Very well said Lartrade.
This old chestnut again... the answer is simple; the alternative was even worse.
This old chestnut again... the answer is simple; the alternative was even worse.If they were so annoyed why did they continue to vote for FF so?
Lartrade
What most of us are objecting to are the sweeping statements tarring everyone in the Public Service with the same brush eg they're all a crowd of lazy spongers, they're all useless, they all fiddle their sick leave etc.
If they were so annoyed why did they continue to vote for FF so?
I suppose the problem is that sweeping generalisations are the nature of the beast. But it's not just the PS and CS is it? It never has just been the PS/CS. Ask farmers. How many sweeping generalisations do they have to put up with? We all think of the 6 land rovers, acres of land, raking in the money from EU subsidies. But the reality is different. Think it's bad being in the PS/CS? When asked in a pub what you do, say you work for a bank or you're a property developer...
Where do you work, Lartrade?
Huge difference between " felt " and " known " ! - what one do you subscribe to ?
Do you know that the PS/CS is massively over staffed or do you just feel it to be that way ?
So that makes it alright? Civil Servants should put up with anything that's said about them without complaint because, sure, its happening to farmers and bankers as well? Where do you work, Lartrade? Can I come on here and make a load of sweeping insulting statements about your profession and expect you to sit silently saying nothing?
Liaconn, again as in other posts you see my point as an excuse for saying it's all right. What I'm saying comes back to the first line of my post today: you're not special.
There is no special agenda against you all, many, many people face sweeping generalisations. What I object to is the PS/CS expecting special consideration or sympathy because it happens to them. Whether I'm unemployed and claiming benefit, a butcher, baker, candlestick maker, my whole life is subject to the same generalisations and, depending on what I do, the same bitterness and attacks as the PS/CS.
No it's not acceptable, but no you're not special.
I'm not going to state where I work or what I do publically because, one I'm a chicken, but more that I prefer to have some privacy on such forums. If you really wish to know PM me.
However, just to state for the record, my job and employer has come in for more than its fair share of stick on these forums, in the media and in public. Let me put it this way: I will go out of my way to not use a taxi because of the inevitable "so where do you work" conversation.
The difference is, where people are right in their criticism, I agree with them, why would I get defensive when they're right? Why would I defend the indefensible? Where they're wrong, I explain to them a different perspective, I try to show what the reality is. If it doesn't work and they still have their prejudice, then it really is no skin off my nose.
I like my job, I even like my employer, but I'm not going to get wound up about something which is effectively a means to pay my mortgage and to facilitate my life outside of work hours and at weekends. It's a job, a good one and it pays well enough, but it's just a job. If, despite pointing out their errors, people still want to have a go, then ho hum, I'll have bit of craic with them, maybe even play along with the stereotype they have just to wind them up. But I won’t take literally or to heart.
Huge difference also between addressing the points raised and selecting a red herring to divert the argument. Welcome to the world of informal fallacies and Ignoratio Elenchi.
However, to humour you: it is both. I know there are certain areas within the PS/CS that are over staffed, I feel that this is indicative of this being a trait in many areas. Which is actually more of a formal fallacy along the lines of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but no one's perfect.
Thanks for humouring me in confirming that not everything you posted was based on facts and thanks for the chance of revisiting my schoolboy knowledge of latin.
Dic mihi solum facta !
People are especially annoyed now because they've always felt/known that there are parts of the PS/CS that are massively over-staffed and also massively inefficient and ultimately it's costing a fortune.
And as for saying there is no special agenda against the public service, I think that's a bit disingenuous. There has been a definite campaign to pitch the public against the private sector in recent times.
I'd say there's a chicken and the egg situation here. Which came first: the alleged media agenda or the private sector being angry at the public sector? If you ask me, it was the latter as just when the first redundancies, pay cuts, etc were hitting the private sector, the PS/CS was talking about striking over any move the government wanted to make in order to reduce costs. Largely, the media reported the public agenda in a sympathetic light, which didn't go down well with the private sector. Since then there has been an actual issue of public vs private.
However, to highlight why I still think there is no agenda, I'll use a different topic as an analogy. Take humble soccer and one of the biggest rivalries: Liverpool and Manchester United. See as a Liverpool fan, I'm livid after each panel discussion on RTE as I feel they're so biased against my club, that their anti-Liverpool agenda is so blatant, that they can't give any praise even when the team demolishes Real Madrid in Europe. I've been known to rant and rave at the reporting in newspapers, the negativity against Liverpool and their manager is a disgrace, how can this be called journalism when it seems they just let Alex Ferguson write copy for them. Then I speak to my friends who would be United fans and they also hate RTE because they feel it's ABU, they hate the printed press because it glorifies Liverpool and is always against their club.
The same show, the same articles and yet we both think they're against our clubs.
There is no agenda. All that offence is in they eye of the beholder. While I have no doubt some journalists do allow their own views and opinion to creep into the copy they write (and not those employed to write opinion or copy), I feel on reflection it's give and take, in some articles you win, in some you lose.
In those cases where there are clear and deliberate lies, you're right to highlight them, I've never denied that. But if you do that, then you must also highlight the cases where untruths or dodgy stats are used in your favour, you can't just highlight the negative ones.
This whole thread is just another PS/CS bashing thread as I said before, this bit is the bit that annoys me the most.
Which parts, name them please?
If you are able to do that then name parts that are not overstaffed massively inefficient and ultimatelty costing a fortune.
Which parts, name them please?
If you are able to do that then name parts that are not overstaffed massively inefficient and ultimatelty costing a fortune.
I assume then it's only fair to use supposition and assumptions when arguing for PS/CS?
But as you ask, there are several sources for this conclusion:
1. (Ex) Trade and Commerce Minister John McGuiness described his own department (in September 2008) as being over-staffed and containing staff with no real designated function. He also pointed out the problems with trying to make cuts within the CS. His own words, though stated in the Dail.
2. SIPTU's own statistics relating to the number of administrative and line management roles within the HSE. Herein lies the wonderful spin of the PS, anyone who calls for cuts is accused of trying to get rid of nurses and front line staff, when it's the excessive admin roles that should go. Is it ok to use SIPTU "facts" to support an argument of over-staffing?
3. Leaked internal CS reports stating over-staffing as high as 8000 across whole CS.
4. Dept of agriculture over-staffing where couldn't lay off employees and had to create roles elsewhere, such as training them to be driving examiners.
5. IMF report. Factual?
Well if we accept reports that An Bord Snip Nua is saying cut at least 20,000 jobs, I think it is safe to assume that there are areas of the public and civil service that are highly inefficient and overstaffed. I don't know why people in the civil service and public sector are so against reform. I know plenty of people in both sectors who complain about out dated work practices, poor career progression, poor motivation etc etc. Personally I would welcome a clean up to get rid of a lot of the dead wood so that that the talented people in the civil and public sector of which there are many would have a better chance at a more satisfying and rewarding career.
I assume then it's only fair to use supposition and assumptions when arguing for PS/CS?
But as you ask, there are several sources for this conclusion:
1. (Ex) Trade and Commerce Minister John McGuiness described his own department (in September 2008) as being over-staffed and containing staff with no real designated function. He also pointed out the problems with trying to make cuts within the CS. His own words, though stated in the Dail.
2. SIPTU's own statistics relating to the number of administrative and line management roles within the HSE. Herein lies the wonderful spin of the PS, anyone who calls for cuts is accused of trying to get rid of nurses and front line staff, when it's the excessive admin roles that should go. Is it ok to use SIPTU "facts" to support an argument of over-staffing?
3. Leaked internal CS reports stating over-staffing as high as 8000 across whole CS.
4. Dept of agriculture over-staffing where couldn't lay off employees and had to create roles elsewhere, such as training them to be driving examiners.
5. IMF report. Factual?
Very well said Lartrade.
This old chestnut again... the answer is simple; the alternative was even worse.
Yes, and your response is in the same vein. So your suggesting that the people, by either pressure or changing voting patters, can't get action on specific issues that they want. If this is the case why do we have so many NGO's? I think your view is just an easy cop out. Nobody cared about this issue and now everybody is jumping up and down about it despite their voting (and other actions) rubberstamping benchmarking and partnership over the last 20 years.
I know there are certain areas within the PS/CS that are over staffed, I feel that this is indicative of this being a trait in many areas.
So the only reason FF got back into power was becase the private sector workers put them there?