.  
That's why we have employees in the ESB who's job was computerised in the mid 1980's still "working" there but having no constructive function and adding no value for 20 years. And these guys are earning twice and three times the average industrial wage. I know this because a close relative of mine is such a man. To pretend that these "commercial" semi-state companies actually operate like real commercial bodies is laughable.


----------



## ajapale

Hi Purple,

Which business model for Electricity production / distribution from around the world would be best in your opinion?

aj


----------



## Purple

ajapale said:


> Hi Purple,
> 
> Which business model for Electricity production / distribution from around the world would be best in your opinion?
> 
> aj


 I do not know enough about international electricity generation to answer that. Why do you ask?


----------



## shnaek

ajapale said:


> Hi Purple,
> 
> Which business model for Electricity production / distribution from around the world would be best in your opinion?
> 
> aj



The one that doesn't pay people a very high wage to come in to work every day for two years in a power station that was closed.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> . This means that they can overcharge so much that not only can they cover their massive wage bill and compensate for their gross inefficiencies but they can have money left over when they are finished.


I couldn't have sworn that it was the CER that set electricity prices, not the ESB themselves. Silly old me...


----------



## room305

RainyDay said:


> I couldn't have sworn that it was the CER that set electricity prices, not the ESB themselves. Silly old me...


 
Come now, are you seriously suggesting that the CER sets these prices in an independent fashion?


----------



## RainyDay

room305 said:


> Come now, are you seriously suggesting that the CER sets these prices in an independent fashion?



Do you have some evidence that CER are not acting in an independent fashion?


----------



## room305

RainyDay said:


> Do you have some evidence that CER are not acting in an independent fashion?


 
Possibly I was being a little obtuse, but it was a general statement on how the prices are set rather than a direct allegation of collusion or corruption. The CER receives submissions from the ESB for pricing changes and takes into account investment in the infrastructure, fuel costs and the "efficient" provision of service. From this they calculate whether the price increases are justified, they may also decide during review that prices should be decreased.

Some general points here:

1) How do the CER calculate "efficient" service delivery except by looking the existing ESB operations. But who knows what delights in efficiency competition would bring? What would a regulator looking at airline prices in the eighties adjudge to be "efficient service delivery"? Could they ever envisage the current market-place for air travel? Currently in the US customers can opt for cheaper electricity rates but a higher likelihood of power cuts (it is possible to imagine the reverse for companies depending on uninterrupted supply like Intel), it is through such measures that greater efficiencies are made.

2) The level of investment required can be greatly exaggerated. In the UK, the water regulatory authority (OFWAT) succumbed to the numerous scare stories circulated by water utility companies about the level of investment required in the infrastructure. That the increases in water rates allowed were disproportionate was signified by the willingness of private equity consortiums to buy out these companies as well as their consequent share price appreciation. Okay, the ESB isn't a publically-traded company but who do we know similar scare-mongering tactics are not being employed with similar success? As with water, the level of demand is so assured that it is reasonable to expect margins to be low.


----------



## RainyDay

room305 said:


> Some general points here:
> 
> 1) How do the CER calculate "efficient" service delivery except by looking the existing ESB operations. But who knows what delights in efficiency competition would bring? What would a regulator looking at airline prices in the eighties adjudge to be "efficient service delivery"? Could they ever envisage the current market-place for air travel? Currently in the US customers can opt for cheaper electricity rates but a higher likelihood of power cuts (it is possible to imagine the reverse for companies depending on uninterrupted supply like Intel), it is through such measures that greater efficiencies are made.
> 
> 2) The level of investment required can be greatly exaggerated. In the UK, the water regulatory authority (OFWAT) succumbed to the numerous scare stories circulated by water utility companies about the level of investment required in the infrastructure. That the increases in water rates allowed were disproportionate was signified by the willingness of private equity consortiums to buy out these companies as well as their consequent share price appreciation. Okay, the ESB isn't a publically-traded company but who do we know similar scare-mongering tactics are not being employed with similar success? As with water, the level of demand is so assured that it is reasonable to expect margins to be low.



You outline some interesting possible weaknesses of energy regulation systems. I know next to nothing about how CER operate. But based on your posts, neither do you. You are outlining potential problems, rather than giving specific criticisms. If these guys aren't doing their job, let's hear about the facts, not the gossip.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> You outline some interesting possible weaknesses of energy regulation systems. I know next to nothing about how CER operate. But based on your posts, neither do you. You are outlining potential problems, rather than giving specific criticisms. If these guys aren't doing their job, let's hear about the facts, not the gossip.


So is your opinion that if someone is not an expert they should not comment?

The fact is that wages are extremely high in the ESB and that prices are gone up well ahead of inflation.  I think those who have no choice but to buy electricity from them  are entitled to ask questions.


----------



## RainyDay

Purple said:


> So is your opinion that if someone is not an expert they should not comment?


Enough with the Paxman-like interrogations, already. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth. My opinion is pretty clear from "You are outlining potential problems, rather than giving specific criticisms. If these guys aren't doing their job, let's hear about the facts, not the gossip"

Comment is welcome from anyone. Supposition positioned as fact is not conducive to sensible debate.



Purple said:


> The fact is that wages are extremely high in the ESB and that prices are gone up well ahead of inflation. I think those who have no choice but to buy electricity from them are entitled to ask questions.



High relative to what? Is your comparision against comparable organisations, with similar skill levels etc? Are you referring to Consumer Price Inflation or have you focussed on oil and other fuel costs, which I presume would make up the bulk of their outgoings?

I'll be first to admit that I know very little about this subject. Informed opinion is most welcome. Uninformed speculation doesn't really get us very far.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> Enough with the Paxman-like interrogations, already. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth. My opinion is pretty clear from "You are outlining potential problems, rather than giving specific criticisms. If these guys aren't doing their job, let's hear about the facts, not the gossip"
> 
> Comment is welcome from anyone. Supposition positioned as fact is not conducive to sensible debate.
> 
> High relative to what? Is your comparision against comparable organisations, with similar skill levels etc? Are you referring to Consumer Price Inflation or have you focussed on oil and other fuel costs, which I presume would make up the bulk of their outgoings?
> 
> I'll be first to admit that I know very little about this subject. Informed opinion is most welcome. Uninformed speculation doesn't really get us very far.



Fair enough. This DeloitteReport is two years out of date but it does show that wages are 30% higher than average and that capacity is 10% lower than EU average. This cost 100 million a year in 2006.


----------



## RainyDay

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm having difficulty downloading the full report, and I can't find the figures you quote in the section that does download. I did find some commentary on the features of the Irish electricity market. e.g. small market, low level of interconnection, high level of historic underinvestment, and high dependancy on imported fuels.

I wonder if these effect the measures you quote.


----------



## Purple

RainyDay said:


> I did find some commentary on the features of the Irish electricity market. e.g. small market, low level of interconnection, high level of historic underinvestment, and high dependancy on imported fuels.
> 
> I wonder if these effect the measures you quote.



I'm sure they do. I am also sure that work practices and efficiencies in the ESB are much better now than they were in the 70's and 80's but there is still a way to go.


----------



## stir crazy

I have a lot of friends working in the ESB. I have the inside story here and let me assure you , they do almost nothing all day. They spend half the day on the phone to each other or on the internet looking at sites like this one. They also take a tea break every 30 minutes. One lad left the private sector for one such cushy job and got a pay rise of 15 grand with less work.


----------



## Complainer

Just FYI, I ws advised recently that the ESB had implemented a very tough version of the public sector PMDS performance management system, including Jack Welch-like identification of the weakest 10% of people to be managed out.


----------



## ajapale

Complainer said:


> ... including Jack Welch-like identification of the weakest 10% of people to be managed out.....



I first read about Jack Welches "Weakest 10%" in the late Eighties! I know the  ESB have a name for being progressive but this twenty years later!! I dont know do GE still employ the technique? I know at the time very few corporations adopted the approach.


----------

