Good article on why we should not be borrowing to pay increases to public servants

Jon Snow said:
I don't expect, nor see it as very likely, that there'll be big rises. Nor do I get the impression from talking to colleagues that they do.
Click to expand...

Correct.

PS that I have spoken to are somewhat aware of the talks, but do not expect a substantial reverse of the paycuts.
 
The ones I have been taking to are expecting a big increase in take home pay and the unions are feeding these expectations almost like its inevitable.

Time will tell I suppose
 
Given the state of the public finances, they are very naive.

The Govt have repeatedly said any reversal of paycuts will be modest.
 
The Govt simply can't afford big restoration of paycuts, given the constraints imposed by troika and EU budget targets.
 
Why is it when the private sector negotiate a pay rise, they have to increase productivity in some way, but the public sector or more specifically TDs just get a rise even if they mess things up?
 
The public sector got pay cuts and increased productivity, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
 
venice said:
The public sector got pay cuts and increased productivity, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Click to expand...
Not aimed at you venice, I've always been bemused by this idea of increased productivity. since I left school i've always been in employment, firstly in the UK and then since returning home in 2000. I've always given 100% to my employers in terms of commitment during my working day (I'm not a believer in the 110% BS) I dont have any room for increased productivity in my day unless i work extra hours. So, how does the extra productivity come about?? Were these employee's cheating their employers before agreements were put in place?? I'm being serious here, How can people give more if they're already giving their all? or is it all a charade between unions and employer representatives to appease the general public?
 
Productivity across the economy has been growing by maybe 2% pa for the past 20 years.

Main way is new machines, etc.

Example: ATM machines in banks.

Previously teller dealt with 100 transactions per day.

Now with machine and teller both available, transactions per teller might be 200 per day, as the machine also does 100 lodgements per day.

Note that the teller isn't working any faster, but transactions per teller have risen.
 

The answer is contained in the body of your post.

" I dont have any room for increased productivity in my day unless i work extra hours " - that is exactly what happened to public sector workers , their hours have been arbitrarily increased !
 
Last edited:
venice said:
The public sector got pay cuts and increased productivity, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Click to expand...
What measures are used to tell us by how much productivity has increased in the Public Sector?
How is the output measured? It strikes me that these things are difficult to quantify and so open to abuse by both sides.

I also don't understand why people would expect a pay increase for an increase in productivity if they don't have to work harder or longer. If an employee is given a better PC or a faster or more efficient process is introduced then why on earth should they be given a pay increase. That makes no sense at all.

Deiseblue said:
" I dont have any room for increased productivity in my day unless i work extra hours " - that is exactly what happened to public sector workers , their hours have been arbitrarily increased !
Click to expand...
Can you give a link to back that up?
Does it apply to all public sector employees or just the "wurkers"?
 
It is well-established that real wages should follow labour productivity.

This would be standard economics.

Over the long-run, this has happened, more or less. [well, the link has weakened recently]

Otherwise, all the gains from more productive labour would go to somebody else, not the worker.
 
I'll give you an example of productivity in the public service.

Employment is local councils is down 25%.

Output [difficult to quantify] is not down that much.

Therefore, output per worker is up.
 
Fair enough but if the organisation is not meeting minimum standards and service levels and the employer has to borrow to fund the increases should they still be given?

Protocol said:
I'll give you an example of productivity in the public service.

Employment is local councils is down 25%.

Output [difficult to quantify] is not down that much.

Therefore, output per worker is up.
Click to expand...
Great.
Employment and funding in the health sector went up massively throughout the boom with little or no increase in quality or service levels. It seems that money is neither the answer or the problem.

Maybe the fact that less than one in every 2000 Civil Servants are dismissed each year is indicative of the real problem. I work in a business employing around 100 people so for us to have the same dismissal rate we would only get rid of one person every 20 years.
 
Protocol said:
Otherwise, all the gains from more productive labour would go to somebody else, not the worker.
Click to expand...
Just to add to my last post; if a business increases its profits then it will be able to pay more to get better employees (or workers if you prefer). Good people are any organisations biggest asset. That in itself leads to price competition within the employment market and so leads to increased wages.
In a nutshell; f you want the most productive people then you have to attract them with the best wages. If your business processes and systems are not efficient then your employees cannot be truly productive. Both are required.
If an employee wants to be valued then they must make themselves valuable by being competent and efficient.
 
I just want to back up what Protocol said; that most PS workers I know do not expect a massive increase and certainly not a full reversal of the previous pay cuts. It looks like it will something like a 2% increase if you can believe reports in the paper.

I would also like to point out that the government is talking about a 1.5 billion spending package for the next budget, roughly split 50/50 between reducing taxes and increasing spending. That equates to €750 million each and as PS pay is approx 1/3 of spending it is probably not a surprise that 200-300 million of that is earmarked for PS pay.
Is it buying votes? - probably but it is not just in the area of PS pay they will be looking to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register