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.
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.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.
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.
Just to back up Complainers post
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/public-service-jobs-fall-by-3000-in-three-months-503108.html
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.
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.
Did you actually read what Complainer said? Do you understand anything about redundancy law?
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.
[[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!!!
Staff cuts via voluntary redundancies - yes , pay cuts - no .
It's all detailed in the Croke Park Agreement .
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!!!
It seems that you don't understand the meaning of 'consensus'. From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consensusFrom what I can see here, there does seem to be a growing consensus that we need to dramatically cut both.
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?
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.Benchmarking was great & fair. What we need now is another round....or are they like upward-only-rent-reviews
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?