Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Public sector pay increase

Options
24567…57

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    mad m
    Registered Users Posts: 9,001 ✭✭✭mad m


    PRD.....plus USC, plus wage cut. Plus loss of an annual leave, another form of pay cut. And before someone says anything about annual leave, I've 23 days a year which I've to keep 3 of those for Christmas closure.


  • Options
    #33
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nim wrote: »
    If it's not true in every case then it's not a fact.
    That... doesn't make any sense. Statistics don't have to be true for every case in order to be a fact. If I say the fertility rate in Ireland is 1.99 that is a fact but not only is it not true for every woman, it's not true for any woman.

    Similarly public sector wages in Ireland are higher than they are in the private sector taking into account education and training needed to carry out the job. But that doesn't mean it's true for every case.

    Get it now?


  • Options
    #34
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,490 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That... doesn't make any sense. Statistics don't have to be true for every case in order to be a fact. If I say the fertility rate in Ireland is 1.99 that is a fact but not only is it not true for every woman, it's not true for any woman.

    Similarly public sector wages in Ireland are higher than they are in the private sector taking into account education and training needed to carry out the job. But that doesn't mean it's true for every case.

    Get it now?

    And the highest salary in the Public Service would be only 5% or 10% of the highest salary in the private sector. And as per my other post 80% of workers are in the private sector, many of them part time, thus skewing the statistics on average pay.


  • Options
    #35
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Jawgap wrote: »
    There are a lot of public service jobs in health, policing, defence, the emergency services that are woefully underpaid if the metric is 'stress.'
    It's not, the metric is what are people willing to work for. And the unionization of the public sector warps this metric.
    And I still remember interviewing people for entry level and not so entry level jobs in the place I worked and them turning their noses up at the salaries on offer - including one girl who burst out laughing when we confirmed the money on offer.
    The problem with the public sector is unions, the unions threw the younger generation under the bus in order to protect their own salaries.

    The solution isn't throwing more money at the problem, the solution is to break the unions, strip the older generation of their protection and re-distribute funds to the more junior staff.


  • Options
    #36
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    And the highest salary in the Public Service would be only 5% or 10% of the highest salary in the private sector. And as per my other post 80% of workers are in the private sector, many of them part time, thus skewing the statistics on average pay.
    I've heard this arguement before but in the public sector you can have teachers with ordinary degrees earning 60k. In what private sector industry could a person with a BA earn 60k with experience alone?

    It's madness, imagine how more efficient the public sector would be if it were de-unionized.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    I've no objection to a 2% bump in a person's salary if they deserve it. Not everyone in the public sector is on a 6 figure salary for a cushy desk job.

    What I don't like about this is that it looks like it's just a blanket increase of 2% whether you're a lazy, overpaid leech or a hardworking, front line staff member making just enough to get by. It should be done like in the private sector, yearly increments based on performance goals. You don't meet your goals, you don't get a pay increase. No system is perfect but a universal bump of 2% is lazy, unfair and, as pointed out, just ticking another box in the run up to the election.


  • Options
    #38
    ShoulderChip
    Registered Users Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭ShoulderChip


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Public sector workers, when you take into consideration the level of education and training needed for the job and the level of stress the job implies still get paid more than their private sector counterparts.


    that doesnt make sense though, if they did have equal jobs paid higher with less qualifications needed, then better people would apply, people with higher qualifications and that would become the norm for that sector.

    unless you think that highly qualified people are not clever enough to apply for public sector jobs

    Some people find non stressful jobs more stressful, it stresses them out that they dont have things to be stressed out about.


  • Options
    #39
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    People who are die-hard advocates of wholesale privatization of parts of the public sector, advocate for cuts of public sector wages, and selectively interpret stats to try and back that - big surprise.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us judge the efficiency of the public sector, based on the benefit they provide to society - which costs more money to improve, not less - and not on minimizing the amount of expenditure (as people tend to regard efficiency, as quality of service, not on mere monetary cost).


  • Options
    #40
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,411 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    dxhound2005 wrote:
    PS jobs are mostly full time.

    Debatable.


  • Options
    #41
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    ShoulderChip wrote: »
    that doesnt make sense though, if they did have equal jobs paid higher with less qualifications needed, then better people would apply, people with higher qualifications and that would become the norm for that sector.

    unless you think that highly qualified people are not clever enough to apply for public sector jobs
    I'm sure they do, but the unions agree public sector recruitment freezes to protect public sector jobs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the rest of us judge the efficiency of the public sector, based on the benefit they provide to society - which costs more money to improve, not less - and not on minimizing the amount of expenditure (as people tend to regard efficiency, as quality of service, not on mere monetary cost).
    Throwing money at an inefficient system doesn't make the system more efficient, you know that.


  • Options
    #43
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭stimpson


    KomradeBishop wrote: »

    Meanwhile, the rest of us judge the efficiency of the public sector, based on the benefit they provide to society

    That would explain the outrage over pay rises.


  • Options
    #44
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Throwing money at an inefficient system doesn't make the system more efficient, you know that.
    Your idea of 'efficient' for public services, is different to everyone elses - bar other die-hard free marketeers.


  • Options
    #45
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    stimpson wrote: »
    That would explain the outrage over pay rises.
    It's quite simple really: You cut the money going to public services, as has been happening the past number of years, you get worse quality service. Want better quality public services? Send more money to the public services.


  • Options
    #46
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Your idea of 'efficient' for public services, is different to everyone elses - bar other die-hard free marketeers.
    My idea of efficient is to maximize service and minimize costs. Once again throwing money at an inefficient system does not make the system more efficient or spontaneously cause the quality of service to increase. That can only be done through systematic changes, changes that are blocked by unions.


  • Options
    #47
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,490 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Bacchus wrote: »
    I've no objection to a 2% bump in a person's salary if they deserve it. Not everyone in the public sector is on a 6 figure salary for a cushy desk job.

    What I don't like about this is that it looks like it's just a blanket increase of 2% whether you're a lazy, overpaid leech or a hardworking, front line staff member making just enough to get by. It should be done like in the private sector, yearly increments based on performance goals. You don't meet your goals, you don't get a pay increase. No system is perfect but a universal bump of 2% is lazy, unfair and, as pointed out, just ticking another box in the run up to the election.

    What performance goals would you set for firemen? Or nurses?

    The increment system should not be part of this discussion. It would be easy for the employer to say to a fireman you didn't put out enough fires last year so you stay on your starting pay. Forever.


  • Options
    #48
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    My idea of efficient is to maximize service and minimize costs. Once again throwing money at an inefficient system does not make it more efficient.
    I doubt it. When it comes to the public sector, I'd say you'd rather see it defunded and have the service worsen, to set it on the path towards privatization - I doubt you give a toss about having better quality public services.

    You're arguing indirectly for privatization, and would support any slant in argument aimed at defunding it (in this case, worker wages), not on the merits/demerits of public sector wages.


  • Options
    #49
    To Elland Back
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭To Elland Back


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    It's quite simple really: You cut the money going to public services, as has been happening the past number of years, you get worse quality service. Want better quality public services? Send more money to the public services.

    Total nonsense. Giving more money to a lazy inefficient worker, who cannot be fired, is not going improve public services.

    Give every PS worker a pay increase and make individuals accountable with the prospect of redundancy for under performance. That's the way


  • Options
    #50
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I doubt it. When it comes to the public sector, I'd say you'd rather see it defunded and have the service worsen, to set it on the path towards privatization - I doubt you give a toss about having better quality public services.

    You're arguing indirectly for privatization, not on the merits/demerits of public sector wages.
    Thank you for that insight Komrade but I'm more aware of what I'm arguing for than you are.


  • Options
    #51
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    What performance goals would you set for firemen? Or nurses?
    Continious assesments, constant grading on various aspects of their work, if a fireman is late for a drill it goes on his record. If a nurse doesn't organize his files correctly it goes on his record.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    kupus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,151 ✭✭✭kupus


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    It's quite simple really: You cut the money going to public services, as has been happening the past number of years, you get worse quality service. Want better quality public services? Send more money to the public services.

    I'd rather see all the money being put into a huge bundle and lit up for bonfires night.
    At least then people would have some form of payback in the form of heat and a bit of entertainment for the night instead of endless money pit that the ps is.
    Useless good for nothing workshy hypocrites is all they are. And that's me putting it mildly.


  • Options
    #53
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Thank you for that insight Komrade but I'm more aware of what I'm arguing for than you are.
    It's more about how credible your claim is about what you're arguing for - given past posts, I'm not convinced that your argument is anything other than an indirect one in general support of privatization, and bigging up the private sector while playing down the public sector.


  • Options
    #54
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    kupus wrote: »
    I'd rather see all the money being put into a huge bundle and lit up for bonfires night.
    At least then people would have some form of payback in the form of heat and a bit of entertainment for the night instead of endless money pit that the ps is.
    Useless good for nothing workshy hypocrites is all they are. And that's me putting it mildly.
    Great so lets throw the baby out with the bathwater - withhold money from, defund, get rid of all the public services, rather than root out the workers who take this piss - great.


  • Options
    #55
    mad m
    Registered Users Posts: 9,001 ✭✭✭mad m


    To Elland Back wrote: »
    Total nonsense. Giving more money to a lazy inefficient worker, who cannot be fired,

    How do you know they can't be fired? I know at least 5 have been let go in Public Sector in the last few years. And by looks of it another has one foot out door.


  • Options
    #56
    ShoulderChip
    Registered Users Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭ShoulderChip


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Great so lets throw the baby out with the bathwater - withhold money from, defund, get rid of all the public services, rather than root out the workers who take this piss - great.

    would that include getting rid of the tax on plastic bags?


  • Options
    #57
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    To Elland Back wrote: »
    Total nonsense. Giving more money to a lazy inefficient worker, who cannot be fired, is not going improve public services.

    Give every PS worker a pay increase and make individuals accountable with the prospect of redundancy for under performance. That's the way

    Ok, how do you measure performance?

    Is the teacher who turns out A students better than the one who takes a failing student and turns them into a solid D or C student?

    Are the Guards in the centre of Dublin better than the Guards in Achill because they have more arrests?

    What about ED staff? What's their metrics? Or ATCOs? Or the Coastguard?


  • Options
    #58
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    It's more about how credible your claim is about what you're arguing for - given past posts, I'm not convinced that your argument is anything other than an indirect one in general support of privatization, and bigging up the private sector while playing down the public sector.
    Then remain unconvinced, I don't have the inclination to change your mind.


  • Options
    #59
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    ShoulderChip wrote: »
    would that include getting rid of the tax on plastic bags?
    Mmm? Sure, yes - lets be rid of this tyrannical plastic bag tax, inflating bloated/lazy public sector wages - free plastic bags for all :pac:


  • Options
    #60
    ShoulderChip
    Registered Users Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭ShoulderChip


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Mmm? Sure, yes - lets be rid of this tyrannical plastic bag tax, inflating bloated/lazy public sector wages - free plastic bags for all :pac:

    whoop :)

    lets burn this house down, and eventually die in the toxic fumes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Continious assesments, constant grading on various aspects of their work, if a fireman is late for a drill it goes on his record. If a nurse doesn't organize his files correctly it goes on his record.

    So process oriented performance measures?

    There's an old expression - what gets measured is what gets done. If being punctual for parades or file organisation are the metrics people will focus on those, to the detriment of other things.

    In medicine for example, measuring performance using fatal outcomes encourages doctors to not take on difficult cases, just as litigation encourages the practice of defensive medicine.

    The copper who is assessed on his clear up rate will focus on the easy cases, not the difficult ones.


Advertisement