"Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants"..statement by Michael O'Leary in SIndo

[liaconn]

So the only reason FF got back into power was becase the private sector workers put them there?

No, but many of the Private Sector workers who are now jumping up and down about partnership, benchmarking etc must have voted for them in the last election. Presumably because they were doing very nicely themselves, thank you, and didn't want to rock the boat.

 

[Sunny]

Do you really believe they will just get rid of all the dead wood in 1 clean sweep or do you believe as I do that all the brown nosers and ass wipers will be the last to go.

Well if you believe this then surely that just proves that what a mess the civil and public sector is in and how badly managed it is because of vested and self interests.

 

[Sunny]

No, but many of the Private Sector workers who are now jumping up and down about partnership, benchmarking etc must have voted for them in the last election. Presumably because they were doing very nicely themselves, thank you, and didn't want to rock the boat.

Not one political party came out and said they would reverse benchmarking or scrap social partnership if they got into power so where was the alternative?

 

[Sunny]

I have never seen any information about the occupations of individual voters nor do I believe any exists except maybe private polls by parties.

So why assume that because FF got back into power, that no-one had any issues with benchamrking etc?

 

[Latrade]

Do you really believe they will just get rid of all the dead wood in 1 clean sweep or do you believe as I do that all the brown nosers and ass wipers will be the last to go.



1 I think John Mc Guiness is bucking for the leaders job and will say anything that will get him noticed

2 The problem with trying to bring cuts into the PS is you have to employ more staff to find out where the cuts can take place.

Madness I know

3 I would love to know which person leaked that report

4 Can't comment about this because I don't know anything about that

5 See above

Unlike the PSCS bashers I don't rattle on about things I know nothing about.
Well maybe once in a while

SLF, I would disagree with the "bashing" accusation, largely because I've been involved in the discussion. You can't use that card every time there is criticism of the PS/CS. Where Liaconn and others have pointed out discrepancies in the accusations, they have been taken on board and accepted. That's reasoned debate, not bashing. It's good to have and it's informative.

However, are you saying that I don't know what I'm on about? You asked how I came to my conclusion (and be fair to me I even accepted some element of jumping to a larger conclusion) and I told you. I did what was asked.

Liaconn, I think we're at a point where we have to agree to disagree. You feel on balance there is an agenda, I feel on balance there isn't. Without going through the every issue of the last year or 18 months of the Indo, I guess we're both arguing from a position of personal feeling.

There are and have been plenty of occasions where statistics are massaged for a positive spin on the PS/CS, I won't list them, but they're there. Examples are the percentage of GDP spent on the PS being lower per head than the OECD countries. However, the percentage of the money spent that goes to salaries is much higher here than in the OECD. However, this bit is never mentioned.

Again, SIPTU is more than willing to hang on to that one statistic from the OECD, yet accuses the OECD of having a capitalist agenda when it criticises the Irish Government for not following its model of a PS/CS.

This isn't bashing anyone, my position is and will remain that there is no agenda, just a media overly reliant on various interest groups/individuals who generate press releases for copy.

To come back to your point, why should we dismiss what IBEC say as being biassed to one agenda and not treat the other side of the social partners with the same scepticism?

 

[Shawady]

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.

I can see where you are coming from when you see people like Liam Doran and Mc Cloone on the news say they are not even going to discuss pay cuts, but to be fair when Impact balloted for strike action they did not get the required majority. I would take this as a lot of public sector workers had accepted their pay cut.

 

[liaconn]

Not one political party came out and said they would reverse benchmarking or scrap social partnership if they got into power so where was the alternative?

I don't remember it even coming up as an issue. And, if you're unhappy with the way a Government is performing, you don't vote for them, and tell them you won't be doing so, in order to let them know of your dissatisfaction. Voting for them and then saying that their policies on partnership and benchmarking are what brought the economy down is not very bright.

 

[Latrade]

There's that expression again. I feel a song coming on...."Feelings...Nothing more than feelings......"

I'd continue but I don't know the words.

Yes, there's that expression again because I was clarifying the original context. Sweet Enola Gay!

As I said, it's an old trick to try to divert attention away from points by picking up on small issues.

 

[Green]

Not one political party came out and said they would reverse benchmarking or scrap social partnership if they got into power so where was the alternative?

So why assume that because FF got back into power, that no-one had any issues with benchamrking etc?

I am amazed at the amount of people and the media who now, so vehemently, complain about the public sector yet yet have not advocated any change or reform over the past 20 - 30 years. To infer that that such an opinion for reform would, if articulated by enough people, who not have caught the attention of political parties is rubbish. While I accept that individuals may have issue with benchmarking by voting for the same party for the last 20 years no meaningful change was achieved.

 

[Green]

I don't remember it even coming up as an issue. And, if you're unhappy with the way a Government is performing, you don't vote for them, and tell them you won't be doing so, in order to let them know of your dissatisfaction. Voting for them and then saying that their policies on partnership and benchmarking are what brought the economy down is not very bright.

Agreed, I think a number of people are embarrassed that their individual voting choices have resulted in this so we now need people/groups to blame, (the bankers, the public servants, the immigrants) all to make us sleep better at night that it was them and not ME that got us into this.

 

[Latrade]

I am amazed at the amount of people and the media who now, so vehemently, complain about the public sector yet yet have not advocated any change or reform over the past 20 - 30 years. To infer that that such an opinion for reform would, if articulated by enough people, who not have caught the attention of political parties is rubbish. While I accept that individuals may have issue with benchmarking by voting for the same party for the last 20 years no meaningful change was achieved.

I'm amazed that you think it's only now people have a problem with benchmarking. It's always been there and this has been represented in the media.

However, this has no relation to voting for FF. You're implying that FF only got back because of private sector employees, ignoring the support for FF within the PS and other sectors that directly benefited in government.

 

[Shawady]

I don't know why people in the civil service and public sector are so against reform.

Sunny, it is my belief that the government is in a strong postition to introduce reform.
The wage bill is going to have to be reduced and if it is not done through reducing numbers it will be done through pay cuts.
I think most people that are faced with taking up some extra work would do it if it did not impact on the wages.

 

[Sunny]

Agreed, I think a number of people are embarrassed that their individual voting choices have resulted in this so we now need people/groups to blame, (the bankers, the public servants, the immigrants) all to make us sleep better at night that it was them and not ME that got us into this.

Thats rubbish. I have never once voted FF in my life but I don't blame FF voters for getting us into this mess. I voted for FG but I readily admit that the only criticism that they made of FF's management of the economy was that they didn't spend enough. All the political parties deserve blame for what has happened. Anyone remember the opposition parties calling for help to be given to first time buyers and everyone else at the height of the property boom instead of calling for steps to be taken to cool house prices?

 

[Green]

I'm amazed that you think it's only now people have a problem with benchmarking. It's always been there and this has been represented in the media.

However, this has no relation to voting for FF. You're implying that FF only got back because of private sector employees, ignoring the support for FF within the PS and other sectors that directly benefited in government.

No, I am well aware of the problems with benchmarking going back to the non publication of the rationale for the increases in the 1st phase. However, I would disagree that this has no relation to voting for FF. If you want to stop a Government policy, you don't keep voting for it.

 

[liaconn]

Thats rubbish. I have never once voted FF in my life but I don't blame FF voters for getting us into this mess.

They may not have got us into this mess, but they supported the government that did. I, as a Civil Servant, did not vote for FF because, despite benchmarking, I could see beyond my own personal situation to the fact that they are a morally bankrupt party.

 

[Green]

All the political parties deserve blame for what has happened.

So the people who voted for them are blameless too? In some senses this issue is a useful microcosm on Irish people and their political choices, too many people decide their voting on local issues rather than on long term strategic considerations.

 

[Green]

they may not have got us into this mess, but they supported the government that did. I, as a civil servant, did not vote for ff because, despite benchmarking, i could see beyond my own personal situation to the fact that they are a morally bankrupt party.

+ 1

 

[Padraigb]

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...

That is faulty logic. You can shed 20,000 jobs by reducing or eliminating services. That's not eliminating inefficiency.

 

[Sunny]

So the people who voted for them are blameless too? In some senses this issue is a useful microcosm on Irish people and their political choices, too many people decide their voting on local issues rather than on long term strategic considerations.

So who did you vote for and why? What did they offer that was so different?

 

[csirl]

I think that people are generalising too much and getting sucked into an argument being promoted by a certain newspaper group with a political agenda.

You cannot say the public sector is good, bad or whatever. There are so many diverse functions and organisations that you cant generalise. Same as you cannot say the private sector is good, bad etc. What the public sector bashers are doing would be akin to public sector workers having a go at all private sector workers just because a minority in certain sectors got us into a financial mess.

I personally think that the broad brush - cut the pay of all public sector workers approach - has political motives. While many areas of the public sector e.g. the civil service, are generally apolitical in that they are not staff by supporters of political parties (mainly because it is illegal for civil servants), there are a lot of "public sector" organisations that are staffed with supporters of political parties who benefited from a "jobs for the boys" approach in recent years. Think quangos, health boards, unnecessary local authorities etc. and your looking in the right direction. No coincidence that the underperforming parts of the PS are the "jobs for the boys" parts?

The policital motive behind encouraging broad brush attacks on the PS is that if the PS was looked at organisation by organisation, reformed and cuts made, the "jobs for the boys" people would be out of work very quickly as generally speaking, they are unproductive. By encouraging the broad brush approach whereby all Public Servants have to suffer, these unproductive political supporters hang onto their jobs.