I'm confused by this. Either they were contractors or they were employees...which is it? (I think they were contractors, in which case they are self-employed).
The Difficult task of Public Service reform.
- Thread starter horusd
- Start date
- Status
I'm confused by this. Either they were contractors or they were employees...which is it? (I think they were contractors, in which case they are self-employed).
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
You're not confused. You're wrong. They were employees on fixed term contracts, or in some cases fixed purpose contracts. They were direct employees of the public bodies concerned, paying PAYE and PRSI etc. As their contracts expired, they weren't renewed.
In fact, much of the limited recruitment happening in the public sector today is on this basis of fixed term contracts;
In fact, much of the limited recruitment happening in the public sector today is on this basis of fixed term contracts;
It looks like we disagree on the term "employee" then. To me, I would take it to mean permanent staff and would exclude those on contract (daily rate, fixed term or whatever). For you it seems that both are employees. Is that correct? If so, I'm sure those on fixed term contracts who may not have had their contracts renewed would be very eager for you to show them how they are in fact employees of the state.
The posts you have provided are fixed term contracts which in my book are just that...contracts. In fact, I cannot find any reference to the term "employee" in those links. Perhaps you could highlight for me?
In any case, let me rephrase my original question relating to those who have worked in the public sector who are now on the dole -
Would those be temporary/contract staff or permanent staff?
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
You're clutching at straws now. It's not me you're disagreeing with, it is the rest of the world. The concept of fixed term employees is well established. See http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...full_time_employment/types_of_employment.html
They WERE employees of the State. A quick look at their P60 will confirm this. They are no longer employees of the State.
I can highlight that there is no reference to the term 'employee' is any of the posts I checked on that site - whether permanent or fixed-term. It's a red herring.
You may be right on the term employee and I may well be wrong. In fact, I probably am wrong as I have always associated the term "employee" as a permanent employee. It's a bit like some posters saying some people don't pay tax rather that saying Income tax.
Having said that....you still haven't answered the original question though:
"Would those be temporary/contract staff or permanent staff? "
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
I'd imagine that the vast majority of former public sector workers now on the dole would have been fixed term contract employees. Does it make any difference? Do you distinguish between private sector staff who where temporary or on contract?
I would go as far as saying all were contract staff unless you could show me where any permanent staff were made involuntarily redundant, but I'm happy to agree that the vast majority were contract staff.
I think it makes a big difference. It seems (as we agree) one section (contract staff) of the public workforce has been adversely affected whilst the other (permanent staff) has not. I'm surprised that given your many posts regarding fairness and equality that I have not seen any posts where you have called for equality here. The question is does it make any difference to you?
I don't actually (all fairness and equality me). In fact, after several years contracting I am just about to join a company as permanent employee but I may well go back contracting again in the future.
Reducing the number of public employees through redundancy and paying them the dole will reduce the cost to the state, that is the simple math. There is no loss in income tax as the money public employees pay in income tax, comes out of the tax pool in the first place.
So, if you lay off person A earning gross €35,000 per year, and he then receives €10,000 per year on the dole then that is a saving of €25,000 to the public finances.
The lunacy of socialism summed up in one sentence. It works a treat in Cuba and North Korea, doesn't it?
You forgot about Germany...in which direction did people travel when the Berlin wall came down?
partnership
Registered User
- Messages
- 585
Maybe I am stupid but if a person earning 35000 is laid off and paid 10,000 it is not a saving of 25000 because the person did not get the 35000 net they might have got 28000 of it so the saving is only 18000, the person on the dole now has 18000 less to spend so the vat and other expenditure the person has is down, they might get rent supplment, mortgage interest, medical card, back to school etc all of which they would not get if they were working and all of which costs the state. So it is not as simple as you make out.
Also pre-1995 public servants are not entitled to the dole so what do they live on?
...and cannot be made compulsorily redundant....yet!
Not looking good there buddy, but I don't think it's the first time...
I actually did, just to see with my own eyes how much damage was done. It was scary, but not as scary as the tales of the people. I remember one kid joining my class who, when asked what his biggest fear was when coming to West Germany, said that it was being sent back!You forgot about Germany...in which direction did people travel when the Berlin wall came down?
Have you started answering the voices in your head?
Thanks for pointing that out, the "gross" should say "net"; as stated before public service employee's taxes are paid for out of money taken from the tax pool itself.
However, on VAT the situation is not as clear cut. The reduction in public expenditure means that ultimately less money has to be take out of the economy, so more money can be spent. There is not net loss to taxation income on other items when public spending is reduced.
I might be better off!
It's funny as I answered the question posed to me by the poster, but the poster seems unwilling to answer the same question himself!
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Cuba, North Korea and Eastern Bloc countries have or had little or nothing to do with socialism. We could learn a thing or two from the Cuban health system, which focuses on prevention rather than cure, but that's for another day.
How do you get 'unwilling' from a 28 hour delay? Strangely enough, the poster has a life outside of AAM and doesn't always have the time or the inclination to respond to nitpicking argumentative posts designed to drag a thread off topic and divert attention from your previous erroneous assumptions.
Your post demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding as to what equality is about if you expect that it requires equal employment conditions for all employees. I've no idea why you seem to distinguish between permanent and contract staff in the public sector, but not in the private sector, other than for the sake of an argument.
Below are the times of posts made by you and I since I entered the debate
5th Dec
2 08 pm
2 11 pm
2 20 pm
2 22 pm
2 35 pm
2 53 pm
3 26 pm
3 44 pm
3 49 pm
4 00 pm
4 46 pm
5 01 pm
5 06 pm
5 12 pm
6 14 pm
Then nothing at all until 10.36pm last night.
As you can see we were busy and the posts were pretty much back and forth at a good rate. Then after I asked you to answer the question you asked me nothing at all until late last night. As you were pretty active yesterday I concluded that you were avoiding the question, which you still are (I'll come to that).
Indeed many, many threads on AAM do get dragged off topic so I find this a bit deflective on your part particularly when you still haven't answered the question you yourself asked me.
To clarify, I have no problem admitting that I was indeed wrong about my previous assumption and do fully accept that those on contract to the public service (e.g. fixed term employees) were in fact classified as "employees".
I'm at a loss here - can you provide a link to where I have said or conveyed this?
If you read my post 47 again in relation I do make it clear that I don't distinguish between permanent and contract staff in the private sector.
Just to confirm, I don't think that those in permanent or contract positions in the public sector should be distinguished either. But it seems they are when it comes to those employees from the public sector who are on the dole queue.
So it's back to you now if you don't mind answering the question you yourself asked (which I have answered). I've re-posted my question below.
"It seems (as we agree) one section (contract staff) of the public workforce has been adversely affected whilst the other (permanent staff) has not. I'm surprised that given your many posts regarding fairness and equality that I have not seen any posts where you have called for equality here. The question is does it make any difference to you?"
Feel free to take as much time as you like
They have as much to do with socialism as the US, Ireland and the UK have to do with capitalism.
Both socialists and capitalists have been cheated - by politicians. Neither of us have gotten our perfect system. But I would still prefer to live in a failed capitalist society than a failed socialist one.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Perhaps I missed the memo about some SLA for responding to posts? In the absence of such an agreement, I would respectfully suggest that in the light of and posting guideline 9, you would refrain from nagging, bumping posts.
Where you said "I'm surprised that given your many posts regarding fairness and equality that I have not seen any posts where you have called for equality here."
The reason why I haven't answered the question is because it is a nonsensical question. In what context are you talking about 'making a difference to me'? In any scenario of reduction in workforce in public or private sector, those on temporary or fixed term contracts will generally be first to go. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about this. There is no equality issue here.
It's a bit like asking me if chicken or turkey makes any difference to me.
I'd suggest that politicians have been cheated by the capitalist banking community who engineered the 'too big to fail' scenario, whereby Governments were not in a position to let certain banks fail.
I am just asking you to answer the question you have asked me so if you think your own question is nonsensical then perhaps you should ask better questions yourself next time.
I agree that what you have said can happen in the private sector, but often it does not. Take for example Xtravision. If they had a branch that either (a) they could no longer afford to keep open or (b) that they no longer needed, I would fully expect them to close that branch rather than keep it open and lay off contract staff in a branch that was performing well and in which they needed. I am not for a second comparing Xtravision with the public service but just outlining how it would work in the private sector.
The difference with what has happened in the public sector is that those contract employees have been exclusively let go rather than "generally" as you put it. As far as I know (and please correct me if I am wrong), there has not been a single permanent employee made involuntarily redundant since the crisis began for cost cutting reasons. Instead those on contract have taken the blunt. My question to you simply is...
do you think this is fair?
For the record I think it's a disgrace.
- Status