The highlighted bit is so true. Without it the staff morale / motivation that you mention in the first paragraph won't be achieved by giving poor performers (which is what seems to be happening) increments - it tells them they are performing well and tells the performers, "why bother".
Public Service Allowance Scandal
- Thread starter cork
- Start date
The highlighted bit is so true. Without it the staff morale / motivation that you mention in the first paragraph won't be achieved by giving poor performers (which is what seems to be happening) increments - it tells them they are performing well and tells the performers, "why bother".
I work in a technical grade in the civil service. The minimum entry qualification is a diploma and I know years ago some people with just a cert would have got a job in our organisation. Not anymore. Most people coming in have a masters and a few have phd's but they still start on the first point of the scale.
I went back and did a master's part time a few years ago and did not get bumped up a few increments because of it (nor was i looking too). However this can happen in other grades.
This is part of the problem in the public service, there is no consistency.
I think garda use to start on a higher salary if they had a degree even it it had no relevance to their job but someone can confirm if this is still the case.
The PD's were FF in new clothing...they did'nt do a thing to tackle waste or create efficiencies when in power. I had high hopes for them but they were a serious disappointment. PD's signed off on Benchmarking a few times, various pay agreements, huge PS recruitment drives, near unlimited immigration, etc etc. There was'nt a right leaning bone in any one of them.
The incident that summed them up best for me....the price that McDowell paid for agricultural land in Nth Dub for Thornton Hall prison-it will always stink to high heaven to me and how no journalist ever got to the bottom of it!
elefantfresh
Registered User
- Messages
- 450
I think it has come to the point where its every man for himself. There doesn't appear to be anyone in politics that will do anything except ride the system.
I accept your point. Perhaps I should have qualified my post by saying that the increments system as it currently operates is ludicrous which I believe it is. And regardless of whether it ever gets operated properly, paying increments at a time when the country is broke, 15% unemployment (20%+ if it weren't for emigration) and cutting services to those who really need them is not only ludicrous, it is morally repugnant.
Same here. If anything, I actually agree with most of it. I work hard in a professional job and for quite an average salary. It annoys the hell out of me to see that allowances to 'open the post' or 'operate AV technology' is still present. I think when alot of people talk about public service reform, these are the issues that they want rectified. For the most part, majority of public/civil servants do the best they can at their job irrespective of whether they are in public or private service.
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,445
For me the biggest problem with this is (as was mentioned on Newstalk yesterday morning), the report fails in the very first objective of a report. It fails to mention how many people in the PS avail of each of these allowances and how much each allowance costs the state each year. So as things stand now we are none the wiser than we were before how ever many thousands were spent over the last number of months putting together the report. That is abject failure at it's most basic! I don't know how Brendan Howlin had the neck to stand up in the Dail and present this as a report, never mind the complete and utter failure to achieve anything like what he set out to achieve when he started this process. He should resign and I am surprised the opposition aren't making a lot more out of this.
People tended not to vote for the PDs when they existed.
Also, the other parties adopted the PDs low-tax ideas.
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
I disagree. Cutting pay is the fairest way to achieve across the board savings - I am in favour of cutting pay, preferably in a targeted way via some kind of benchmarking exercise, but across the board if necessary in the interim.
Simple logic suggests that the most financially comfortable people in the PS are already at the top of their incremental scales, have no motivation to be productive, and would be perfectly happy to see increments frozen as it won't impact on them.
I am subject to PMDS (performance management system) in my job, and I have earned the 4/5 that I got. I can tell you if increments are frozen I will make absolutely sure that I do the bare minimum required of me until such time as my incentive to be productive is restored - even though I take huge pride in the job that I do and the fact that I am good at it. And all my older (less speedy and computer illiterate) colleagues perched on top of salary scales, whose productivity presently benefits from me being enthusiastic and helpful, they'll suffer too...
My point is, freezing increments is more likely to have an adverse effect on the productivity of the most productive people while cosseting the non-productive, whereas a paycut will yield more money and will be felt equally by both productive and non-productive people.
I'm sorry, but you have completely lost me with that statement which I'm afraid is symptomatic of a particular mindset which many public sector workers seem to have. Why on earth would you not try and be more productive? Would that be your way of taking revenge against a system for having the temerity to employ you? You can only have that attitude because you know you can't be sacked or demoted, and that the wages will be paid irrespective of your performance.
What surprises me most is that anybody is actually surprised. The government is still spending vastly more than it was before the crisis and that after 4 years of "cuts". All that has happened is that spending has been shuffled around, take a bit here and then add it there.
Were we not all taught as kids that just because all the other kids did something stupid doesn't mean you should be doing it as well?
I think you are somewhat cortradixting yourself in this post. You first say that we should have increments but then talk about making them performance related. I fully agree with providing performance related pay rises under two conditions (a) they can be afforded and (b) they really are based on observable goals and outcomes on an individual basis.
Every company I have worked for has had some sort of performance evaluation system. Unless you at least met your goals for a year you would not qualify for a pay rise or bonus, and these were the. Also dependent on whether the company made a profit.
Were we not all taught as kids that just because all the other kids did something stupid doesn't mean you should be doing it as well?
I think you are somewhat cortradixting yourself in this post. You first say that we should have increments but then talk about making them performance related. I fully agree with providing performance related pay rises under two conditions (a) they can be afforded and (b) they really are based on observable goals and outcomes on an individual basis.
Every company I have worked for has had some sort of performance evaluation system. Unless you at least met your goals for a year you would not qualify for a pay rise or bonus, and these were the. Also dependent on whether the company made a profit.
So has every company I ever worked for. The exception being that you had to meet some sort of a target to keep your job and if you exceeded the target you got a pay rise or a bonus.
Also, I have had job descriptions which went on to several pages but have never seen anything like 'if the phone rings, answer it and try to assist the caller' or 'open the post' or 'replace paper / toner if the printer runs out'... If it really is true, it's beyond me why would anyone need to be paid extra to perform tasks which are basic and essential for performing their job. I mean, you can't be a receptionist without answering the phone and opening or logging post so why would you need extra money for that?
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
Propose an alternative, or point me to a developed country with a functioning public sector better than ours that has implemented an alternative, and then we have something to talk about. Otherwise we're just talking pie in the sky - you know, like a couple of Socialist Workers Party heads...
I don't see a contradiction TBH. The contract of employment I signed says that my pay increases incrementally over 7 years, with 2 long service increments after 3 & 6 years at the max, all of which are subject to "satisfactory performance", so in theory at least they are already performance related. It's the practical application that's the problem.
To me, this at least makes some semblance of sense - I didn't take the job because the starting salary was good - it was SUBSTANTIALLY less than someone with my experience and qualifications could command in the private sector, even after allowing for pension, flexible hours etc... - I took it because there was clarity as to my progression, provided I keep up my side of the bargain and perform.
The question is how you define satisfactory performance - I'd suggest that what is satisfactory this year shouldn't be satisfactory next year, and to merit increments year on year the worker should be objectively improving their performance year on year. The top of the scale represents someone performing at the highest level expected of someone in that role - I'd argue I'm already there in my job, looking at my colleagues who earn 20k more than me who rely on me for help, but it's going to take me several more years to get there, so the system isn't perfect. But telling me that until further notice no matter what I do I can't close the gap is a hugely demotivating factor, and likely to result in me doing the bare minimum to avoid being hauled in for underperformance, or just leaving to go back to a private sector job where performance is rewarded.
That makes perfect sense, but how do you translate that into the public sector context? Progression up an incremental scale is not a pay rise, it's a person being paid slightly more next year for being slightly better and doing slightly more next year by virtue of experience in the role. A pay rise would be where the entire scale is shifted upwards.
This company making a profit analogy that people keep trotting out; the bottom line is we'd have to cut PS pay to nil to clear the budget deficit, so I maintain, a pay cut (across all points of the scales) is fairer than reneging on people's contracts.
and there you have it folks, all summed up nicely
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
Not sure if you're being sarky or not...?!
But just to be clear I'm not saying I'd refuse to do the job I'm being paid to do; simply that's all I'd do. Like the work I've brought home to do tonight in order to improve my output for the month, because I spent 2 hours today helping other people, that wouldn't be happening.
Essentially you are saying you will work to rule...that attitude would get you sacked within a very short period of time within the private sector,if you're not working at 110% in my Company you're a passenger that others will not carry,regardless of how aggrieved or put upon you feel.
No disrespect to you personally, but I think this attitude stinks. You have a permanent job that you cannot be fired from. You will enjoy a pension that is worth far in excess of what you will have personally contributed to it. You enjoy sick pay, paid maternity leave, and a salary that is currently far in excess of what you would receive for a similar job in the private sector. Essentially you have something that a huge amount of people in Ireland today would give their eye teeth for. And yet, despite all this, you say that if the government, in the current economic climate, scrapped increments, that you would stop helping your colleagues? Even though you clearly could if you wanted to?
Also, you're completely wrong when you say that paying increments is a private sector practice as well. It certainly isn't. In the private sector (i.e. the real world) most people work hard to keep their existing job, or to get a promotion.
no, I was'nt being sarky at all. I just feel your piece summed up exactly the attitude of the average PS worker .....I tell people I work with every day that they don't realise how lucky they are with so much unemployment, emmigration, small businesses closing....they have a secure job with great pay, increments and all of the many other benefits incl some crazy allowances...and the majority of them look at me like I have 2 heads when I say it.
Most have never worked in the private sector, in say a small company with less than 30 employees where everyone does everything they can or they are asked to do, as a given. They've straight into the PS/CS from school/college and that's the only world they know, bent and isolated from the real world as it is
Last edited:
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
I've been employed in some capacity since I was 14, all bar the last 2 years in small businesses (much less than 30 employees) in the private sector. I can guarantee that anyone who ever employed me (and there were only 3, because I was a valued employee anywhere I worked) would tell you I'm a very hard working and obliging person, but I feel very strongly on this particular issue - I've entered the PS at the highest grade my experience & qualifications (degree and a professional qualification) merited, and I'm more qualified and outperforming people at the same grade as me who've been in the grade since I was still in primary school, due to "seniority", AND who earn more than 20k p.a. more than I do. The pay system is flawed but I can live with it as long as I can see a path to parity.
So you're damn right my motivation would dip if my pay is effectively cut (by the non-honouring of my contract) and theirs isn't, because they've been turning up for long enough that they've no more increments. Anyone whose motivation wouldn't be affected should have their head checked. Thinking about it, I probably wouldn't be able to go through with my one man work to rule, because it just isn't in my nature - if someone asks me a question I can't help but try to find the answer (I'm looking at you Murphaph and the incessant yap about the German tax code), and I like my boss, and the work that we do. I'd probably last about half an hour before I'd forget.
I'm not a "typical PS worker" with my head buried in the sand. I'm perfectly willing to take a pay cut. And it shouldn't be easy to get an increment.