I wouldn't agree with you there ONQ .... perhaps we need a cull in numbers in the PS but the sentence above is too sweeping for my liking.
I qualified it fully by stating:
"I am not commenting on them in relation to their individual incomes but as a whole."
The whole thing could be compared to your defence of architects' fees on AAM and how people need to be paid a wage commensurate with the work/service they provide.
As I said, I am not making comments on individuals or what some people think the market will bear.
I don't want to pull this thread back to a topic that's addressed elsewhere but you're not comparing like with like.
I didn't defend against the need to reduce the numbers of architects - I accept that.
I was concerned that unqualified and incompetent people were doing the work of designers.
That's like a holistic practitioner doing the work of a trained nurse or consultant in an intensive care unit.
By all means reform the PS but culling PS pay in a slash and burn way is no way to solve it. Cut pay for those who don't perform but at least let the performing worker who earns his/her pay earn it without saying they are being paid too much.
Are you reading my posts or confusing them with someone else's?
I didn't suggest ANY method of reduction.
I pointedly didn't suggest individuals were being paid too much - I stressed that I was referring to the overall balance of payments figures and what they implied.
Think of how emotive it gets when someone suggests a few hundred euro should well cover an architect/engineer when employed to prepare plans for a planning submission etc.
Paddy, have a go at me all you want for what I posted, but please not for words you appear to be putting in my mouth.
Read my post again and you'll see I didn't make the comments you're suggesting that I did make.
Then please clarify where you think you're coming from.
I know you said you weren't commenting on individuals within the PS
No only did I say I wasn't commenting on individuals - I DIDN'T comment on individuals.
...but the quoted text above makes it hard to differentiate between the individual and the whole.
My argument went straight to the macro figures.
It did not suggest what people should accept as pay.
It didn't suggest how to remedy the situation within the service.
It didn't even suggest that job cuts were the only way to make the service more efficient.
It strongly suggested that we should look at ourselves and see what we could do to prevent problems arising.
===========================================
Now if you WANT me to make suggestions in that regard I can offer some speculative comment if you like, but so far I haven't done so in this thread.
I think we need a value-for-money audit of the health service
- who brings what to the table
- what need is there for it
- what does it cost to deliver it.
- how much is it costing us to source
- can we source it more cheaply elsewhere
- can we free up hospital resources without risk
- can we deliver some services within the community
- what is the most cost-efficient [not cheapest] way to do this
We need to undertake an in depth PESTEL and SWOT analysis of the whole health service and move forward with a workable plan.
Three obvious ways to reduce the health spend are:
1. Use of Generic Drugs
This is widely reported in medical journals adn I would support the use fof the best available in certain critical cases. Early intervention should allow the use of more cost efficient alternatives. This goes back to early identification and care at GP level, with clinics providing backup as required.
2. Overtime.
Cannot reduce overtime when there is a huge demand for certain services - that's a given. We need to manage populations more effectively in terms of repeat visits, hazardous lifestyles and future proofing health problems.
3. Prevention.
Our binge-drinking, drug-taking culture is storing up more problems for the next generation to pay for in terms of chronic renal failure and cirrhosis of the liver to name but two.
Some will argue that this is a matter for education, but its more a matter for peer pressure and expecting people to act responsibly.
You'll notice I still haven't talked about "job cuts" per se.
I don't believe in them as such - our wealth is in our people and we're losing enough.
Create conditions which reduce the effects the need and natural attrition will deal with the rest.
ONQ.