What could/would be wrong with this? Pay "Front Line" public servants relatively more

liaconn said:
That is not true.
Click to expand...

Staples said:
This is utter tosh.
Click to expand...

C'mon.

I'm not getting into a public/private thing, but I know for a fact that this still happens. Fair enough, it's certainly much less common than it was (thankfully) but it's still not exactly rare.

I know a locally based public sector section manager who is barely literate, and presides over 3rd level educated staff, has zero management skills, zero HR skills, but he has been there "a long time".

Some of my inlaws work in the civil and public sectors - this culture still very much exists. In fairness maybe I am experiencing the last of the old school before they retire - I hope so.
 
Well, speaking for the Civil Service, it happens incredibly rarely now and is mainly confined to junior grades. Where it does still happen, believe me, it causes as much annoyance to other civil servants as to the public. Many of us have had to work with the senior managers who got promoted this way in the dim and distant past and who didn't exactly deserve it. The removal of promotion on seniority was not exactly greeted with cries of dismay.
 
Just to follow on from Liaconn's point.
I work in the civil service and I have seen promotions where the longest serving person did not get the job. Only recently, the top job in my section went to a person in their 40s. There were other people in for the job with 20 more years experience.

To be fair, I think there may have been a culture in the past if a promotion came up, someone with a few years left to retirement might get the nod to bump up their pension package but I think those days are (rightfully) gone.
 
Leper said:
Whatever my post is, it is not "tosh" but, promotion through length of service over the length of service of a competitor is dying out. I have no problem with this.
Click to expand...

The notion that people are forced by their unions to take promotions is complete tosh. What you describe above is different.

In the more recent past (15/20 years ago) promotions were made mainly on seniority with some regard to merit. It gradually moved to merit with some regard to seniority. In the last 10 years or so, promotions have been made with regard to merit only with no regard to seniority at all.

That said, there remain people in the system who were promoted, on seniorty, to positions beyond their level of capability. The ones Caveat refers to probably fall into this category. It will take a while for these people to work their way out of the system.

The position regarding bus drivers is a bit of red herring. There are none of these in the public sector.
 
thedaras said:
As I said in my original post..I think the majority of us recognise that the following workers are "front line"..
Gardai
Nurses,
Ambulance drivers,
Fire men/.women..
If not Who are the "frontline staff" the unions keep mentioning?
Click to expand...

I would consider Prison Officers to be frontline staff aswell to be honest. Some of the stuff they deal with is shocking and not many would do it......dirty protests, strip searches etc as well as the stress of dealing with prisoners who may be violent, carrying diseases. Personally I think front line staff should be paid more than a counterparty civil servant in an office.
 
Talking Frontline, don't forget the army (especially the officers), the navy (especially those ashore), the road maintenance people, county council workers, doctors, public counter assistants, Inland Revenue Investigators, etc etc

And who arranges for them to take pay, annual leave, queries, back-up, etc? It's the Backroom Staff.
 
Are IT workers "frontline" or "nonfrontline"? For example the IT staff who look after the patient administration database in hospitals.
 
What about civil servants who negotiate EU legislation in Brussels or represent Ireland at international fora such as the UN or OECD? Are they front line staff?

What about state solicitors who work in the DPP or the Chief State Solicitors Office and represent the state in the courts? Are they front line staff?

What about legal advisors in the Attorney Generals Office who advise the civil servants in government departments on complex legal issues and legislation? Are they front line staff?

What about civil servants who work in the various Ministers offices, dealing both with the ministers and callers from the public? Are they front line staff?


What about public servants who work in agencies like MABS or the Citizens Information Service, advising the public on a variety of issues? Are they front line staff?

What about public servants in places like the EPA, the Food Safety Authority or local authorities who carry out inspections to ensure businesses aren't polluting or breaching safety standards? Are they front line staff?

What about public servants in local authorities who clean the streets? Are they front line staff?

This "front line" nonsense irritates me beyond belief! You'd swear from the way certain commentators and politicians go on that there is no value to the work of any public servants aside from teachers, nurses and guards. Traditionally, teachers and nurses (teachers in particular) are the most vocal complainants, who are quick to play the industrial relations card on issues. The most recent example of this is where members of one of the main teaching unions (can't remember which one) voted this week to block the use of the Fas Work Placement Programme in schools, denying valuable work experience to unemployed graduates. They cite "exploitation" but don't seem to be aware that this scheme has operated for years in the private sector and more recently in other parts of the public sector. The Fas scheme is not an issue with any other trade union, but inexplicably, the teachers have a problem with it.
 
The Union in question is the INTO.

I would point out that the Student Union in St. Patrick's training college representing 2,500 thousand trainee teachers have also come out strongly against this scheme.
 

Excellent post. Couldn't agree more. This spurious frontline business is a nonsense.
 
Deiseblue said:
The Union in question is the INTO.

I would point out that the Student Union in St. Patrick's training college representing 2,500 thousand trainee teachers have also come out strongly against this scheme.
Click to expand...
Unions are there to protect the haves; their members, from the have-nots; anyone who would compete with their members for the supply of labour. Taking this into account they will target the unemployed, the migrant workers, those with the required skills who are not members of a union etc.
Unions strive to keep the poor poor and the protected protected. They are the enemy of those with nothing that want to earn a little more by their own endeavour. They seek to take from those who have more than their members and use that money to keep those below them in a cycle of perpetual dependence.
 
A Union's main aim is to protect and advance the interests of it's members in the workplace.

Ireland , unlike most other EC countries , does not legislate for the collective bargaining rights of workers and as such whilst employers must recognise the right of workers to join a Union they ( the employers ) are not obliged to negotiate with that Union.

Therefore there is little or no reason for employees of many firms to join Unions.

Thankfully , both FG , Labour & Sinn Fein have all promised to back legislation which will enshrine collective bargaining rights in Irish Law which will ensure a level playing field for all - employees can join a Union confident in the knowledge that Employers will be obliged to recognise not only the rights of employees to join same but the right of said Union to negotiate on behalf of employees.

It should also be remembered that the employment legislation that provides much protection for all workers , whether unionised or not , was introduced at the behest or in consultation with the Union movement here or with European wide Union bodies.
 
Deiseblue said:
A Union's main aim is to protect and advance the interests of it's members in the workplace.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Since open competition is not in the interest of their members they will seek to protect them from it. That means those who would seek to compete with their members are their enemy. That’s the unemployed and poor who want to better themselves.


Deiseblue said:
employees can join a Union confident in the knowledge that Employers will be obliged to recognise not only the rights of employees to join same but the right of said Union to negotiate on behalf of employees.
Click to expand...
I can say with certainty in the case of my own business that if we arrive at the stage where we have to deal directly with a union we will close the business and over 100 people will lose their job.
I can also say that many SME business owners I know would do the same thing.


I am opposed to the conduct of existing Irish unions because they have betrayed everything they were founded to espouse. This is a big issue for me because of the strong involvement that my family had in the foundation of the Irish Union movement.

Every time I hear Jack O’Connor or his ilk speak I am reminded of Orwell’s Animal Farm.
 
Talking about open competition , we have the most restrictive Union rights in the EC in that you can join a Union but employers do not have to recognise or negotiate with that Union.

Given this position obviously a rift has arisen between unionised and non-unionised workers , permit me a generalisation - non-unionised workers are envious of the terms & conditions and protection enjoyed by unionised workers particularly when their work is broadly similar & as such a degree of bitterness is only to be expected.

However with the enshrinement of collective bargaining rights in Irish Law as well as the European Charter it will become far easier for prospective members to join and far easier for Unions to recruit .

As for closing businesses because Unions can legally represent employees this seems to be an extreme case of cutting off your nose to spite your face , particularly in the case of your workplace where you have previously maintained that Union involvement would drive down pay costs.

Obviously in instances of such benevolent employers workers may not feel that they require a union to represent them - but with the introduction of new legislation they will now at least have the choice.

I note your families tradition of Trade Union involvement & as you say that you agree with me that any Unions main function is" to protect and advance the interests of it's members in the workplace " then they can hardly be accused of betraying that most basic of Union commandments - can they ?

.
 


A garda pulling overtime can double his income - it would probably be better practice to employ another garda.

I think the emphasis has to be on education and social mores to restrict self-destructive behaviour to reasonable levels, and that includes over indulging in drink and drugs and cigarettes.
And I think certain sections of the population need to be targetted in a pro-active way to help them address these issues, first by getting them to see the need, and no, I do NOT mean the lower demographics.

Gerry Ryan's death showed us that drug dependency occurs in every social stratum, so the "section" could cover a lot of ground, but this needs to be done, and not in a moralising way.
A simple feedback loop with early intervention in schools showing kids where over indulgence in drink and drugs lead is the best way forward, IMO.

So to return to your question, no, I don't think front line staff should be paid more or increased.
We need more people in the field educating younger people in how to avoid pitfalls that create the need for the level of frontline staff we have.

ONQ.
 
The word "Frontline" is a misnomer and is just another soundbyte for politicians and other crooks.
 

Very general statement. Not all 'civil servants in an office' are sitting at a desk processing forms and writing up minutes of meetings all day. I totally agree with aonfocaleile's post and am fed up of this lazy stereotyping of people doing desk jobs. Many of them are doing equally or more important work as the people out on the frontline.
Also, are you saying a Prison Officer should be paid more that the Secretary General of a Department????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register