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

Allowances to be stripped from new entrants only into the Public Service

Options
  • 03-09-2012 9:31pm
    #1
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭


    It was reported tonight on RTE news that Brendan Howlin may decide to take allowances from new entrants to the public service, and leave them in place for those that are already there.

    Personally, I find this inherently unfair. Not only will new entrants be on lower pay scales than those already in the job, now they will be hit again. If I were a public service worker just starting out, I would find it very difficult to join a union that has sold me out once already, and possibly for a second time in order to protect its current members.

    However I'm beginning to think that this might be part of the long term strategy of the government. Over time to create two types of worker in the PS and play each off one another in order to wrestle some control back over the PS. Would the government be capable of such a Machiavellian conspiracy?


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.

    I don't support these allowances btw. Some of them are ridiculous.


  • Options
    #3
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users Posts: 18,093 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    It was reported tonight on RTE news that Brendan Howlin may decide to take allowances from new entrants to the public service, and leave them in place for those that are already there.

    Personally, I find this inherently unfair. Not only will new entrants be on lower pay scales than those already in the job, now they will be hit again. If I were a public service worker just starting out, I would find it very difficult to join a union that has sold me out once already, and possibly for a second time in order to protect its current members.

    However I'm beginning to think that this might be part of the long term strategy of the government. Over time to create two types of worker in the PS and play each off one another in order to wrestle some control back over the PS. Would the government be capable of such a Machiavellian conspiracy?

    Bit overboard on the bold point regarding this, a Machiavellian conspiracy would be the government taking SNA support away from kids that will struggle without it, a Machiavellian conspiracy would be the forthcoming hack and slash of hospital services rather than the removal of over paid under worked civil servants who are not worth their pay let alone these frivolous allowances.


  • Options
    #4
    PoleStar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 774 ✭✭✭PoleStar


    RobbingBandit wrote: »
    Bit overboard on the bold point regarding this, a Machiavellian conspiracy would be the government taking SNA support away from kids that will struggle without it, a Machiavellian conspiracy would be the forthcoming hack and slash of hospital services rather than the removal of over paid under worked civil servants who are not worth their pay let alone these frivolous allowances.

    You are missing the OP's point. If indeed the allowances are frivolous, then they should be removed from all staff. It is ridiculous to have 2 people doing the same job and one getting paid more just because they were employed before a certain date.

    Of course what actually happens is that the unions sell out on future employees to keep current staff happy. Its just another example of the younger generations being shafted by the previous generation.


  • Options
    #5
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    woodoo wrote: »
    They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.
    Same with any worker working anywhere in the world tbh, including the many in the private sector in Ireland (and some foreign public sectors) that have seen pay cuts due to the circumstances.


  • Options
    #6
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users Posts: 18,093 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    PoleStar wrote: »
    You are missing the OP's point. If indeed the allowances are frivolous, then they should be removed from all staff. It is ridiculous to have 2 people doing the same job and one getting paid more just because they were employed before a certain date.

    Of course what actually happens is that the unions sell out on future employees to keep current staff happy. Its just another example of the younger generations being shafted by the previous generation.

    No I am not missing any point, just last week it was released that 70% of the HSE budget is spent on wages,the greed in this country makes me sick.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    BrianBoru00
    Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭BrianBoru00


    It IS unfair and a disgrace BUT, to be fair, its the Unions at fault - only looking out for the current members and screwing their future members.
    It will be interesting to see if new entrants choose to join the union - I know if I were in that position I wouldn't.


  • Options
    #8
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    BrianBoru00 wrote: »
    It IS unfair and a disgrace BUT, to be fair, its the Unions at fault - only looking out for the current members and screwing their future members.
    It will be interesting to see if new entrants choose to join the union - I know f I were in that position I wouldn't.
    Any new entrant that joins one of these self serving unions deserves everything they get. I'd also give them a wide berth.


  • Options
    #9
    PoleStar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 774 ✭✭✭PoleStar


    RobbingBandit wrote: »
    No I am not missing any point, just last week it was released that 70% of the HSE budget is spent on wages,the greed in this country makes me sick.

    Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.

    Thats like giving out that most of the money in your taxi fare goes to the taxi driver.

    I would have thought that is ble---in obvious.

    Perhaps you might like to attend a self service hospital, or day care centre, or apply your own dressings in the community, or prescribe your own drugs, or do your own operation, make your own meals etc


  • Options
    #10
    beanie10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 466 ✭✭beanie10


    The allowances have to be taken away from all employees, most importantly the much abused sick leave.
    A girl I know was meant to be working last night, she spent a few hours in ours yesterday where she told us she was due to go to work but didnt feel bothered and had a few sick days left. She rang in sick and went on a bender.
    Maybe this abuse is common knowledge, but sick leave has become a target with most public service employees and not a good will gesture from their employer!
    These employees need a serious reality check and stop holding this Contry to ransom. Hope when the Croke Park Agreement runs out in 2014 they all get shafted by government, they deserve it!


  • Options
    #11
    Kristopherus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


    beanie10 wrote: »
    The allowances have to be taken away from all employees, most importantly the much abused sick leave.
    A girl I know was meant to be working last night, she spent a few hours in ours yesterday where she told us she was due to go to work but didnt feel bothered and had a few sick days left. She rang in sick and went on a bender.
    Maybe this abuse is common knowledge, but sick leave has become a target with most public service employees and not a good will gesture from their employer!
    These employees need a serious reality check and stop holding this Contry to ransom. Hope when the Croke Park Agreement runs out in 2014 they all get shafted by government, they deserve it!

    And you base that wonderful assertion on the basis of one experience:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users Posts: 6,613 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    What an absolutely spineless decision, which of course means that it's probably exactly what's going to happen. A tweet I heard about the other day sums it up best really:
    The Labour party don't want the church lobbying them on legislation because that's the job of the public sector unions.


  • Options
    #13
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users Posts: 18,093 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    PoleStar wrote: »
    Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.

    Thats like giving out that most of the money in your taxi fare goes to the taxi driver.

    I would have thought that is ble---in obvious.

    Perhaps you might like to attend a self service hospital, or day care centre, or apply your own dressings in the community, or prescribe your own drugs, or do your own operation, make your own meals etc

    Ridicules post is ridicules, wow man you really have your priorities set out here, loved that taxi fare comparison. Paying for people is why we don't have A&E services in so many hospitals, I hope it always stays so golden for you and yours.


  • Options
    #14
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    Surely there's some kind of application under the Equality Act here. Two people doing the same job should be getting the same renumeration no?


  • Options
    #15
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    While I don't think it's very fair, it's mad to be referring to this as a pay cut. Starting in a job on a much reduced salary than you expected is not a pay cut. And while it's disappointing that after years of training and working towards a particular job that the salary pays less than you hoped I would say it is more disappointing to work towards a job or get a qualification for position that no longer really exists - like anyone training in construction or architecture or even special-needs education.


  • Options
    #16
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Laminations wrote: »
    While I don't think it's very fair, it's mad to be referring to this as a pay cut. Starting in a job on a much reduced salary than you expected is not a pay cut. And while it's disappointing that after years of training and working towards a particular job that the salary pays less than you hoped I would say it is more disappointing to work towards a job or get a qualification for position that no longer really exists - like anyone training in construction or architecture or even special-needs education.

    I agree that it is not a pay cut. But as I said it reinforces the creation of two different types of worker, with the young getting shafted for the old. In fact this has been a theme of the the last few years in Ireland, with the burden of the crash falling at the feet of the youth. While those of the age to have caused the mess are burdened least. I find that inherently unfair.

    I also agree that certain allowances should be abolished, but abolished outright - such as the third level qualification supplement for teachers.


  • Options
    #17
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    However I'm beginning to think that this might be part of the long term strategy of the government. Over time to create two types of worker in the PS and play each off one another in order to wrestle some control back over the PS. Would the government be capable of such a Machiavellian conspiracy?

    I'd be surprised if they ever think that far ahead:(


  • Options
    #18
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PoleStar wrote: »
    Its just another example of the younger generations being shafted by the previous generation.

    The younger generation will also bear the brunt of the inflated pensions to all those retiring from the PS, while they themselves will likely not get any state pension. IMO all non private pensions but including those to bailed out institutions be taxed at 90% for everything over 30K. 30K take home should be more than enough for anybody getting a pension. Especially in a country thats bankrupt.


  • Options
    #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PoleStar wrote: »
    Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.

    Thats like giving out that most of the money in your taxi fare goes to the taxi driver.

    I would have thought that is ble---in obvious.

    Perhaps you might like to attend a self service hospital, or day care centre, or apply your own dressings in the community, or prescribe your own drugs, or do your own operation, make your own meals etc

    Wrong, you obviously don't know the cost of medical equipment or medical products. I'd say normal countries the salaries in the health service would be much closer to 50% of total budget.
    It may apply in the case of teachers where all that is needed is a room and chalk.


  • Options
    #20
    ItsLikeThis
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭ItsLikeThis


    PoleStar wrote: »
    Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.

    Thats like giving out that most of the money in your taxi fare goes to the taxi driver.

    I would have thought that is ble---in obvious.

    Perhaps you might like to attend a self service hospital, or day care centre, or apply your own dressings in the community, or prescribe your own drugs, or do your own operation, make your own meals etc
    .......... Bring your own bed, cat scanner or private ambulance aswell


  • Options
    #21
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,464 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    The unions are at the heart of sowing division amongst workers and creating a two tier workforce. You just couldn't make it up - spineless stuff. The unions will suffer in the long run, new entrants will not forget that they were shafted and sold out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    beanie10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 466 ✭✭beanie10


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beanie10
    The allowances have to be taken away from all employees, most importantly the much abused sick leave.
    A girl I know was meant to be working last night, she spent a few hours in ours yesterday where she told us she was due to go to work but didnt feel bothered and had a few sick days left. She rang in sick and went on a bender.
    Maybe this abuse is common knowledge, but sick leave has become a target with most public service employees and not a good will gesture from their employer!
    These employees need a serious reality check and stop holding this Contry to ransom. Hope when the Croke Park Agreement runs out in 2014 they all get shafted by government, they deserve it!


    And you base that wonderful assertion on the basis of one experience


    Yeah youre right, you got me there, I found the one and only dosser in public service. Jaysus with odds like that Ill try the lotto tonight!!
    Youre hardly naive, no??


  • Options
    #23
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    beanie10 wrote: »
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beanie10
    The allowances have to be taken away from all employees, most importantly the much abused sick leave.
    A girl I know was meant to be working last night, she spent a few hours in ours yesterday where she told us she was due to go to work but didnt feel bothered and had a few sick days left. She rang in sick and went on a bender.
    Maybe this abuse is common knowledge, but sick leave has become a target with most public service employees and not a good will gesture from their employer!
    These employees need a serious reality check and stop holding this Contry to ransom. Hope when the Croke Park Agreement runs out in 2014 they all get shafted by government, they deserve it!


    And you base that wonderful assertion on the basis of one experience


    Yeah youre right, you got me there, I found the one and only dosser in public service. Jaysus with odds like that Ill try the lotto tonight!!
    Youre hardly naive, no??

    You have used an example of one waster to generalise the whole public service though.


  • Options
    #24
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    RobbingBandit wrote: »
    No I am not missing any point, just last week it was released that 70% of the HSE budget is spent on wages,the greed in this country makes me sick.
    PoleStar wrote: »
    Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Wrong, you obviously don't know the cost of medical equipment or medical products. I'd say normal countries the salaries in the health service would be much closer to 50% of total budget.
    It may apply in the case of teachers where all that is needed is a room and chalk.

    In fact, in our nearest neighbour - the UK - in the type of system we'd probably aspire to have for ourselves - the NHS - labour costs are significantly less than half of the total budget.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2010/apr/07/nhs-spending-staff-goods-services

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/current_projects/general_election_2010/frequently_asked.html#ahow_much_of_the_nhs_budget_is_spent_on_the_workforce

    In 2007/8 the total cost of all NHS staff in England was £36.5 billion (Centre for Health Economics 2009) and the total budget for the NHS that year was £90.4 billion (HM Treasury 2007 pre-budget report table 1.3) – so staff costs amount to 40 per cent of the NHS budget.


  • Options
    #25
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    woodoo wrote: »
    They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.

    I don't support these allowances btw. Some of them are ridiculous.

    So its justified taking allowances off new entrants but the same allowance cant be removed from an existing worker even though you admit yourself that they are ridiculous?

    kinda sums up in a neat little nutshell why we are in the position we are. Self absorbed sections of society that ignore simple facts like the country is completely bankrupt and are happy to hide behind terms and conditions of absurd contracts that were drawn up at the peak of the good times.

    What do peoples borrowing have to do with anything? Completely irrelevant to the argument as these were personal decisions made by people.


  • Options
    #26
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    woodoo wrote: »
    They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.

    I don't support these allowances btw. Some of them are ridiculous.

    Same work, different pay. They are being shafted.


  • Options
    #27
    itzme
    Registered Users Posts: 338 ✭✭itzme


    woodoo wrote: »
    They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.

    I don't support these allowances btw. Some of them are ridiculous.

    I'm afraid to me this is an example of the self-serving commentary that has us in the trouble we're in.
    "Don't take from me and mine, we can't afford it. That guy/girl over there though..."
    To take a simple example, what about a teacher who has been working for 3 years in a school. The schools budget/numbers means they can't rehire, so they go for a position in another school. Under the rules, this is a new position advertised at grade 1 experience doesn't come into it. So where does your neat little bow of them not being shafted fit in here?


  • Options
    #28
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    So its justified taking allowances off new entrants

    They are not being taken off them because they never had them in the first place. They may have had the expectation of getting allowances but like I've said many people have been hugely disappointed as they left college with a good qualification and the expectation of just getting a job - it hasn't materialised for many. They are starting the job on different conditions than others. Not fair but it happens. And it's prudent to stop the allowances where there's no contractual impediments and then review, revise and negotiate where you can to reduce or remove them for current employees. Do you think they should keep wasting money giving allowances to new people because they haven't managed to remove them from others??


  • Options
    #29
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    Laminations wrote: »
    They are not being taken off them because they never had them in the first place. They may have had the expectation of getting allowances but like I've said many people have been hugely disappointed as they left college with a good qualification and the expectation of just getting a job - it hasn't materialised for many. They are starting the job on different conditions than others. Not fair but it happens. And it's prudent to stop the allowances where there's no contractual impediments and then review, revise and negotiate where you can to reduce or remove them for current employees. Do you think they should keep wasting money giving allowances to new people because they haven't managed to remove them from others??


    Its not a question of being fair its a question of being realistic, so reading between the lines the minister knows that the allowances are absurd but rather than tackle the REAL problem of removing them from existing workers to reduce costs its deemed valid to remove them from any incoming staff but leave existing staff members alone.

    as other posters have pointed out there will be a two tier system within the public service where you could have two groups of people doing exactly the same work but have different work conditions, thats absurd.

    But as we have seen from Woodoo this kind of hypocrisy and inequality will be ignored by current staff as long as they continue to receive the allowances he himself deems ridiculous but wont give up.


    You could'nt make it up as we are being told that the CPA is improving performance and the reforms are well on the way but we have hairbrained schemes being suggested by the minister in charge that will add additional pressure on managers (that cant manage) and add complexity to a situation that is already impossible to decipher.


  • Options
    #30
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    There are allowances and allowances.
    Extra for degrees may have been appropriate in the labour market 30 years ago, but not today. In today's conditions there may be an ample supply of graduates, however the supply of experienced people has not changed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    Its not a question of being fair its a question of being realistic, so reading between the lines the minister knows that the allowances are absurd but rather than tackle the REAL problem of removing them from existing workers to reduce costs its deemed valid to remove them from any incoming staff but leave existing staff members alone.
    .

    Why do you say rather? It presumes that they will not tackle allowances for current employees. It's quite obviously a more difficult task to remove or alter existing allowances. And what's the real problem? That the allowances are absurd?? I'd agree many are - so why are you proposing continuing to give out absurd allowances on new contracts?

    As for two tiered systems, this happens in many workplaces and is usually only remedied with time, when the employees with the old contracts leave. Hell it already exists in the PS with per 95 employees enjoying better conditions


Advertisement