Will the Unions drag the country even further down?

Tom Dunne

Out here in the real world, those of us who are lucky enough to have a job are sitting and smiling when told we are getting a pay cut. We have two choices, STFU and accept it, or find another job.

In the fantasy land of the Public Sector/Civil Service, the Unions are already on their high horses at the notion that there may be pay cuts and there may be job losses.

So, if the government does go ahead, will the unions down tools and grind the PS/CS to a halt? Will the government have the balls to stand up to the unions? Or will our illustrious leader follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and bend over and take it?

Nolanger

This is what will happen:
The unions will call for industrial action and no-one will be able to claim Social Welfare because the dole offices and redundancy sections will be on strike.
We'll all be singing:

Do you remember the good old days
Before the ghost town?
We danced and sang,
And the music played inna de boomtown

This town, is coming like a ghost town
Why must the youth fight against themselves?
Government leaving the youth on the shelf
This place, is coming like a ghost town
No job to be found in this country
Can't go on no more
The people getting angry

PS Are you Tom Dunne from Nothing Happens?

Firetrap

Don't forget either that what the unions are saying is just an opening salvo. It's haggling basically. They'll put out their stall, the government will lay out theirs and they'll meet somewhere in between. I would be amazed if there aren't any cuts but they have to be seen to be doing something.

mikemac

Numbers will be cut, not wages

And it won't be a case of the best staff stay and worst go.
It'll be the easy option, first the contractors go, then the temporary staff and the permanent staff won't care about their colleagues as at least it's not them!

Some departments have terrible wastage and some are underfunded. I'd give the PRTB as an example, it's a body that can do a valuable service but it just can't do it.
But again, the path of least resistance will be taken so some departments with strong lobbying power will be untouched and some excellent staff in public bodies that do a valuable service will be shafted

That's the way it goes!

ftr, I worked in Enterprise Ireland in the past and you couldn't hope to meet more dedicated staff around. But will they be cut so some 50 something lazy administrator can stay. Sadly yes

Tom Dunne

mikemac wrote: »

Numbers will be cut, not wages

And it won't be a case of the best staff stay and worst go.

This is what worries me.

When I worked in the PS, there was a percentage of workers who were simply unemployable outside of the PS. Ideally, these would be the first to go. But will they be let go? Not likely. Nepotism and favouritism will be the order of the day and who is let go will depend on how pally he/she is with those further up the chain.

gazzer

I work in the Civil Service and myself and my colleagues except that something drastic has to be done. There are SOME areas of the CS where there are too many staff and in those areas there could definatly be a reduction of staff. However in other areas (like where I am) there is a definite shortage of staff. Work is piling up and been put on the long finger as there simply isnt enough staff to go around. The problem will only get worse in the summer when some staff take term time and they wont be replaced by temp summer staff.

Unfortunately how do you go about weeding out the 'surplus' staff. Im sure it can be done but it would probably take forever and a day to identify them.
On top of that you have IT consultants working in some of the bigger depts (Social Welfare, Revenue) who are getting 3 times what the EO and HEO analysts are getting. The contractors should be gotten rid of and the EO and HEO analysts trained in the work that the contractors do. I dont know why this wasnt done years ago. Its a rediculous situation where an admin EO or HEO gets the exact same wage as the technical EO or HEO analyst.

I think that if the government offered 2 year career breaks with a weekly payment (equivilent to social welfare payments)to the civil servents who would be able to take them (without greatly affecting the work in their various sections) then I feel that a lot of CS would take the career break. There are a hell of a lot of couples working in the CS who are paying huge child care costs. MAYBE if the paid career break option was taken it would mean that one of the couple could stay at home with the kids and with the social welfare equivalent payment coupled with no child care costs might mean that the person would not be that worse off and they would have a job to come back to in a couple of years.

ixoy

gazzer wrote: »

On top of that you have IT consultants working in some of the bigger depts (Social Welfare, Revenue) who are getting 3 times what the EO and HEO analysts are getting. The contractors should be gotten rid of and the EO and HEO analysts trained in the work that the contractors do. I dont know why this wasnt done years ago.

Firstly, the IT consultants are most certainly not getting much more than the EOs/COs - there's a difference between what they'd receive and what the department pays for them.

Secondly, in many cases the IT consultants are brought in precisely because they don't need to be trained up - they've already got relevant 3rd level education for example.

Thirdly, there's the fact that the private contractors are willing (or more precisely told) to work much longer hours at times to ensure projects reach dead lines. If you got an EO/CO to do it, you'd probably have to contend with higher overtime rates, less availability (because they'd be more likely to be able to turn down the work), etc.

The moves that are being made, in the hiring of relevant AOs, are closer to what could work. The notion that you could just switch skilled-up people with those unskilled, with a different work discipline, is not going to work unless it's very transitional and with a view to adopting different work practices.

Nolanger

gazzer wrote: »

the EO and HEO analysts trained in the work that the contractors do. I dont know why this wasnt done years ago.

Probably because:

• the best Civil Service IT staff got poached by the private sector resulting in loss of skills
  
• the CS IT technologies are old most of the work is involved in maintaining these rather than learning the latest technologies

Firetrap

Also, when outside I.T. contractors are brought in, it's in their interests to stay there for as long as possible and to make themselves indispensible. I've heard of places where the theory was that in-house staff would train up and eventually take the place of the contractors. Never happened.

Milk & Honey

gazzer wrote: »

On top of that you have IT consultants working in some of the bigger depts (Social Welfare, Revenue) who are getting 3 times what the EO and HEO analysts are getting. The contractors should be gotten rid of and the EO and HEO analysts trained in the work that the contractors do. I dont know why this wasnt done years ago. Its a rediculous situation where an admin EO or HEO gets the exact same wage as the technical EO or HEO analyst.

It was done years ago. Up to the early 1990s the Revenue in-house staff developed and maintained most of their applications. Problems arose in a number of ways. Many with extensive skills and training left for bigger wages in the private sector. It was difficult to keep up a sufficient supply of trained staff. The Civil Service pay structures were too inflexible to deal with a fast moving IT pay environment. There was resentment by general service people of IT staff being paid more. Outsourcing became a big word in management speak. Contract staff acquire no pension rights from the public service and when it is decided that new technology is to be deployed, they can easily be replaced with others who will work with the new technology. IT contractors need to be supervised by people in-house who have the ability to control them. Some contracts have proceeded looking like a little old lady having her house renovated by cowboy builders. There is also a poor self image in the Civil service. Some managers seemed to think that whatever new technology was proposed could not possibly be done by people in house. Only contractors chosen after an expensive tender process could possibly do whatever the latest big thing was. Michael O Leary in Ryanair got a couple of students to develop his website for 15k. The Civil Service would have spent that placing adverts for the tender. The person who opened the envelopes containing the bids would be feted in the Annual Magazine as a hero and the contractors would have laughed all the way to the bank with hundreds of thousands of euro plus a service contract for years afterwards, with the code kept well away from the Civil Servants.

luckat

Oh, the power of the unions. I only have to think of those damned hospital consultants and I grind my teeth at the power of a strong union.

Wishbone Ash

gazzer wrote: »

However in other areas (like where I am) there is a definite shortage of staff. Work is piling up and been put on the long finger as there simply isnt enough staff to go around

You're lucky that you can allow the work to pile up. In my area, which wouldn't be in an office environment but could be described as 'essential services' we do not have that luxury. My staffing levels were reduced by 20% at the drop of a hat last October yet the work has to be done regardless.

Another point to bear in mind is that there is a shortage of people with the qualification that I have. They cannot be recruited and many of the vacancies are filled by use of overtime. It would be a bit strange to ask me to take a pay cut when they are actively trying to recruit more people with similar qualifications. In the private sector, a shortage of people with a particular qualification would usually result in a wage hike. Unfortunately that doesn't happen in the Public Sector.

grahamo

Will the Unions drag the country even further down?
I don't think we can be dragged any further down than the fat cats have dragged us.
Why don't fat cats get the same kind of stick as union members?

channelsurfer

yes i blame the unions for having the audacity to look for pay increases to be able to pay for those poor developers that were inflating house prices by 50 to 100% so they could sell em during the celtic tiger. we should all go back to living on 1 euro an hour and get rid of the unions!!!!! serves em right all those who made a killing in the celtic tiger are now moaning while the ordinary workers are been made scapegoats especially for having the cheek to get their union to defend their entitlements now.

Tigger

i went in to get my drivers lisence renewed

there were 8 people in the tax off ice talkig and no customers but the drivers lisence window had no one tyhere

i went to the next window and said "can i renew this please"

no xxx is not ghere yet and she's on lisences today

45 mins later xxx turns up

this is what normal people see every day

AARRRGH

mikemac wrote: »

I'd give the PRTB as an example, it's a body that can do a valuable service but it just can't do it.

My ex-girlfriend worked there as a temp. She said the people who worked there did nothing all day. She was even told to "slow down" as she was making them look bad!

doolox

We have to pay €70 a year for registration with the PRTB. Another cost which we have to bear in order to let a house. Also there is a BER which will cost us €300. The cost of the mortgage is €1450 per mnth and we can only get €1100pm rent for the house, which is falling in value all the time.

In our situation the tenants can go at a months notice and leave us looking for new tenants and another registration and another big clean up costing more and there is no certainty with this recession.

Now the government are proposing a property tax on second houses and other but-to-let properties.
I know of other people in posher areas who are not even getting half in rent what it costs to service the loans on their houses.
Increasingly a second house is becoming a form of pension investment, I hope to be able to use the rent as part of my retirement income when I have the house paid off. This is not luxury money but a modest contribution to the state pension to give me a living wage in the future. Now the government want to tax the house.
Yet they want to encourage people to provide their own pensions..........