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


Public sector works are indeed fired for persistent poor performance. I've seen a couple of cases myself, and I've heard of any others.

On income, the public sector is the one and only sector where every single staff member (with a tiny number of exceptions at the most senior level) have taken substantial staff cuts already.

Sorry if the facts don't suit your story - but fire away anyway.
 
Plus 1..
 
thedaras said:
Why will those who seem very involved in the unions not answer the elephant in the room question..Why do their unions call only certain members Frontline??
Click to expand...

As a public sector worker who isn't considered frontine, I don't really have a problem with the term.

It's a term used to bundle together a group of staff like EMT's ED Nurses, etc..

If we as union members insist on the non use of the term they will just come up with another one. How about Acute Health - Operational, Critical Health Service Provider. Then they'll shorten these to AHO's, CHSP's so to be honest I'd sooner stick with frontline.
 

The problem is Becky that there are other staff in the PS,who feel they are also frontline..you just have to look through this thread to see how offended some are by the term frontline only applying to Guards,Nurses,etc..
 
thedaras said:
Why do their unions call only certain members Frontline??
Click to expand...

I started a thread on AAM last year called Public Sector V Public Sector. The whole issue of Frontline versus Non-Frontline may be part of that.
The government has made a commitment not to cut core pay for public sector workers. However, there are many public sector workers that receive allowances on top of their core pay. Some of these may be outdated and the government will try cut these.
The staff that have been considered 'frontline' on this thread are nurses, teachers, guards, which as far as I know receive allowances. So this may be an attempt by their own unions to make the people they represent sound more important than the 'background' staff, which has already been pointed out is not correct anyway.
 
thedaras said:
The problem is Becky that there are other staff in the PS,who feel they are also frontline..you just have to look through this thread to see how offended some are by the term frontline only applying to Guards,Nurses,etc..
Click to expand...

No one is offended at not being called frontline thedaras. They are offended at the suggestion that non frontline staff should automatically be paid less than frontline staff and have pointed out the flaws in that proposal.

Do you suggest that shop assistants should be paid more than the store's accounts staff or PR and marketing people because they're frontline?
 

Out of interest, DonDub, what has this got to do with the subject of the thread???
 
Should the commerical property loan managers in Anglo Irish who gave out large loans to any self styled 'developer' who walked in off the street now be considered as front line public servants and be paid more?
 
 

It is the union representing these people who are leading us to believe that only some staff are frontline.

Should we disregard what the unions are saying?

Are the other PS workers being unfairly treated by the unions representing them?
 
But only some staff are frontline. And of course the unions are going to bang on about them because, in a strike situation, their absence is the one that's most immediately noticed, although long term it would be different.. It's the same in any company. What's being queried is your statement that frontline staff should be paid more, something I haven't seen you justify yet and for which I can't see any long term strategic advantage. Are you saying that nurses and teachers and prison officers should decide on health and education and justice policies entirely on their own??
 
thedaras said:
It is the union representing these people who are leading us to believe that only some staff are frontline.

Should we disregard what the unions are saying?

Are the other PS workers being unfairly treated by the unions representing them?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the unions are not suggesting that frontline staff should be treated more favourably than their back office colleagues. Nor do I believe that they regard frontline work as having a greater value. Quite the opposite in fact.

They are making the point that any reduction in public service numbers will have a proportional impact on the extent to which frontline services can continue to be provided. It challenges the popular belief that there is sufficient waste in the "back office" to accommodate all the required reductions in staff numbers and that we can expect to have the same level of public services delivered by significantly less people.

The reduction in frontline numbers, which is more apparent to the public, is merely offered as evidence of the extent to which the availability of public services will continue to diminish as a consequence of a reduction in staff numbers. I've made that point before on this site.

Sure, there can be greater efficiencies and most staff are only too happy to play their part. But the notion that this alone will compensate for the proposed redcuction in staff numbers without any impact on services to the public is just wrong.
 
Exactly. Most types of organisation have 'frontline' and back room staff. But no one's saying that sales reps should be paid more than the company's human resource staff, or that the girl who sells you the dress should be paid more than the designer or the dressmaker. It's a very foolish argument in my view.
 

Yea but if we stopped having foolish arguments there'd be very little to talk about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register