The unions..fed up listening?

pearcider

one of the main driving forces behind this countrys economic succes has been the FDI..with the likes of Intel, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Wyeth....all attracted and retained by the generous tax breaks afforeded them..in return they have created jobs..thousands and thousands of them...and all going towards paying in some part your salary.Increasing Corparation tax will drive away FDI given the huge costs in Human Capital in this country.

I never suggested increasing corporation tax. We're uncompetitive enough.

The countrys budget deficit has nothing to do with us not paying enough Tax..although direct taxation is relativly low, indirect taxation if included is actually quite high (example VRT, Excise Duty)...its to do with the runaway increases in Public spending...and the sooner the C.S wakes up to that the better.

Direct taxation is ridiculously low compared with the typical EU country. And yet if we expect an infrastructure and public service on a standard with the EU, we're going to have to fund it with tax. Now it's a matter of opinion what model one wants to pursue. And one should elect a government based on such economic policies. Personally I'm in favour of low tax/poor public service but that's only because I'm earning a nice salary and have private health insurance/my own car etc. I do realise that's it not the way a small island nation such as ours should choose to develop. We should have heavy investment in our transport, education and energy infrastructure. Unfortunately, history has shown us that market capitalism simply cannot provide this strategic type of planning and development. If you want a developed society, this high level of capital expenditure (and the corresponding high taxation levels) are necessary! To blame the civil service for the reality of fundamentals is ludicrous.

Right lets take examples of the countries top CEOs. Their renumeration is in direct relation to PREFORMANCE. These guys are paid to hit targets, they are responsible for turnovers and profits in the billions...they are answerable to the shareholders and could get the bullet in a moments notice.
First example Brian Goggin of BOI in 2007 earned €3.998 million but in 2008 earned €2.97 million.

Eugene Sheehy in 2006 earned €2.436 million and in 2007 earned €2.105 million.

Exactly those wages are 10 times higher compared with the 250k typical of a minister in government or a Secretary General in the CS - who have greater responsibility and preside over larger budgets and administrations. A bank clerk is paid typically 25k which is somewhat higher than a typical clerk in the civil service. And don't pretend that middle management in banks earn more than their counterparts in the service. CS salaries are practically a joke compared to what most middle managers earn in Ireland. For example if you peruse the C.S.O website (another bloated civil service no doubt) they pointed out that the 2005 to 2007 period showed a widening earnings gap between high-skilled and lower skilled workers in the financial sector, with average hourly earnings rising by 17% for managers and professionals but remaining unchanged for clerical, sales and service staff. This is because the lower staff are not unionized and being screwed by their management. A 17% pay rise??! Don't tell me the civil servants are demanding that! And give up your sour grapes please. It's not the civil servants fault that they have a fairer wage structure than the private sector.

can I ask you one thing...if you worked in the private sector and the company you worked for was sverly in the red...would you you push for a pay raise??

While the analogy is highly flawed I will for the record state that I do work in the private sector (for a major financial services company) and was recently given a promotion and a fat bonus (try getting that in the civil service!). I had the opportunity to join the service recently but turned it down precisely because of the poor salary. I take issue with the opinions being spouted in here about typical public workers being lazy, uneducated etc. Both my parents worked their entire lives in the CS and I find the suggestion offensive. You couldn't find a sounder work ethic and I know they did a brilliant job (just like the vast majority of the public service). Most of these CS jobs are ones people don't want to do - looking after the dregs of societies, criminals, the uneducated, the insane, the sick and the elderly. To suggest that they're all lazy so and sos when they essentially keep this country together is hard to stomach. It's quite clear that it's sour grapes from everybody in here ****ting themselves that their merciless company could fire them at a moments notice - well thats your fault, not the civil servants. You're free to work wherever you want and it's quite easy to join the CS if you want. You'd also have the added satisfaction that you're serving your nation and not some monstrous corporation whose entire code of ethics plays second fiddle to the bottom line.

Cork

To suggest that they're all lazy so and sos when they essentially keep this country together is hard to stomach

It was only my experience of working in one organisation. These offices were made up with the laziest of the lazy.

Any course after work hours - zero interest.

Courses during work including free lunch - no problem with demand.

There is good reason teachers oppose league tables and why do don't find cost per transaction information on these organisations.

BostonB

Tom Dunne wrote: »

...I accept tarring all Public Sector workers with the one brush is unfair, but having both worked there and having clients currently in the Public Sector, I have first hand experience of the gross incompetence, waste and general laid-back attitude that would get people fired in the Real World.

A dose of realism is what is needed, not a pay rise.

So you've never experienced any of that in Private sector. From builders, taxi's, Mobile phone companies, Broadband providers, PC World, NTL, Main dealers, Mechanics, etc. Because I see that all the time in the private sector. From working on both the public but mostly private sector. I wouldn't make the generalization's you make.You also get good and bad managers/sections. Just like you would in large private sector corporations, where you get good team, bad teams.

IMO the scope of the unions is far too intrusive. Like that example in Superquinn, thats the same thing that goes on in the public sector. I've seen IT projects tied in knots because of constant union interference. Often from union people unqualified to be involved in the project. The Govt is gutless, like they've shown with the HSE. Until someone with a pair can stand up to the unions, we'll get no where. I'm sceptical of those average wage figures. You going to get a lot of white collar workers in the public sector, and a lot of professionals. Whereas in the private sector you are going to have more unskilled and lower paid shop and industrial workers.

There should be cuts in a sliding scale from the best paid to the least paid. The least well paid are probably due increases. Not blind blanket cuts for all workers.

pearcider

Could you give me an example of this?

They're ennumerable but I'll give you a current one. How about the government recently announcing a raising of the ceiling to 100,000 for deposits in our private banks?

Or are you talking about the US government?

I'm talking about every governemnt! Didn't the UK recently nationalize Northern Rock? They're still picking up the tab for the disastrous privatization of British Rail...and you can bet your ass our kids will be picking up the tab for the Eircom fiasco when we start paying the social and economic price for having the worst internet access infrastructure in the developed world.

I do not see how your point has anything to do with a private company paying a CEO a fortune and our tax money paying (let's be honest) a number of uneducated, lazy public service workers an above average wage.

Showing your true colours here...you're just jealous of the fairer wage structure in the civil service.

If you don't believe me many public service workers are uneducated, do a search on this forum. Some of them only have their Junior Cert yet expect big money. How deluded.

Nonsense. You need at least a Leaving Cert to apply for the bottom rung on the civil service ladder - and you're paid little above minimum wage. Civil servants that earn decent money in the health servcie, the prison service, Irish Rail and the ESB are all highly qualified and trained.

The top guys in the public service don't earn big money? Give me a break...

Compared to the CEO's they earn at least ten times less.

The Government is broke yet you are demanding large wage increases. If you cannot see how this is wrong, you are utterly selfish.

It's not the civil servants fault the government is broke. Blame the government (for having too low a tax rate and inadequate legislation) and the vested interests in the financial and construction sector - who've made billions from this country and who live as tax exiles because they're too tight to give a little back to the nation, the people and the government that allowed them to make their fortunes in the first place. How people can ignore the shocking greed on display by the professional and business classes in this country this past decade and make the civil service the scapegoats beggars belief.The unions are still entitled to demand a wage increase and this is wholly necessary if we're going to attract decent people to work for the country.

BostonB

Cork wrote: »

It was only my experience of working in one organisation. These offices were made up with the laziest of the lazy.

Any course after work hours - zero interest.

Courses during work including free lunch - no problem with demand.

There is good reason teachers oppose league tables and why do don't find cost per transaction information on these organisations.

I guess it depends where you work. A lot of the PS people I know have 2 degrees and rack of other qualifications. It goes towards promotion, so theres pressure to keep learning, and doing courses. I've never seen that in the private sector. No paid lunches on course either. Maybe different in other areas.

Tom Dunne

BostonB wrote: »

So you've never experienced any of that in Private sector. From builders, taxi's, Mobile phone companies, Broadband providers, PC World, NTL, Main dealers, Mechanics, etc. Because I see that all the time in the private sector. From working on both the public but mostly private sector. I wouldn't make the generalization's you make.You also get good and bad managers/sections. Just like you would in large private sector corporations, where you get good team, bad teams.

Did you actually read what I said? I didn't say what some people are saying, i.e. all Public Sector/Civil Service workers are lazy-good-for-nothings. I said that I had first hand experience of such people and that sweeping generalisations are unfair. I know there are good people in those organisations, I have worked with some of them.

And of course I have experienced it in the private sector. My point is that those that are actually the lazy, incompetent so-and-so's in the CS/PS could do with a dose of reality working in the private sector - they wouldn't last a month. They would learn that in the Real World, if things are going bad, you don't get a pay rise. A concept that seems to be lost on both them and the unions.

BostonB wrote: »

Until someone with a pair can stand up to the unions, we'll get no where

And there is the crux of the matter. Until somebody stands up and is willing to put their job on the line, nothing will be done. At the highest level of government there is neither the incentive, nor the balls to take on the unions.

BostonB

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Did you actually read what I said? ...

Still comes across as a generalisation tbh, apologies if that wasn't intended. My point is it often doesn't get you fired, but often promoted in the private sector. Nepotism etc.

AARRRGH

pearcider wrote: »

Showing your true colours here...you're just jealous of the fairer wage structure in the civil service.

God. Why is this always the retarded come back from civil servants.

I would HATE to work in an office of unmotivated, lazy, greedy fools. What a ****ty life that must be. I will NEVER apply for a civil service job.

My problem is you and your like are exceptionally greedy. You will use any excuse to get more money and do less work. You're like something from a Dickens novel.

pearcider wrote: »

Nonsense. You need at least a Leaving Cert to apply for the bottom rung on the civil service ladder

No you don't. Do a search on this forum - plenty of people working in the civil service with only their junior certificate.

damnyanks

pearcider wrote: »

I'm talking about every governemnt! Didn't the UK recently nationalize Northern Rock? They're still picking up the tab for the disastrous privatization of British Rail...and you can bet your ass our kids will be picking up the tab for the Eircom fiasco when we start paying the social and economic price for having the worst internet access infrastructure in the developed world.

Northern Rock was going to go bust because they were exposed to a drastic turn in short term debt markets not because they were greedy.

What about British Rail ? Last I saw the government picked up a lot of money from private providers.

Eircom was never forced to upgrade their infrastructure back when it was Telecom Eirann. Maybe when they were pulling hand over fist in cash they should have upgraded instead of waiting for private providors like NTL to upgrad the infrastructure.

Clytus

This thread has kinda veered off on a CS bashing tangent...which wasnt the point.
But to tackle some of the views expressed by Pear...
first of all your example of the Minister guaranteeing savers funds to €100K...that was a tactile move to reassure the public of the States confidence in the Irish banking sector. Liveline has alot to answer for in that respect...by allowing thicks and gob****es air time to suggest they grab their cash and hide it under their matresses. Mind you I shouldnt have expected anything else of that goon Duffy!!! Banking is a mechanism by which the Irish economy exists....so to allow media hype and misinformed individuals air time to stir mass hysteria and damage the banking system was an issue the Minister HAD to tackle ...and he did so very well indeed...I applaud his actions there.

Compared to the CEO's they earn at least ten times less.

CEOs of Multinational companies...who have turnovers in the Billions...whith thousands of employees...providing thousands of jobs..generating the Billions of euro in PAYE, VRT, PRSI, VAT, Stamp Duty that all add up to pay for a CSs average salary of €49,000 + 32%.

I'm talking about every governemnt! Didn't the UK recently nationalize Northern Rock? They're still picking up the tab for the disastrous privatization of British Rail...and you can bet your ass our kids will be picking up the tab for the Eircom fiasco when we start paying the social and economic price for having the worst internet access infrastructure in the developed world.

The one thing Id like to point out here is that you seem to be forgetting that even back in 1987 this country was an economic basketcase. in fact Alan Dukes recalled there how he was told by a local councillor back then that they were having to consider switching off the traffic lights in his area because they couldnt pay the electricty bill....so you have to consider the point from where we came when you list the lack of major capital projects.

Exactly those wages are 10 times higher compared with the 250k typical of a minister in government or a Secretary General in the CS - who have greater responsibility and preside over larger budgets and administrations.

Have you ever looked to see how their incomes are broken down?
I think you will find that the bulk ( in some cases are in excess of 50%) is amde up of pension contribtuions, preformance bonuses and share opitions. Now...the other thing you have left out is the value to be added to the security of tenure those within the CS have....there are probably private sector workers reading this thread who are worried about how much longer their jobs are gonna be around....something the CS tries to skirt round everytime. In these times...Id suggest it should be worth 20% of their salary....and pensions...what about those...Iv heard that the Civil service pension is worth in EXCESS of 12.5% of salary...so we have roughly a value of 32% over the average €49,000 SC salary.

While the analogy is highly flawed I will for the record state that I do work in the private sector (for a major financial services company) and was recently given a promotion and a fat bonus (try getting that in the civil service!). I had the opportunity to join the service recently but turned it down precisely because of the poor salary.

Please explain how the anaolgy is flawed? To me its basic business...run out of cash..i.e become insolvent ( as oppossed to having a liquidty problem)...and you go bust...so when the needle is in the red and the bank is ringing you everyday to see what invoices are due to be paid in you dont hand out pay rises...you do the opposit...you look for savings...you cut away the dead wood....and anyone who demands wage increases suddenly find themselves nursing an arse that got a size 12 planted on it.
Now...you say you earned a nice bonus this year...for what exactly?/...for turning up every day?...for having the prettiest hand writing??...for highest hit number on your beebo page??....I doubt it...Id guess for achieving or exceeding targets.
Now...and as I keep refering to my own example...why shouldnt the CS be any different when it comes to wage demands? Hit set targets...earn a nice healthy bonus....bum around all day and get fiddley feck all.

who've made billions from this country and who live as tax exiles because they're too tight to give a little back to the nation,

With the exception of Mr D O Brien who else exactly?

BostonB

AARRRGH wrote: »

...You will use any excuse to get more money and do less work. You're like something from a Dickens novel.
....

Unless it is a charity, or loss leading, why would anyone (Private or Public Sector) want to get less money and do more work?

damnyanks

BostonB wrote: »

Unless it is a charity, or loss leading, why would anyone (Private or Public Sector) want to get less money and do more work?

But in the case of CS we're talking about them doing the same work and wanting more pay.

BostonB

damnyanks wrote: »

But in the case of CS we're talking about them doing the same work and wanting more pay.

So the services haven't improved? What about all the websites you have now for services. Theres new services all over the place. The population has increased, and theres more grants, etc. Are you saying that things haven't haven't changed since the pre boom? or that people should still be paid 1980's wages?

ixoy

BostonB wrote: »

Are you saying that things haven't haven't changed since the pre boom? or that people should still be paid 1980's wages?

Yes but they're not being paid 1980s wages anymore are they? All reports say they're being paid very well relative to the private industry, and that's not factoring in perks like job security, flexi-time, pensions, etc. So we need to look at what they have now - quite a bit - and use that to factor against pay rises that can't be afforded.

zoemax

I work in the public sector and prior to that I worked in the private sector and I have had my own business. In fairness I get well paid for a relatrvely short contracted working week (>€100k for a 32hr week). I always work longer than my contracted hours but probably still less than in my last similar job in the private sector.

IME at a senior level public sector workers do work as hard as their private sector counterparts and get well paid for it. However as you come down the foodchain things begin to change. I have numerous colleagues who are hard working, work more than their contracted hours and have a devotion to their work. I also have as many colleagues who take the line that the have no need to work hard as they will get paid anyway and they can't be sacked, these tend to be the active union members. Any attempt to introduce performance management to try and deal with the slackers is met with a violent response from the unions. In fact event trying to discipline a staff member for gross misconduct is pretty much impossible as they will get the union to row in gehind them and management will just back down (I have first hand experience of this).

If you want to see the effect unions have on the public sector just look at the health service. There were pretty much no redundancies when all the health boards merged, why? Unions. The health service needs to be streamlined and excess staff need to be lost. Will this happen? No, again because of unions. It is much easier to concentrate on the consultants who earn big money and are an easy target. Look at the nurses and their constant bleating about being overworked, yet they maintain that they can have their working week reduced without having any effect on patient care if new efficiences are introduced. Here's an idea, start working more efficiently but stay on 39hrs and see how that helps patients.

BostonB

ixoy wrote: »

Yes but they're not being paid 1980s wages anymore are they? All reports say they're being paid very well relative to the private industry, and that's not factoring in perks like job security, flexi-time, pensions, etc. So we need to look at what they have now - quite a bit - and use that to factor against pay rises that can't be afforded.

Are they ALL over paid. Or is it just some of them. Benchmarking in theory should be able to reduce wages to match the private sector. Which seems fair enough, as long as it doesn't take many years to get increases and decreases. In the private sector you have things like share options, bonuses, raises, you can move around jobs far more quickly to get more money. Its a bit of a hare and tortoise situation. You get flexi-time and pensions in the private sector, and the pension isn't worth that much if you don't have full service, or if you have a low salary to start with, lower grades and all that. They way people talk you'd swear even clerical staff are on film star wages, and are set up for life!

I'm with zoemax on this though. After many years in the private sector, I'm only a few years in the public sector. I would say theres a few bad eggs but the vast majority work hard, and are under resourced in many areas, creating huge back logs and time delays, most people would work beyond their hours often unpaid like in the private sector. At least where I am. The biggest difference I notice as well is the unions. They have veto on far too much and are far too influential even on very low level stuff. You are constantly running into problems because of union input.

ixoy

BostonB wrote: »

In the private sector you have things like share options, bonuses, raises, you can move around jobs far more quickly to get more money.

You have raises in the public sector too as your years go on, outside of inflationary increases (or at least they do where I am). Share options are a dubious investment, particularly in current conditions, and bonuses are certainly not guaranteed and often absent in companies.
As to moving around in jobs, I'd agree there's probably more flexibility to move into a position within the company in the private sector - the public sector isn't renowned for being dynamic!

They way people talk you'd swear even clerical staff are on film star wages, and are set up for life!

CO wages are pretty poor alright, but if you manage to get in at say AO level, your wages can go up pretty quickly to nice figures (certainly once you get to AP level).

I'm with zoemax on this though. After many years in the private sector, I'm only a few years in the public sector. I would say theres a few bad eggs but the vast majority work hard, and are under resourced in many areas, creating huge back logs and time delays, most people would work beyond their hours often unpaid like in the private sector.

Don't you get flexi-time for overtime? Isn't that a form of pay? Certainly they do where I'm based.
I'll agree that most are decent workers and quite competent and generally pleasant to deal with. I don't believe many are over-worked given the amount of empty desks I see on the public service said after 5 (or between 11 and 11:30...) but then I'm just in one area in a broader thing.

I think the problem at the moment is I'm over-hearing a lot from one those union heads that you yourself recognise as an issue and it can be very aggravating listening to him and his "grievances". He, and his ilk, are the sort who will only help antagonise the pay deals on grounds that I believe are pretty baseless.

BostonB

ixoy wrote: »

You have raises in the public sector too as your years go on, outside of inflationary increases (or at least they do where I am). Share options are a dubious investment, particularly in current conditions, and bonuses are certainly not guaranteed and often absent in companies.
As to moving around in jobs, I'd agree there's probably more flexibility to move into a position within the company in the private sector - the public sector isn't renowned for being dynamic!

Well as you say yourself on both sides of the fence theres good and bad positions in public and private sectors. Increments are not guaranteed, can be blocked though poor performance, being at the top of your grade and no higher grade positions free to move up to. You could be stuck like that for years. In general its fairer in the Public Sector.

ixoy wrote: »

Don't you get flexi-time for overtime? Isn't that a form of pay? Certainly they do where I'm based.

Depends where you are. Where I've been theres no overtime, limited flexi time, and then only for certain grades. Shorter hours is the main difference, and there isn't the same mad pressure when money isn't involved, (usually someone else's bonus).

ixoy wrote: »

I'll agree that most are decent workers and quite competent and generally pleasant to deal with. I don't believe many are over-worked given the amount of empty desks I see on the public service said after 5 (or between 11 and 11:30...) but then I'm just in one area in a broader thing.

Well if you consider, if you have no overtime, you've built up the limit of your flexi time (might be 10hrs in a month) and you've a workload that you won't clear for at least 12 months, what incentive is there to work beyond your hours. Even when I worked in the private sector, rarely was there anything gained by working unpaid, hours, effectively working for free. If its done to get over a hump or as a favour, or your own interest, then fair enough. But it quickly becomes cultural, and taken advantage off. Theres always a few goof balls everywhere. More the bigger the organization what ever the sector.

ixoy wrote: »

I think the problem at the moment is I'm over-hearing a lot from one those union heads that you yourself recognise as an issue and it can be very aggravating listening to him and his "grievances". He, and his ilk, are the sort who will only help antagonise the pay deals on grounds that I believe are pretty baseless.

I think thats on the money. Met a few in the trades, when in the private sector, but they didn't have the power and influence that they do in Public Sector. They are shooting themselves in the foot if you ask me as there has to come a backlash. Its crazy how ingrained the unions are.