Time to revisit the benchmarking ATM?

I think if compulsory redundancies were introduced in the public sector, it would prob be done on a "last in, first out" basis, so it could also be a blunt instrument.
In theory, some of the newer more enthuastic employees would be made redundant at the expense of older (possibly demotivated) employees.
 
In the private sector, if a company has suplus employees, employees doing 'nice to have' but not 100% necessary jobs or employees in divisions that are surplus to requirements - if it is in financial difficulties, the first action taken would be to lay off these categories of staff. And this would be done before going to pay cuts for necessary staff.

However, in the public sector, it seems to operate the other way around. The unnecessary staff keep their jobs via cutting the pay of the necessary people. Calls to 'reverse benchmarking' are also like this - cutting all employees pay to keep the unnecessary in jobs.

There have been a lot of programme cuts in the public service over the past couple of years. However, these have not been mirrored by the closing of offices and redundancies of the employees who used to deliver these programmes.
 
csirl said:
In the private sector, if a company has suplus employees, employees doing 'nice to have' but not 100% necessary jobs or employees in divisions that are surplus to requirements - if it is in financial difficulties, the first action taken would be to lay off these categories of staff. And this would be done before going to pay cuts for necessary staff.
Click to expand...

Redundancy is not a performance management tool. You cannot legally use redundancy to get rid of people that you don't want. Posts are made redundant, not people.

csirl said:
However, in the public sector, it seems to operate the other way around. The unnecessary staff keep their jobs via cutting the pay of the necessary people. Calls to 'reverse benchmarking' are also like this - cutting all employees pay to keep the unnecessary in jobs.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there have already been huge cuts to the number of staff in the public sector, via the recruitment embargo and the ban on renewal for contract staff.

csirl said:
There have been a lot of programme cuts in the public service over the past couple of years. However, these have not been mirrored by the closing of offices and redundancies of the employees who used to deliver these programmes.
Click to expand...

No, it's generally been the other way round. The employees have been cut through natural wastage/embargo or non-renewal of contract staff, so then the programmes get cut.
 
Complainer said:
Redundancy is not a performance management tool. You cannot legally use redundancy to get rid of people that you don't want. Posts are made redundant, not people.


Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there have already been huge cuts to the number of staff in the public sector, via the recruitment embargo and the ban on renewal for contract staff.



No, it's generally been the other way round. The employees have been cut through natural wastage/embargo or non-renewal of contract staff, so then the programmes get cut.
Click to expand...

Just to back up Complainers post

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/public-service-jobs-fall-by-3000-in-three-months-503108.html
 
Firefly said:
I'd imagine these are the "easy" reductions out of the way (contract staff and voluntary redundancy). It will be interesting to see what the IMF/EU say.
Click to expand...

No, I'd imagine most of them are high ranking senior management who are either retiring early or have reached their natural retirement age.

Thats based on what is happening around me anyway.
 
Firefly said:
I'd imagine these are the "easy" reductions out of the way (contract staff and voluntary redundancy). It will be interesting to see what the IMF/EU say.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read what Complainer said? Do you understand anything about redundancy law?
 
dereko1969 said:
Did you actually read what Complainer said? Do you understand anything about redundancy law?
Click to expand...

The point I am making is that the non replacement of those who retire and non-renewal of contract staff, represents the easy/low hanging fruit option. If there are further reductions required, of a non-voluntary nature, then that's when the real fun will start. I think Complainer is right actually. If non-voluntary redundancies are required they will be done by deeming posts redundant rather than by adressing individual performance. An example of this would be making 1 teacher redundant in all medium/large schools based on a LIFO method. Whilst we would all prefer the more productive staff to remain, it would be a logistical nightmare and open to endless legal issues. Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone to lose their job, but the IMF/EU might think differently.
 
Been away for a little while, but I am glad to see that this thread has raised a constructive debate on staff numbers and pay levels in the public sector.

From what I can see here, there does seem to be a growing consensus that we need to dramatically cut both.
 
RoyRover said:
Been away for a little while, but I am glad to see that this thread has raised a constructive debate on staff numbers and pay levels in the public sector.

From what I can see here, there does seem to be a growing consensus that we need to dramatically cut both.
Click to expand...

Staff cuts via voluntary redundancies - yes , pay cuts - no .

It's all detailed in the Croke Park Agreement .
 
[[B said:
RoyRover[/B]]1167727]Been away for a little while, but I am glad to see that this thread has raised a constructive debate on staff numbers and pay levels in the public sector.[/B]

From what I can see here, there does seem to be a growing consensus that we need to dramatically cut both.[/QUOTE]



I don't think you're going far enough with what you'd like to see done to the Public Service. Could P.S. workers not be rounded up every evening after work also, to be tortured and flogged, to teach them a lesson for bringing down the banks and the Irish economy? They deserve it! Every single one of them!!! And they wouldn't do it again!!! :mad: ;)
Click to expand...
 
I should have fought my initial reaction to respond to Roy's post !

This thread deservedly came to an end some time ago.
 
Deiseblue said:
Staff cuts via voluntary redundancies - yes , pay cuts - no .

It's all detailed in the Croke Park Agreement .
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I think the CPA now needs to be shelved.

Glad you agree that staff cuts are required.

I am not so sure that voluntary redundancies or pay cuts are affordable. There is no reason why teachers or nurses should be paid 30-50% more than in Northern Ireland.

We have massively overpaid ourselves over the past 10 years, both in the form of PS pay and conditions and an overgenerous welfare state.
 
Lex Foutish said:
I don't think you're going far enough with what you'd like to see done to the Public Service. Could P.S. workers not be rounded up every evening after work also, to be tortured and flogged, to teach them a lesson for bringing down the banks and the Irish economy? They deserve it! Every single one of them!!! And they wouldn't do it again!!! :mad: ;)
Click to expand...

This is not about "punishing" anyone.

It is about rebalancing the cost base that we have. Running at €30bn income and €50bn outgoings is just not feasible. Why should future generations of Irish citizens pay for the benchmarking ATM?
 
Benchmarking was great & fair. What we need now is another round....or are they like upward-only-rent-reviews ;)
 
RoyRover said:
This is not about "punishing" anyone.

It is about rebalancing the cost base that we have. Running at €30bn income and €50bn outgoings is just not feasible. Why should future generations of Irish citizens pay for the benchmarking ATM?
Click to expand...

Out of interest RoyRover, what area do you work in? You are constantly griping about public servants but have never stated what you do for a living.
 
Firefly said:
Benchmarking was great & fair. What we need now is another round....or are they like upward-only-rent-reviews ;)
Click to expand...
Yep, bring it on - provided that it comes with a commitment to frequency of updates, e.g. every 2-3 years, and not leave public servants languishing for decades as happened in the past.
 
Complainer said:
Yep, bring it on - provided that it comes with a commitment to frequency of updates, e.g. every 2-3 years, and not leave public servants languishing for decades as happened in the past.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy with that too (Is this a first?). I would estimate that average earnings in the private sector are down at least 20% taking into consideration pay cuts and also the drop so many are facing due to the dole now being their income. But perhaps Benchmarking would confirm this.
 
Complainer said:
Yep, bring it on - provided that it comes with a commitment to frequency of updates, e.g. every 2-3 years, and not leave public servants languishing for decades as happened in the past.
Click to expand...

languishing for decades? Play me another tune. It wasn't a prison sentance, if public servants weren't appy with the pay, they could leave / re-train in other areas or emigrate. Why "languish" for decades instead of move on? - it was secure work, simple as. The recruitment freeze is a smokescreen, numbers need to be cut now. UK police forces are even clearly stating that compulsory redundancies are on the table; wil the same be applied here?

Nobody would have any issues with committing to frequent updates but the many in the public sector fail to realise this means wages can go down as well as up and redundancies are a fact of life. 30bn in V 50bn out is the black and white of it. We cant afford it so cuts have to be made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top