Is "Rip Off Ireland" really "Rip Off by the Public Sector"

RobBrn

Are we really being ripped of by the public sector.

They never miss a pay increase.
They get "benchmarking" which is really just an electoral bribe.
They get massive pensions.
They can't be sacked.
They decide how much we should pay to them so they can have wages far in excess of private workers.
They get huge mileage allowances
They get huge over night allowances - un-vouched.
They threaten strike at the drop of a hat.
They are backed up by politicians , Regardless

The recent debacle with FAS is just an example. Probably just the exposure of the "Tip of the Iceberg"

Is it not time that we demanded an end to this in equality, only equaled in the former USSR

Colonel Sanders

RobBrn wrote: »

They get huge over night allowances - un-vouched.

A mate of mine works in his local council. When he stays in Dublin he often kips on my couch and still gets his hotel allowance. How the f*ck can this be when he obviously doesn't have receipts?

I can't claim any expense back without a receipt (private sector employee)

Nightwish

Don't tarnish all public sector workers with the one brush. The FÁS Debacle is probably not the only example of utter wastage but I can assure you, as a public sector employee things arent all that good. I work for a public organisation where, when someone leaves the department, they are not replaced and their workload is absorbed by everyone else (in my section 3 people have left), leading to increased processing times for clients. Increments are not guaranteed, although we do get the pay increases as agreed by the pay agreements. This (like many others) will be eroded by the tax levy. I personally have no job security due to the nature of my contract, again, I'm not alone in this. My salary is the standard for my grade, industry-wide, so I'm no better paid than the private sector. Also, my pension is crap....not that I plan to stay until 65.

I'm just giving my side of the story and not defending the whole Public service. I have seen in other departments and other public bodies, the "surplus" staff who do absolutely nothing. I've seen people whose carry on would get them sacked in the private sector, but just get a file full of warnings. I agree there needs to be a serious shake up, but bear in mind we're not all the lazy fu*kers the media would like you to believe.

E.T.

Ever hear of sweeping generalisations? Who do you include in public service workers? Do you include the Gardai? Nurses? Teachers?

DenMan

Please beg my question Nightwish but if people lose their jobs in a public department why are they not replaced? It seems a lot to take on for the existing staff to not only continue with their own work but to inherit a further workload. I read Mary Harney's report from the Irish Times back in July about the restructuring of the HSE as an example. It seems inconceivable that the positions would not be replaced. Sorry to hear about that. When I lived in Malta any public sector jobs lost in the Government of Health Services were replaced so as that staff would not inherit their workload and operate efficiently (system taken from neighbours Italy). It definitely needs to be looked at over here. It's too easy to condemn the people who work in the public sector when it is the top levels who are skimming the cream and those further down have to pick up the pieces.

jmayo

Nightwish wrote: »

I'm just giving my side of the story and not defending the whole Public service. I have seen in other departments and other public bodies, the "surplus" staff who do absolutely nothing. I've seen people whose carry on would get them sacked in the private sector, but just get a file full of warnings. I agree there needs to be a serious shake up, but bear in mind we're not all the lazy fu*kers the media would like you to believe.

Yes but the sad thing is there are enough lazy wh**** who do nothing and strike at the drop of a hat, that it appears to most non public sector workers that the whole system is inept, lazy, inefficient and a waste of money.
Added to that private sector employees see guaranteed tenure, guaranteed pensions and it also seems no censure for wasting taxpayers money.

E.T. wrote: »

Ever hear of sweeping generalisations? Who do you include in public service workers? Do you include the Gardai? Nurses? Teachers?

There are a fair of the above that do quiet handsomely out of the system for little effort.
Why should the above professions be immune from critism ? Are they some sort of holy cows that we dare not critise.
How long have the Garda being trying to implement modern communications and IT systems ? Remember the blue flu ?
I have made more than a few nurses that are lazy, unhelpful, uncaring and downright rude.
I would guess everyone on here has at sometime come across a teacher that should not have been let within a million miles of a classroom.
Some just have a complete inability to socially interact and impart basic knowledge, but yet they are still employed.

spadder

Get busy public servants, the reckoning is coming. If your a hard worker, you have nothing to fear, if your an unvouched expenses, sick day abusing
clipboard carrying, slacking, tea drinking sinner, your end is nigh!

Benny-c

spadder wrote: »

Get busy public servants, the reckoning is coming. If your a hard worker, you have nothing to fear, if your an unvouched expenses, sick day abusing
clipboard carrying, slacking, tea drinking sinner, your end is nigh!

Well said

E.T.

jmayo wrote: »

Why should the above professions be immune from critism ? Are they some sort of holy cows that we dare not critise.
How long have the Garda being trying to implement modern communications and IT systems ? Remember the blue flu ?
I have made more than a few nurses that are lazy, unhelpful, uncaring and downright rude.
I would guess everyone on here has at sometime come across a teacher that should not have been let within a million miles of a classroom.
Some just have a complete inability to socially interact and impart basic knowledge, but yet they are still employed.

I don't disagree with this point at all, there are people in all jobs, public and private, who are useless at their jobs and don't care about them.

What I'm questioning is the list of "perks" in your first post that you say public servants get, you can't just state that a huge, varied body of jobs get all of these.

dresden8

Hey lads, calm down.

You're going to need public servants when you go to sign on.

Remember to say please and thank you.

Nightwish

spadder wrote: »

Get busy public servants, the reckoning is coming. If your a hard worker, you have nothing to fear, if your an unvouched expenses, sick day abusing
clipboard carrying, slacking, tea drinking sinner, your end is nigh!

The unfortunate thing is this wont be guaranteed. I have never taken a sick day in 2.5 years. I put in up to 4 hours overtime a week which is unpaid, but I know I'll be one of the first to go. The way the reforms seem to be structured is towards duplication of services and not aimed at inept, lazy employees. For example, a pensions department with 10 excellent employees will be told they are surplus to requirements and let go/offered redundancy as their department is being centralised to another part of the country. Now I've no problem with that per sé, but I have to correct the assumption that the crap employees are being targeted.

DenMan wrote: »

Please beg my question Nightwish but if people lose their jobs in a public department why are they not replaced? It seems a lot to take on for the existing staff to not only continue with their own work but to inherit a further workload. I read Mary Harney's report from the Irish Times back in July about the restructuring of the HSE as an example

Staff are not being replaced as per a circular issued in January, which basically means admin staff are not being replaced. Its a "cost containment" measure.

kaiser sauze

Nightwish wrote: »

Don't tarnish all public sector workers with the one brush. The FÁS Debacle is probably not the only example of utter wastage but I can assure you, as a public sector employee things arent all that good. I work for a public organisation where, when someone leaves the department, they are not replaced and their workload is absorbed by everyone else (in my section 3 people have left), leading to increased processing times for clients. Increments are not guaranteed, although we do get the pay increases as agreed by the pay agreements. This (like many others) will be eroded by the tax levy. I personally have no job security due to the nature of my contract, again, I'm not alone in this. My salary is the standard for my grade, industry-wide, so I'm no better paid than the private sector. Also, my pension is crap....not that I plan to stay until 65.

I'm just giving my side of the story and not defending the whole Public service. I have seen in other departments and other public bodies, the "surplus" staff who do absolutely nothing. I've seen people whose carry on would get them sacked in the private sector, but just get a file full of warnings. I agree there needs to be a serious shake up, but bear in mind we're not all the lazy fu*kers the media would like you to believe.

That is a very disingenuous statement.

Nightwish

My pension is crap unless I put in 30 years service at a minimum. Many of my co workers have to have private pensions along with the work one, because it wont be enough to retire on. The pension is good if you reach a high enough level, but if you work on the lower end of the scale, it isnt as good as its made out to be.

jmayo

Nightwish wrote: »

My pension is crap unless I put in 30 years service at a minimum. Many of my co workers have to have private pensions along with the work one, because it wont be enough to retire on. The pension is good if you reach a high enough level, but if you work on the lower end of the scale, it isnt as good as its made out to be.

Answer one thing, is your pension guaranteed to be a percentage of your final salary ?

Nightwish

jmayo wrote: »

Answer one thing, is your pension guaranteed to be a percentage of your final salary ?

Its 1/80th of pay less twice rate of old age pension. As I said, many people who dont have the service have a private pension too. And I also said, since I'm going to be gone in the next year my pension is the least of my worries.

markpb

Nightwish wrote: »

Its 1/80th of pay less twice rate of old age pension. As I said, many people who dont have the service have a private pension too. And I also said, since I'm going to be gone in the next year my pension is the least of my worries.

You brought up as a complaint, you can't dismiss it when it suits you Your pension might not be great but it's guaranteed, something a lot of public sector staff don't appreciate. Imagine anyone retiring in the last few months? Even with a considerable section of their pension in low risk bonds, they still lost a lot of money. No guarantees, no bailouts.

sovtek

markpb wrote: »

You brought up as a complaint, you can't dismiss it when it suits you Your pension might not be great but it's guaranteed, something a lot of public sector staff don't appreciate. Imagine anyone retiring in the last few months? Even with a considerable section of their pension in low risk bonds, they still lost a lot of money. No guarantees, no bailouts.

Thats a comment on the private and not so much on the public sector.

I am always baffled why people keep arguing AGAINST stable and good compensation in a job.

markpb

sovtek wrote: »

Thats a comment on the private and not so much on the public sector. I am always baffled why people keep arguing AGAINST stable and good compensation in a job.

Because DB pensions are vastly more expensive to maintain than DC and also assume that there are more people working than claiming the pension. In Ireland, this isn't true and won't be true going forward. Look at population trend graphs for Ireland over the next 30 years - our population is expected to age so quickly that there'll be 3 times more pensioners than workers. A DB system can't work in a population like that.

I'd much prefer my company remain solvent and able to pay my wages now than risk them being dragged under by their pension debts. The joke about Aer Lingus and BA being pension funds which also happens to own a few aircraft is more satirical than funny.

grahamo

RobBrn wrote: »

Are we really being ripped of by the public sector.

They never miss a pay increase.
They get "benchmarking" which is really just an electoral bribe.
They get massive pensions.
They can't be sacked.
They decide how much we should pay to them so they can have wages far in excess of private workers.
They get huge mileage allowances
They get huge over night allowances - un-vouched.
They threaten strike at the drop of a hat.
They are backed up by politicians , Regardless

The recent debacle with FAS is just an example. Probably just the exposure of the "Tip of the Iceberg"

Is it not time that we demanded an end to this in equality, only equaled in the former USSR

People generalising again. Why are public sector workers the scapegoats for everything these days. They are taxpayers too. As for the can't be sacked crap- anyone taken on after 1995 is Class A1 PRSI...The same terms and conditions as private sector so they can be sacked.

kaiser sauze

Nightwish wrote: »

My pension is crap unless I put in 30 years service at a minimum. Many of my co workers have to have private pensions along with the work one, because it wont be enough to retire on. The pension is good if you reach a high enough level, but if you work on the lower end of the scale, it isnt as good as its made out to be.

Jesus H.......

I'm sorry, but as gold plated as your pension is, you still have to work for it.

Are you saying that employers should just hand you a pension?

sovtek

markpb wrote: »

Because DB pensions are vastly more expensive to maintain than DC and also assume that there are more people working than claiming the pension. In Ireland, this isn't true and won't be true going forward. Look at population trend graphs for Ireland over the next 30 years - our population is expected to age so quickly that there'll be 3 times more pensioners than workers. A DB system can't work in a population like that.

I can't speak for Ireland but I know that 'ol W was trying to make the same argument for Social Security in America. It's bull**** of course.
Whats a DB and DC?

I'd much prefer my company remain solvent and able to pay my wages now than risk them being dragged under by their pension debts. The joke about Aer Lingus and BA being pension funds which also happens to own a few aircraft is more satirical than funny.

Yet wether they are insolvent or not they always seem to find billions for their CEO pensions.
I kinda remember hearing that AL and BA are both state subsidized institutions.
Are you saying that companies that pay their staff well and give them good benefits are destined to become insolvent?

sooper

You know this whole Roddy Molloy thing astounds me. I run a FAS scheme where participants work hard for 222 a week (just enough for half a hairdo:p). If I spend any money on luxuries such as say light and heat or staff training I have to produce 2 receipts - one on a specially commissioned FAS form and another on the suppliers letterhead. Copies of all cheques must be kept and cross checked with the invoice. They then do a very detailed audit every year. I couldn't get away with ordering a paperclip for myself. So how the guys at the top have carried on is a slap in the face to all of us poor eejits.

nesf

sovtek wrote: »

I can't speak for Ireland but I know that 'ol W was trying to make the same argument for Social Security in America. It's bull**** of course.

Why is it bull****? It's not enough to merely state that it is.

sovtek wrote: »

Whats a DB and DC?

Defined benefit and defined contribution. With DB you invest X now and are guaranteed Y every year (adjusted for inflation) when retired. With DC you invest X now and you get the return on your investment every year when retired. The big problem with DB is that if there's a downturn in the markets and the pension fund shrinks then money needs to be found from somewhere to pay people their pension and that money generally needs to come from people who are at present working. This works fine if you have 4 or 5 people working for every 1 person retired and drawing the pension but it cannot work when you have 1 or 2 people working for every 1 person drawing a pension for obvious reasons if you do the math.

The DB system (and Social Security) was designed for a time when people died much younger than they do now. With people living longer we may not be able to sustain retiring at 65 and pensioners having a good standard of life from their pensions. There is a vicious cycle, less babies are being born and the old live longer making this literally a ticking time bomb that our generation are going to have to face up to before we get to retire. Honestly, I do not expect to be able to retire at 65 and get a state pension, I don't think it will be feasible.

zootroid

Just out of curiousity, of the people who posted in this thread that work in the public sector, what do you do, and is it well paid?

I remember a few years ago when I was leaving college, there was one person who went into a public sector job. Incidentally, of the people in my class who found employment within a couple of months, he was the highest paid.

kippy

Lads,
I work in the public sector (for he last 18 months or so). Before that I did about 5 years in the same area in the Private sector. I have a national cert and a large number of vendor certificates.
I spent the five years I was working in the private sector building up skills and experience so I could get out of it and into the Public/Civil sector as soon as I could because he pay/conditions/pension etc were in general far better than a private sector job (Maybe not as much opportunities for progression but overall a better deal)
I make no apologies for working in the public sector. I work hard and reap the benefits. If ye all think it is that good a number then try get into it. Seriously.
There are numerous areas that costs could be saved in the public sector (without even hitting jobs) but when you think of what the public sector spend money on, many private sector organisations would take a hit themselves. (That said, there is misuse of money but that stems from the very top level (government) on a daily basis also.
What should and probably will happen in the next few years is that public sector organisations with like functions will be merged saving costs on building and associated costs and many other functions may be centralised. There will be early retirements and voluntary redundancy offered.
In general though the public sector provides a great service and the people on the ground who normally get paid the least shouldnt worry about the naysayers.
For the rest, try get into the job, its good, family friendly, has good conditions and at the end of the day, thats what you want from a job.
Kippy

Devious

The very simple fact of the matter is that we are funding a bloated and inefficient public sector that we DO NOT NEED in the current economic climate. What is needed NOW is drastic and immediate wage cuts across the board, our country cannot continue to fund these salaries. Alas, we have cowardly and incompetent politicians with neither the intelligence or the courage to stand up to the unions.

P. Breathnach

Devious wrote: »

The very simple fact of the matter is that we are funding a bloated and inefficient public sector that we DO NOT NEED in the current economic climate. What is needed NOW is drastic and immediate wage cuts across the board, our country cannot continue to fund these salaries. Alas, we have cowardly and incompetent politicians with neither the intelligence or the courage to stand up to the unions.

The "very simple fact of the matter" is that anybody can post intemperate nonsense. If you are of the opinion that there are things wrong with the public service, it is much more useful to point to particular things or areas and say in what way things are wrong.

It might be that a person who subscribes to Devious's point of view could also take a different stance if the school where his children attend stands to lose a teacher or two, or if his local hospital has services cut.

Sure, there are problems. But wild rants do nothing useful to help solve them.

Devious

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The "very simple fact of the matter" is that anybody can post intemperate nonsense. If you are of the opinion that there are things wrong with the public service, it is much more useful to point to particular things or areas and say in what way things are wrong.

It might be that a person who subscribes to Devious's point of view could also take a different stance if the school where his children attend stands to lose a teacher or two, or if his local hospital has services cut.

Sure, there are problems. But wild rants do nothing useful to help solve them.

Oh dear, looks like iv pi$$ed off another teacher :rolleyes:

So my calling for reductions in both public sector numbers and wages is a "wild rant"? Are you seriously that deluded to believe that we can sustain a public sector of 370,000 odd in the current climate? Do you actually believe that schools losing "a teacher or two" is going to radically impact the educational development in a negative way? Come on man, its time to get realistic here.

jmayo

kippy wrote: »

Lads,
I work in the public sector (for he last 18 months or so). Before that I did about 5 years in the same area in the Private sector. I have a national cert and a large number of vendor certificates.
I spent the five years I was working in the private sector building up skills and experience so I could get out of it and into the Public/Civil sector as soon as I could because he pay/conditions/pension etc were in general far better than a private sector job (Maybe not as much opportunities for progression but overall a better deal)
I make no apologies for working in the public sector. I work hard and reap the benefits. If ye all think it is that good a number then try get into it. Seriously.
There are numerous areas that costs could be saved in the public sector (without even hitting jobs) but when you think of what the public sector spend money on, many private sector organisations would take a hit themselves. (That said, there is misuse of money but that stems from the very top level (government) on a daily basis also.
What should and probably will happen in the next few years is that public sector organisations with like functions will be merged saving costs on building and associated costs and many other functions may be centralised. There will be early retirements and voluntary redundancy offered.
In general though the public sector provides a great service and the people on the ground who normally get paid the least shouldnt worry about the naysayers.
For the rest, try get into the job, its good, family friendly, has good conditions and at the end of the day, thats what you want from a job.
Kippy

You can not build an economy on public sector. You need companies that create things, that provide services to the nation's inhabitants, that export products and services to other countries.
Qe cannot all work in public sector that just provides services to the nation's inhabitants.
The public sector cannot support itself, it requires taxes from private sector employees and businesses.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The "very simple fact of the matter" is that anybody can post intemperate nonsense. If you are of the opinion that there are things wrong with the public service, it is much more useful to point to particular things or areas and say in what way things are wrong.

It might be that a person who subscribes to Devious's point of view could also take a different stance if the school where his children attend stands to lose a teacher or two, or if his local hospital has services cut.

Sure, there are problems. But wild rants do nothing useful to help solve them.

Ok, why not start in the HSE.
There are too many administration staff, too many managers. And yes I do know what I am talking about as I have worked indirectly in healthcare business and have experienced the wastes of space that inhabit HSE.
Have you ever had to read a HSE tender?
When cuts are mentioned in the HSE, they always cut contract and temporary nursing and medical staff, they close wards, they close medical care units, they cut services to the patients.
Here is an idea why not close down every single PR unit dotted in all the HSE regions and just have one in HSE HQ.
Do patients need PR ?
Why do they have services duplicated across areas.

Why not close down the The Parliamentary Affairs Division (PAD), since they do not appear to bother ever answering the tough questions about why people are left to die.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

Ok, why not start in the HSE.
There are too many administration staff, too many managers. And yes I do know what I am talking about as I have worked indirectly in healthcare business and have experienced the wastes of space that inhabit HSE.
Have you ever had to read a HSE tender?
When cuts are mentioned in the HSE, they always cut contract and temporary nursing and medical staff, they close wards, they close medical care units, they cut services to the patients.
Here is an idea why not close down every single PR unit dotted in all the HSE regions and just have one in HSE HQ.
Do patients need PR ?
Why do they have services duplicated across areas.

Why not close down the The Parliamentary Affairs Division (PAD), since they do not appear to bother ever answering the tough questions about why people are left to die.

That's a bit more focused than Devious's ranting approach.

Yes, I agree that the HSE seems to be overburdened with administrative staff (I use the word "seems" because I don't know enough to have a fully and properly informed opinion). Much, but by no means all, of the problem is a legacy of the messy situation that existed before the HSE was set up. There seems to have been a very bad failure to clean up the system: there was no worthwhile programme for managed redundancy and there was apparently insufficient effort to redeploy staff; there was a major cock-up with PPARS, which should have contributed to better administration; it seems that other possibilities for rationalising functions have not advanced sufficiently. Some of the problems can be laid at the door of politicians, some at the door of HSE staff (medical as well as administrative), and some at the door of the HSE executive.

Yes, I think that one PR unit seems like enough (and the business of the unit should be to get the truth out to the public, and not to impart a positive spin).

There is, to be fair, a particularly difficulty for the HSE in dealing with some bad press coming from patients or their families, because patients can forgo their right to privacy, but the HSE must still respect patient confidentiality. That might be part of the reason why the PAD does not always answer tough questions to your satisfaction.

Irish and EU law on public procurement contribute to some of the tendering problems. Why should it cost more and take longer to build a public hospital than a more-or-less equivalent private one (one of the things that Mary Harney points out quite often)? It's because of public procurement law. Where's the level playing field there?

kippy

jmayo wrote: »

You can not build an economy on public sector. You need companies that create things, that provide services to the nation's inhabitants, that export products and services to other countries.
Qe cannot all work in public sector that just provides services to the nation's inhabitants.
The public sector cannot support itself, it requires taxes from private sector employees and businesses.

Did I say or state otherwise?
I know that. I just find it strange that people who believe the Public sector is such a great place to work aren't there themselves. It is a good job with good benefits in general.
Is the only reason people dont "chose" to work in the public sector because they feel they have a moral duty to their country to work in the private sector? I think not.
Money from the Public sector is spent either directly or indirectly in providing business for private sector organisations-if that were all to stop/be cut back tomorrow, lots of private sector business would feel more of a pinch than they are now.....
As I said, I agree with cost savings and cost cutting measures just in a structured and well thought out manner, not in the cack handed manner that the majority of the current and previous governments "brainwave schemes" have been implemented.

jmayo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

....
Yes, I agree that the HSE seems to be overburdened with administrative staff (I use the word "seems" because I don't know enough to have a fully and properly informed opinion). Much, but by no means all, of the problem is a legacy of the messy situation that existed before the HSE was set up. There seems to have been a very bad failure to clean up the system: there was no worthwhile programme for managed redundancy and there was apparently insufficient effort to redeploy staff; there was a major cock-up with PPARS, which should have contributed to better administration; it seems that other possibilities for rationalising functions have not advanced sufficiently. Some of the problems can be laid at the door of politicians, some at the door of HSE staff (medical as well as administrative), and some at the door of the HSE executive.

Yes, I think that one PR unit seems like enough (and the business of the unit should be to get the truth out to the public, and not to impart a positive spin).

There is, to be fair, a particularly difficulty for the HSE in dealing with some bad press coming from patients or their families, because patients can forgo their right to privacy, but the HSE must still respect patient confidentiality. That might be part of the reason why the PAD does not always answer tough questions to your satisfaction.

Irish and EU law on public procurement contribute to some of the tendering problems. Why should it cost more and take longer to build a public hospital than a more-or-less equivalent private one (one of the things that Mary Harney points out quite often)? It's because of public procurement law. Where's the level playing field there?

Yes you are right that the HSE is a mess and a lot of it is down to the way the Health Boards were subsummed into the HSE.
Might I suggest part of the big problem is the fact that when all these helth boards were brought in under the umbrella of the HSe was that some politicans and unions came to the nice little understanding that nobody would lose their jobs.
In other words they would be no beneficial savings made by cutting out the duplication.
Ah it's such a pity that the pesky families of patients left to die needlessly go public, is that what 6you are implying by your comment.
HSE tenders are a joke, the level and detail of some of the questions is unbelievable.

kippy wrote: »

Did I say or state otherwise?
I know that. I just find it strange that people who believe the Public sector is such a great place to work aren't there themselves. It is a good job with good benefits in general.
Is the only reason people dont "chose" to work in the public sector because they feel they have a moral duty to their country to work in the private sector? I think not.
Money from the Public sector is spent either directly or indirectly in providing business for private sector organisations-if that were all to stop/be cut back tomorrow, lots of private sector business would feel more of a pinch than they are now.....
As I said, I agree with cost savings and cost cutting measures just in a structured and well thought out manner, not in the cack handed manner that the majority of the current and previous governments "brainwave schemes" have been implemented.

I never wanted to work in public sector, because I do not want to work in a heavily unionsed beuacratic landscape, where often you only get ahead on ass l***ing and playing golf. I have done contract work in public sector bodies and I found them depressing places to work.
Listening to someone spouting they will go on strike if management bring in small work practice change is depressing.

Yes and money spent in public sector bar a few self sustainaing ones like ESB, (oops sorry I forgot we all pay high electricity charges to keep non working viable peat burning power stations ticking over in the bogs of Offaly so that some minister or taoiseach can get a few votes) is money raised from workers in the private sector, from companies producing goods and services for resale.
If the private sector only relied on money from public sector then we would have a very sorry economy.
It is almost as ludricous an idea as assuming building houses for each other is a basis for an economy :rolleyes:
We do need a good public sector but we need a lean, productive one that is not a just a jobs for the boys club e.g Fás.

What cuts in public sector have the government mooted ?
Cuts in teacher numbers is about the only thing so far.
BTW would these be temporary contract teachers by any chance ?

jim o doom

Ahh the reactionary ranting. unvouched this and mileage that. The most people in the Civil Service are the lowest rung - the CO's. They don't get mileage, they don't get hotel allowances; they do get shorter hours, half decent wages, pension & a soul destroying job. From working in the private sector at the lowest rung to the public sector at the lowest rung, where many will always remain - it's better, but it's not great. Most people in the civil service are like this; not the EO, HEO's and upwards who get these allowances - and even then not all of them get what is being claimed. This sort of insane ranting against the public bodies only achieves one thing; taking the blame for the economic crises away from the private sector banks who have caused the whole downturn, and the morons making the decisions in government, who took a "hands off" approach to regulating the industry which has dragged us all down. But no; the downturn has nothing to do with the large investment banks failing left right and centre & being bailed out with millions from the public purse, it's the spending in the public sector itself.Try holding some valid opinions in future eh?

kippy

jmayo wrote: »

Yes you are right that the HSE is a mess and a lot of it is down to the way the Health Boards were subsummed into the HSE.
Might I suggest part of the big problem is the fact that when all these helth boards were brought in under the umbrella of the HSe was that some politicans and unions came to the nice little understanding that nobody would lose their jobs.
In other words they would be no beneficial savings made by cutting out the duplication.
Ah it's such a pity that the pesky families of patients left to die needlessly go public, is that what 6you are implying by your comment.
HSE tenders are a joke, the level and detail of some of the questions is unbelievable.



I never wanted to work in public sector, because I do not want to work in a heavily unionsed beuacratic landscape, where often you only get ahead on ass l***ing and playing golf. I have done contract work in public sector bodies and I found them depressing places to work.
Listening to someone spouting they will go on strike if management bring in small work practice change is depressing.

Yes and money spent in public sector bar a few self sustainaing ones like ESB, (oops sorry I forgot we all pay high electricity charges to keep non working viable peat burning power stations ticking over in the bogs of Offaly so that some minister or taoiseach can get a few votes) is money raised from workers in the private sector, from companies producing goods and services for resale.
If the private sector only relied on money from public sector then we would have a very sorry economy.
It is almost as ludricous an idea as assuming building houses for each other is a basis for an economy :rolleyes:
We do need a good public sector but we need a lean, productive one that is not a just a jobs for the boys club e.g Fás.

What cuts in public sector have the government mooted ?
Cuts in teacher numbers is about the only thing so far.
BTW would these be temporary contract teachers by any chance ?

In a number of posts up above you highlight the major benefits of working in the public sector.
Its not my fault that people in the private sector dont get the same benefits....thats why I got out of the private sector, cos the benefits were better (in general) else where. It's what someone in the private sector would do were they not happy with their terms and conditions of employment surely? I'm willing to accept the other side of these benefits as well (which you also pointed out in your last post)

Jaysus I am not saying that the private sector only relied on money from the public sector, I just highlighted that it does....you have a very very poor grasp of reality if you think that the private sector are not exposed in a large way to any job/spending cuts in the public sector....
While we're at it, the current woes in our economy could be as easily leveled at CERTAIN areas of the private sector and certain levels within these areas. Banking Executives for example.

Again, I'll say it, knee jerk and cack handed policies and media stories do nothing to improve this country. Cost savings and cuts need to be analysed carefully and proper procedures need to be put in place to make sure that the savings are made in services that can be scaled back.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

Ah it's such a pity that the pesky families of patients left to die needlessly go public, is that what 6you are implying by your comment.

I didn't mean that. I simply meant to point out that the HSE is not always free to tell its side of the story. And I don't mean that the HSE necessarily has a good response which it is prevented from giving.

It's one of those difficult problems for which there is no good solution.

Devious

jim o doom wrote: »

Ahh the reactionary ranting. unvouched this and mileage that. The most people in the Civil Service are the lowest rung - the CO's. They don't get mileage, they don't get hotel allowances; they do get shorter hours, half decent wages, pension & a soul destroying job. From working in the private sector at the lowest rung to the public sector at the lowest rung, where many will always remain - it's better, but it's not great. Most people in the civil service are like this; not the EO, HEO's and upwards who get these allowances - and even then not all of them get what is being claimed. This sort of insane ranting against the public bodies only achieves one thing; taking the blame for the economic crises away from the private sector banks who have caused the whole downturn, and the morons making the decisions in government, who took a "hands off" approach to regulating the industry which has dragged us all down. But no; the downturn has nothing to do with the large investment banks failing left right and centre & being bailed out with millions from the public purse, it's the spending in the public sector itself.Try holding some valid opinions in future eh?

We're talking about the need to reduce a bloated and inefficient public sector, not the reasons behind the economic downturn.

jim o doom

Devious wrote: »

We're talking about the need to reduce a bloated and inefficient public sector, not the reasons behind the economic downturn.

Eh, correct me if I am wrong but; "Is "rip off ireland" really "rip off by the public sector" and the rant at the start, certainly seems to indicate that the OP is of the point of view that the only thing causing problems is the Public sector, as made clear by the title of the thread, which directly compares the public and private sectors. Forgive me for reading the thread title & answering the OPs insane/inane & pointless ranting. Sure the Public sector is unnecessarily bloated, but people seem to be going on like fixing the public sector is going to fix the bad decision makers in government, or the problems of the economy caused by the private sector. It isnt, all it will mean is that less money will be spent in the public sector, which won't fix the problems in governmental decision making, which won't fix the economy, but which will succeed in making those who have lost their jobs (due to private banking and the ever moronic decision makers) feel a little better, because they were distracted from the real issues. how wonderful, and the sleight of hand continues.

gazzer

jim o doom wrote: »

Ahh the reactionary ranting. unvouched this and mileage that. The most people in the Civil Service are the lowest rung - the CO's. They don't get mileage, they don't get hotel allowances; they do get shorter hours, half decent wages, pension & a soul destroying job. From working in the private sector at the lowest rung to the public sector at the lowest rung, where many will always remain - it's better, but it's not great. Most people in the civil service are like this; not the EO, HEO's and upwards who get these allowances - and even then not all of them get what is being claimed. This sort of insane ranting against the public bodies only achieves one thing; taking the blame for the economic crises away from the private sector banks who have caused the whole downturn, and the morons making the decisions in government, who took a "hands off" approach to regulating the industry which has dragged us all down. But no; the downturn has nothing to do with the large investment banks failing left right and centre & being bailed out with millions from the public purse, it's the spending in the public sector itself.Try holding some valid opinions in future eh?

Well said Jim O Doom. There are plenty of CO's in the civil service who have never got promoted due to the location of their office, amount of staff in the office, internal policy on promotions. If a CO retired today (after 40 years service) they would get a pension of 361 euro. If a person in the private sector who didnt pay any pension contributions retired they would get 212 euro. So for working for 40 years you get the massive difference of 139 euro a week.

Of course there are lazy shi*ts in the civil service but the majority of people are not. I hate the way civil servents get generalised by some posters here.

Devious

gazzer wrote: »

Of course there are lazy shi*ts in the civil service but the majority of people are not. I hate the way civil servents get generalised by some posters here.

Theres a big difference between complaining about the size of the public sector and saying all civil servants are lazy. My issue is that the public sector has grown out of all proportion to actual requirements. This is a failing of the various governments over the years. Of course people are going to apply for jobs in the civil service if they are available, thats perfectly understandable. My point is that these jobs should not have been created in the first place and that it is time they were eliminated.

P. Breathnach

Devious wrote: »

My point is that these jobs should not have been created in the first place and that it is time they were eliminated.

Which ones?

My understanding is that this forum is for discussion, so why not try discussing things?

[And while we are at it, let's not confuse "civil service" and "public service".]

jim o doom

Devious wrote: »

Theres a big difference between complaining about the size of the public sector and saying all civil servants are lazy. My issue is that the public sector has grown out of all proportion to actual requirements. This is a failing of the various governments over the years. Of course people are going to apply for jobs in the civil service if they are available, thats perfectly understandable. My point is that these jobs should not have been created in the first place and that it is time they were eliminated.

Yeah, but a lot of work in the civil service is dependant on what the private sector generates. Take taxes; VAT, or Income Tax or RCT or whatever you want; VAT - it's relatively quiet for a 2 month period, until people file their returns - then there is a massive workload & people in the private sector demanding & needing their refunds. The people needed for these refunds have a lesser workload for a period but are totally necessary for the end of each period; solutions (a) Keep it as it is (b) fire a few people, causing massive delays in refunds and uproar from the private sector. The workload is seasonal. People posting about the "bloated civil service" go on like the work 120% of the time in their own jobs & are clearly imagining that all the people in the services are riding the gravy train home every day. Sure a lot of the management are, but like I said, by far the LARGEST group of employees the state has, are the low level CO's with very few benefits whatsoever; these are the frontline (so to speak) & these are the people who will be cut, not the decision makers (because well, it's THEIR decision isn't it?). Sure reform is needed, but the amount of venting people seem do need, in relation to the public services, seems to stem from ignorance & frustration at their own situations, which is not the fault of the service. The country is fooked & fixing the service is not going to fix the underlying problems of society - I repeat again, this is all just a big hullabaloo to take the blame away from government & the banks. Do you really feel that public sector reform is going to fix ANYTHING at all? is your view in any way tempered by how government has acted "with all of our best interests at heart" so far? pah.

Devious

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Which ones?

You are aware of these delightful quangos, yes?

P. Breathnach

Devious wrote: »

You are aware of these delightful quangos, yes?

Keep going:
- which quangos would you eliminate?
- for each one eliminated, can you say if we can do without the work they have been set up to perform, or will the work have to be done by somebody else?
- if the work is to be done by some other body, what other body?
- how many jobs might be eliminated?

Should we, for example, abolish the office of the Financial Regulator, whose hands-off or light-touch approach allowed our banks get to where they now are, or should we go the other direction and beef up that office?

Come on, Devious: get past generalisations and get closer to the question.

irish_bob

jim o doom wrote: »

Ahh the reactionary ranting. unvouched this and mileage that. The most people in the Civil Service are the lowest rung - the CO's. They don't get mileage, they don't get hotel allowances; they do get shorter hours, half decent wages, pension & a soul destroying job. From working in the private sector at the lowest rung to the public sector at the lowest rung, where many will always remain - it's better, but it's not great. Most people in the civil service are like this; not the EO, HEO's and upwards who get these allowances - and even then not all of them get what is being claimed. This sort of insane ranting against the public bodies only achieves one thing; taking the blame for the economic crises away from the private sector banks who have caused the whole downturn, and the morons making the decisions in government, who took a "hands off" approach to regulating the industry which has dragged us all down. But no; the downturn has nothing to do with the large investment banks failing left right and centre & being bailed out with millions from the public purse, it's the spending in the public sector itself.Try holding some valid opinions in future eh?

just because the banks were a key instigator of this economic mess we find ourselves in , doesnt excuse the excessive waste and staff numbers in the public service this past 7 or 8 years , lets not benchmark against bad behaviour , a frequent line trotted out by public servants theese days is , the banks are worse with what they did

jmayo

kippy wrote: »

In a number of posts up above you highlight the major benefits of working in the public sector.
Its not my fault that people in the private sector dont get the same benefits....thats why I got out of the private sector, cos the benefits were better (in general) else where. It's what someone in the private sector would do were they not happy with their terms and conditions of employment surely? I'm willing to accept the other side of these benefits as well (which you also pointed out in your last post)

Jaysus I am not saying that the private sector only relied on money from the public sector, I just highlighted that it does....you have a very very poor grasp of reality if you think that the private sector are not exposed in a large way to any job/spending cuts in the public sector....
While we're at it, the current woes in our economy could be as easily leveled at CERTAIN areas of the private sector and certain levels within these areas. Banking Executives for example.

Again, I'll say it, knee jerk and cack handed policies and media stories do nothing to improve this country. Cost savings and cuts need to be analysed carefully and proper procedures need to be put in place to make sure that the savings are made in services that can be scaled back.

So are you saying that the private sector, and indeed yourself as a tax payer, should pay more taxes to keep a bloated inefficient public sector going because there are some in the private sector who may benefit from it ?
You really do sound like the standard union rep of public sector, when you state we need to put procedures in place, analyse this that and the other, 18 months later we have a few more committees, a few more quangoes and sod all else to show for it but more taxes.

Has anybody here blamed anyone in public sector other than maybe Financial Regulator and our elected representatives for the mess the country's economy is in. I would also blame the NRA etc who have managed to blow huge quantitie of taxpayers money and yet we are having to pay tolls but that is another topic.
The economy is a mess becuase bankers, developers, builders, landbank owners, auctioneers were able to run amuck.
We as a nation all added to it by buying into the crazy sh** of getting on the great property ladder at all costs.
The workers in the public sector did not create that mess but they have wasted huge amounts of money, which at this stage cannot continue.
The guy at the bottom rung never has the chance to really waste money, he may dodge doing a bit of work but that is about it.
It is up the chain where the real wastage occurrs either in doctoring expenses, not watching what is spent on projects or creating useless jobs underneath.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I didn't mean that. I simply meant to point out that the HSE is not always free to tell its side of the story. And I don't mean that the HSE necessarily has a good response which it is prevented from giving.

It's one of those difficult problems for which there is no good solution.

The fact that the HSE top echelon and PR types try and manage the exposure of these, what they see as bad news, stories is what gets me.
To me their side of the story is that they are inept, inefficient, self serving and general put their own requirements before those of the patients.
And in this I mean everyone within the HSE, from admin staff, nursing, consultants, management and the unions.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Which ones?

My understanding is that this forum is for discussion, so why not try discussing things?

[And while we are at it, let's not confuse "civil service" and "public service".]

Can you answer why Health Dept/HSE etc employment levels rose by AFAIK 67% odd between 1997 to 2007 ?
Where are the huge improvements in services that should result from such a huge increase in employment numbers ?
If anything services have disimproved, well that would be the way most people that use the criteria of people being allowed to needlessly die would see it.

BTW I think a lot of people here would use the words civil service, public service and public sector in the same fashion, which I do know would not be correct.

What about An Comisineir Teanga established 2004, an ambusman to make sure public bodies use Irish correctly ?

What about BASIS (website for business information) and REACH, the cross-departmental agency established by Government to improve the quality of service to customers of the Irish Public Service ?

What about the Border Regional Authority and all the other 8regional authorities ? Aren't the county councils not enough ?
Why do we have COFORD and Coillte ?
Why do we need Committee for Public Management Research ?

Why do we need Crisis Pregnancy Agency, could this not be covered by Social services divison within our great HSE ?

What exactly does the The National Advisory Committee on Drugs (NACD) do ?

Why have to create National Centre for Technology in Education to get broadband to schools ?

These are a only a few of the committees, commissioners that I have pulled out. There seems to be overlap between someof the areas and so why create new ones ?

E.T.

jmayo wrote: »

What cuts in public sector have the government mooted ?
Cuts in teacher numbers is about the only thing so far.
BTW would these be temporary contract teachers by any chance ?

No, these aren't temporary contract teachers. They're class teachers who will lose their jobs because of the increase in the pupil-teacher ratio. The other education cuts in the budget are:

The Dirty Dozen Education Cuts

Increase class sizes in primary schools
Abolish substitute cover for teachers
Increase school transport charges
Axe English language teachers
Reduce funding to special needs children
Slash Traveller education funding
Cut teacher numbers by at least 1,000
Eliminate the free book scheme
Stop books for school libraries
Halt the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act
Abandon funding for school computers
Cut funding for primary school building by 5%

(I know these are slightly off the point of this topic, but I put them up because so few people seem to know about them)

murphaph

Nightwish wrote: »

The unfortunate thing is this wont be guaranteed. I have never taken a sick day in 2.5 years. I put in up to 4 hours overtime a week which is unpaid, but I know I'll be one of the first to go. The way the reforms seem to be structured is towards duplication of services and not aimed at inept, lazy employees. For example, a pensions department with 10 excellent employees will be told they are surplus to requirements and let go/offered redundancy as their department is being centralised to another part of the country. Now I've no problem with that per sé, but I have to correct the assumption that the crap employees are being targeted.

Well that's bad management, and the government ultimately manages the public service. I know there are loads of public servants like you NW who are worth their weight in gold to the public they serve. Getting shot of the lazy ones and (when times are good) rewarding the good ones should be a national priority.

There is now a public appetite for reform of the public service like never before. This government needs to take that and run with it and eek out the dead weight and innefficiency ao our public service can be lean and fit. This needs the TOTAL support of the very many good public servants and a reluctance to strike at the behest of their unions when sanctions (up to and including dismissal) are taken against the lazy lumps who give all public servants a bad name.

However, we still see protests at Mary Harney's plans to serve cancer patients in 'just' EIGHT centres of excellence across this small country. People want public services in their own parish and don't want to have to travel for quality services. Until we become less parochial as a nation we'll get nowhere-so the public service aren't all to blame for the innefficiencies in the system.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

The fact that the HSE top echelon and PR types try and manage the exposure of these, what they see as bad news, stories is what gets me.
To me their side of the story is that they are inept, inefficient, self serving and general put their own requirements before those of the patients.
And in this I mean everyone within the HSE, from admin staff, nursing, consultants, management and the unions.

I think you are being unfair. The HSE has often acknowledged mistakes and problems. But is is often the case that an event is unfairly represented in the press. For example, I understand that cancer diagnosis is not a wholly accurate science anywhere in the world, that some small percentage error is to be expected. A missed case can have devastating consequences for the individual, but that does not prove that overall the system is failing. Some misdiagnoses are the result of insufficient skill or lack of care, and the HSE should own up to them; others are attributable to the limitations of the diagnostic methods.

Can you answer why Health Dept/HSE etc employment levels rose by AFAIK 67% odd between 1997 to 2007 ?
Where are the huge improvements in services that should result from such a huge increase in employment numbers ?
If anything services have disimproved, well that would be the way most people that use the criteria of people being allowed to needlessly die would see it.

BTW I think a lot of people here would use the words civil service, public service and public sector in the same fashion, which I do know would not be correct.

What about An Comisineir Teanga established 2004, an ambusman to make sure public bodies use Irish correctly ?

What about BASIS (website for business information) and REACH, the cross-departmental agency established by Government to improve the quality of service to customers of the Irish Public Service ?

What about the Border Regional Authority and all the other 8regional authorities ? Aren't the county councils not enough ?
Why do we have COFORD and Coillte ?
Why do we need Committee for Public Management Research ?

Why do we need Crisis Pregnancy Agency, could this not be covered by Social services divison within our great HSE ?

What exactly does the The National Advisory Committee on Drugs (NACD) do ?

Why have to create National Centre for Technology in Education to get broadband to schools ?

These are a only a few of the committees, commissioners that I have pulled out. There seems to be overlap between someof the areas and so why create new ones ?

Confusing the civil service, the public service, and the public sector, whether through ignorance or carelessness, often results in distorted perceptions.

I am not an expert on health (come to think of it, I'm not an expert on anything in particular), so I cannot respond knowledgeably to your challenge of the Dept. of Health and HSE. I have already agreed that there is probably an excess of administrators. I suspect that there is probably more service delivered to patients than there was 10 years ago, but I agree that there are still some great problems in the system. Our national spend on health is still lower than in many other developed countries (and our doctors, especially the consultants, cost us more than in almost any other country).

I'll give you something on An Coimisinéir Teanga, even though I am pro-Irish. I object to The Official Languages Act and much that flows from it. We should be able to give place to Irish as an official language without some of that nonsense.

I don't know much about REACH but if it works (and I'll give you that that's a big condition) it seems worth doing. Don't we want our public services to be joined up?

Regional Authorities are a big question, and I don't know the best answer. I don't think the county councils (and city and town councils) as they work at present are a great system. They kind of happened over the years, an almost accidental development. I am disillusioned with the quality of our local government.

That's enough for now. I want my dinner. But perhaps you get my drift: I'm not against reform; I'm simply concerned that swinging an axe wildly might result in the wrong heads being cut off.

Devious

E.T. wrote: »

No, these aren't temporary contract teachers. They're class teachers who will lose their jobs because of the reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio. The other education cuts in the budget are:

The Dirty Dozen Education Cuts

Increase class sizes in primary schools
Abolish substitute cover for teachers
Increase school transport charges
Axe English language teachers
Reduce funding to special needs children
Slash Traveller education funding
Cut teacher numbers by at least 1,000
Eliminate the free book scheme
Stop books for school libraries
Halt the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act
Abandon funding for school computers
Cut funding for primary school building by 5%

(I know these are slightly off the point of this topic, but I put them up because so few people seem to know about them)

Apart from the funding for computers (maybe) I would be quite happy to see the above changes implemented. And dont you mean increase in pupil/teacher ratio?

Mr.Micro

The fact that the HSE top echelon and PR types try and manage the exposure of these, what they see as bad news, stories is what gets me.
To me their side of the story is that they are inept, inefficient, self serving and general put their own requirements before those of the patients.
And in this I mean everyone within the HSE, from admin staff, nursing, consultants, management and the unions.

I tend to agree, its all about hanging on to the job and justify the role, when in reality the axe should have been wielded long ago and total reform of the HSE put in place. The HSE was created oout of the Health Board system and its already a dinosaur with too many heads.

E.T.

Devious wrote: »

Apart from the funding for computers (maybe) I would be quite happy to see the above changes implemented. And dont you mean increase in pupil/teacher ratio?

Yep, I meant increase - that's what happens when I type faster than I think!
Are you serious when you say you'd be quite happy to see the funding to special needs children reduced? Do you realise the budgets for supplies for Resource/Learning Support teachers is going to be GONE next year?