Public Service Attitudes.

quarterfloun

Registered User
Messages
117
1. It rained today. They stopped giving out Swine Flu jabs in the clininc so Public service staff can go home.
2. It rained today. My kids got sent home early. Their school is on the highest point locally.
3. It rained today. My kids school is shut tomorrow. Their scholl will be in the same high place tomorrow.
4. They are slouching off Tuesday because they feel hard done by.

Sod the lot of them. Sack every last civil servant and re-employ those that are prepared to get on with it and do a days work. The rest of the sponging, insipid, unionised shirkers can go and hold their unemployment offices to ramsom.


PS...I'm still at work although I finish at 5, I will be at work tomorrow and Tuesday too.

Vive la revolucion!!!!!
 
At least, unlike bankers, they dont reward themselves with multimillion euro bonuses even if they do a rubbish job.
 
The school may be on the highest point around, but what about the children's homes? What would have happened if the children left school at the correct time only to find some parents couldn't get there because of flooding, or got there and couldn't get home?

The swine flu vaccine is currently being given to persons over 65 with an underlying health condition - not exactly the weather for such people to be out. Do you know for a fact that the staff went home?
 
At least, unlike bankers, they dont reward themselves with multimillion euro bonuses even if they do a rubbish job.

Give us a break would ya. The vast majority of people working in banking do nothing of the sort, nor can they. It is idiotic, trite, puerile and frankly irrelevant to the debate to talk about the bonuses a few at the top can get. We could go on about the few at the top of the public sector too - expenses, early retirement pensions etc. But that too is irrelevant to the debate.

The comparison here is between the vast bulk of private sector workers versus the vast bulk of public sector workers.
 
I thought there was a bonus culture within the Public Sector too - Brendan Drumm and his 70K spring to mind. It exists in any organization where you allow guys in back rooms to backslap each other.

Here's another pretty desperate example.
http://www.independent.ie/national-...nus-scheme-cost-taxpayers-83643m-1715282.html

And another.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-civil-servants-get-pay-rise-on-double-1248314.html

It's nothing to do with Public or Private Sector, it's about the guys (invariably) at the top with their snouts in the trough. The Unions are just as complicit in this exercise. Ask any of them why they earn 150K+ they simply point out that their pay is indexed to someone else, who's pay is indexed to someone else, who pay is determined by a committee who all get paid by .....

We do need a revolution.
 
Here we go again.............

Mods, please put any references to public/private arguments into a sub section somewhere. This site is getting painful to the eye
 
Quarter, I suppose you blame the public servants for the bad weather as well....... the words painting all with one brush springs to mind, give it a rest.
 
Some public servants I know earn up to 87k, or 7000 per month, with 14 wks annual leave, that's 70 days annual leave.

And their attitude is to strike..........I can't understand it.

If I had that pay and conditions, I'd never vote for a strike.
 
Some public servants I know earn up to 87k, or 7000 per month, with 14 wks annual leave, that's 70 days annual leave.
And would you like to compare this against the salaries of the senior people in the private colleges, just for balance?

If I had that pay and conditions, I'd never vote for a strike.
It's not that long ago that the public sector was struggling to recruit staff. Funny how you didn't rush in then?

2. It rained today. My kids got sent home early. Their school is on the highest point locally.
3. It rained today. My kids school is shut tomorrow. Their scholl will be in the same high place tomorrow.
Have you brought up your concerns with the school principal, or through the Parents Association or the parents rep on the Board of Management?
 
Mods, any chance you could change the title of this thread to 'yet another excuse to bash the public service'.
 
Some public servants I know earn up to 87k, or 7000 per month, with 14 wks annual leave, that's 70 days annual leave.

And their attitude is to strike..........I can't understand it.

If I had that pay and conditions, I'd never vote for a strike.

Which area is this person in? 70 days annual leave seems excessive.
 
Well, it's certainly not the Civil Service. Even the Secretary General doesn't get half that amount of Annual Leave.
 
I've just seen this Article from Tuesday's Irish Examiner. It kind of sums up a lot of what I've been trying to say.


Public sector pay cuts unfair and counter-productive on the tax front

By Fergus Finlay This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Tuesday, November 17, 2009


I THINK if I were a public servant today, I’d be mad as hell.
With a few well documented political exceptions, I’ve never known anyone who went into the public service to make money.
In fact if you wanted to make money, the last place you’d go for a career is into the public service.
Some people choose a public service career for security and many choose it because it offers the chance to do something or to be something they’ve always wanted to be. A nurse, a doctor, a teacher, a fireman. To work at healing the sick, catching the baddies, teaching the kids — I’ve known people who grew up from childhood wanting to do just that, and who have found tremendous fulfilment from following a chosen career as a public servant.
And I’ve known public servants who maybe ended up in places they never expected to find themselves, and nevertheless did the state more than a little service. It is public servants who run our libraries (and if you haven’t visited a library lately, go and take a look — it will knock your socks off).
It is public servants who help Irish manufacturers to market their goods and to export them. It is public servants who, behind the scenes, probably did as much and more to bring peace to this island than any of the higher profile politicians who routinely claim their place in history.
I could go on. But you’re going to have to take my word for this, if you haven’t had direct experience of the public service. As I said, I’ve never met a public servant who was in it for the money. And I’ve never met a public servant who wanted to let his or her country down.
Sure, they’re not all equally able. They’re not even all equally pleasant. We’ve all, I’m guessing, had both good and bad experiences at the hands of public servants. But I’m guessing we’ve all had mixed experiences at the hands of business people, bankers, priests, shopkeepers, mechanics, car salesmen, dentists, doctors, and the thousands and thousands of other people who make their living in the private sector in Ireland.
So why, I wonder, are public servants being told, day after day, that they have to bear the brunt of the public expenditure cuts? In addition to that, why are public servants being constantly attacked and derided as if they had suddenly become the fat cats in our society?
Why is there such division, and it seems such jealousy, between the public and the private sector? When public servants, quite rightly, point out that their pay has been hit by the pension levy, the commentators immediately snap that it’s only a modest contribution to the real cost of their pensions.
But for years and years public service pay in Ireland was calculated on the basis that the value of the pension had to be taken into account when making comparisons. In other words, public service salaries tended to be lower than those in the private sector because there was more security in the public service and the pensions were related to income rather than to the contribution made.
I’ve always argued (and I see the OECD is doing it too) that some government has to bite the bullet on the pension issue by closing down the "defined benefit" scheme (which relates pension to salary) for new entrants to the public service, and by placing all new entrants on a defined contribution scheme (which relates pension to the amount you pay into the scheme).
Such a change would bring the cost of funding public service pensions down dramatically over time. It would also mean that everyone in the economy who was working towards a pension, whether in the private or the public sector, would be on the same footing.
But you know what? The pensions entitlements of public servants haven’t actually changed at all. What has changed is that many pension schemes in the private sector have lost huge value partly because of mismanagement and also because the equities and stocks and shares they have been invested in have been damaged by greed and incompetence. More than a few pension funds, for instance, invested heavily in Irish bank shares. Need I say more?
And we’re being told every day that public service pay is at the heart of the whole public expenditure problem because it accounts for a massive proportion of public spending.
When they’re talking about public spending, commentators seem to use whatever figure comes into their heads. I’ve heard it solemnly reported on the radio that public service pay accounts for proportions of spending ranging from 50% to 75%. There’s a mantra about it — "it’s simply impossible to cut public spending (and thereby save the economy is the inference) without cutting pay because pay simply accounts for too much".
The actual figure is about one-third. Public service pay is about one-third of public spending. So every €3 you take off a public servant should give you about €1 in public spending cuts.
There’s a couple of problems with this. First, every time you take €3 off a public servant, you lose anything up to €1 in tax revenue because (unlike a lot of people in the private sector) public servants are all PAYE workers — cut their pay and you immediately lose the income tax they give you. So actually, if you want to get a cut of €1 in overall public spending from public service pay, you have to take around €4.
The Government has said it wants to take €1.3 billion from public servants as their contribution to resolving our financial crisis. If it means that as a net figure (taking account of the loss in tax revenue), it’s going to have to cut pay by around €1.7bn in fact. That’s 10% of the public pay bill from January 1 next.
BUT IF it wants to apply that kind of a cut so that lower paid public servants have to take a hit of, say, 5%, it’s going to have to cut middle income public servants by around 15%.
It was not the public service, nor anyone in the public service, who precipitated this crisis in the first place. And when we’re not busy sneering at public servants, we totally depend on them. Take away our public service in Ireland and you drive a huge hole into our quality of life.
Against that background, the kind of cuts that are now having to be considered, to yield a net €1.3bn in public spending reductions, are savage. They will have a huge impact on thousands of families (some commentators don’t like us noticing that public servants have families, too) and they will seriously damage morale in vital services.
Despite what the commentators might like us to think, cuts of that magnitude are fundamentally unfair. I mightn’t agree — in fact I don’t agree — with the proposition that our economy and our school system can be shut down for a day, or maybe more, by public sector protest. But because the whole approach is so unfair, I can fully understand the anger behind that protest.
 
Mods, any chance you could change the title of this thread to 'yet another excuse to bash the public service'.

I don't want to bash the public service.

I want a well-paid, strong, high-morale, productive public service.

I don't want pay cuts.

I want to see high calibre candidates attracted to quality jobs, with a flexible and adaptable attitude from workers and staff.

Example:
  • Well paid teachers
  • being supported with training (outside class times)
  • with good pensions (with workers contributing 10% of wages)
  • working more days than the current 167 per year
  • with smaller class sizes
  • with procedures to deal with disruptive pupils
What I mean is that already well-paid staff with low tax are striking to achieve what????
 
Back
Top