Public sector pay: the wrong debate

potlatch

I'm beginning to tire of the 'debate' on public versus private wages. Most people are simply looking at it the wrong way round.

People working in the private sector shouldn't be complaining about public sector workers. They should be complaining about employers' refusal to provide the same good pay, job security and employment conditions in the private sector as those in the public sector.

An OECD study confirmed that the Irish private sector is not a high wage economy compared to the EU-15. Some public sector workers earn very high salaries, but most (low-grade civil servants, public service workers [bus drivers, bin men, etc.]) don't earn that much.

As the economy boomed, Ireland became more unequal. More and more of the wealth generated by workers went to bosses and investors while employees have had to accept less and less. We're being told to work harder, but the Irish Competitiveness Council found Irish SMEs to be very badly managed.

I think the nation's been brainwashed. Private sector workers need to take employers on for a fair deal like those in the public sector.

If only there were organisations that could campaign for better working conditions for employees...

optocynic

I'm in the private sector, and I have been very well treated by my employers.

I'm gonna take a leap here, and say you are in the Public Sector... either that or a Union rep.

Public sector pay cuts have to happen... at the higher levels especially!
It is not the wrong debate... it is the right debate.. one of the many right debates.

You want to minimise profits, tax success, and basically scare off investors and entrepeneurs!!

Socialist, and obtuse!

gamblor1975

Have you seen todays Indo? 25% in the difference when compared to private sector. We are trying to regain some of our competitiveness compared to other countries and you think pay rises to the private sector are the way to go?

The Govt. needs to address public sector pay including Nurses,teachers and gardai but should really start at the top. They should not be allowed to set their own renumeration, its a joke.

We need to start getting value for money from our public sector which we are not at the moment. This report will give the govt. the ammo it needs to drop the wages but what we really need is reform so that the Public S behaves more like the private sector with regard to work practices and giving managers the tools they need to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I really hope this govt. dosn't bottle it with the PS unions!

cavedave

potlatch*

An OECD study confirmed that the Irish private sector is not a high wage economy compared to the EU-15. Some public sector workers earn very high salaries, but most (low-grade civil servants, public service workers [bus drivers, bin men, etc.]) don't earn that much.

I an most people in the private sector are not just competing with other workers in Europe. I work for a large multinational like many. This multinational has workers doing the same job in America, Ireland, India, China and Japan. This is not a low skill job. The engineers in India and China earn a fraction of what the American, Japanese and Irish earn.

It is naive to think that we can just increase our wages and not have jobs go to India and China. It is immoral to not allow Chinese and Indian people try to advance themselves and get what is for them a very good job.

optocynic

cavedave wrote: »

I an most people in the private sector are not just competing with other workers in Europe. I work for a large multinational like many. This multinational has workers doing the same job in America, Ireland, India, China and Japan. This is not a low skill job. The engineers in India and China earn a fraction of what the American, Japanese and Irish earn.

It is naive to think that we can just increase our wages and not have jobs go to India and China. It is immoral to not allow Chinese and Indian people try to advance themselves and get what is for them a very good job.

That is exactly what needs to be said..

But we all know, the unions have FAR too much pull with the panderers in the Government who shake at the kness at the mere mention of a strike.

Have we not learned that we need to stand strong against the Unions?

Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare

potlatch

The National Economic and Social Forum/Council produced a paper years ago cogently arguing that MNCs relocate when wages for certain kinds of jobs become more expensive. Manufacturing jobs give way to high-tech and third sector jobs. It also powerfully argued that MNCs will continue to stay in countries with valuable endowments, for example: English-speaking, proximity to large markets, levels of health and education, transport and ICT infrastructure, economic and political stability, etc. It would be costly for MNCs to leave enabling environments such as these.

The paper also argued that small, trade-open economies require large welfare states to offset the social damage caused by this market requirement for 'flexibility'. One mid-way solution touted by the Danes is 'flexicurity'.

But the point I made is a political one as much as an economic one: all citizens deserve to be treated fairly and to live with dignity. This requires much better employment terms and standards, many of which prevail in the state and semi-state sector.

Fixing the payroll is certainly an issue in the short term. But in the medium- to long-term, we need to consider the socio-economic conditions (prevailing in other European countries) that increase quality of life, security and productivity.

SLUSK

Can you tell me of any other country where public sector employees on average earn more than in the private sector?

optocynic

potlatch wrote: »

The National Economic and Social Forum/Council produced a paper years ago cogently arguing that MNCs relocate when wages for certain kinds of jobs become more expensive. Manufacturing jobs give way to high-tech and third sector jobs. It also powerfully argued that MNCs will continue to stay in countries with valuable endowments, for example: English-speaking, proximity to large markets, levels of health and education, transport and ICT infrastructure, economic and political stability, etc. It would be costly for MNCs to leave enabling environments such as these.

You just described India!

potlatch wrote: »

The paper also argued that small, trade-open economies require large welfare states to offset the social damage caused by this market requirement for 'flexibility'. One mid-way solution touted by the Danes is 'flexicurity'.

But the point I made is a political one as much as an economic one: all citizens deserve to be treated fairly and to live with dignity. This requires much better employment terms and standards, many of which prevail in the state and semi-state sector.

Fixing the payroll is certainly an issue in the short term. But in the medium- to long-term, we need to consider the socio-economic conditions (prevailing in other European countries) that increase quality of life, security and productivity.

What better employment terms do the Public Sector workers need?
- Guaranteed Pension
- Annual Increase (regardless of performance)
- No accountability

gamblor1975

That quote is not mine!

spank_inferno

I think the OP makes a fair point.

We are all being taken for a ride in this country by those at the top with their snouts in the trough (& that goes for the trade union leaders too).

But thats not to say the gap between public & private sectors is acceptable at all.

optocynic

spank_inferno wrote: »

I think the OP makes a fair point.

We are all being taken for a ride in this country by those at the top with their snouts in the trough (& that goes for the trade union leaders too).

But thats not to say the gap between public & private sectors is acceptable at all.

I find that to be a sometimes valid, but also one sided opinion.
What about the plumbers, tilers, etc. that were charging outragous fees for simple jobs during the boom?

We have chancers at all layers of this society. To say it is only 'those at the top' is populist and obtuse.

I know plenty of people at the top who have integrity, and whilst they wish to make money and be successful, do do not want to do it at the expense of others.

cavedave

There is an interesting thread here on how much debt we are getting into. It puts the figure at 190 billion euro. Which to pay the interest on is about 3000 euro for each tax payer a year.

Meanwhile in India a software engineer earns a bit under 5000 euro.

I agree with potlatch that there is much more to hiring someone then just their wages. But still 40K in Ireland Versus 5 k in India (according to here). And now that Irish earner also has to pay 3000 euro interest on a debt?

But the point I made is a political one as much as an economic one: all citizens deserve to be treated fairly and to live with dignity. This requires much better employment terms and standards, many of which prevail in the state and semi-state sector.

I cannot argue with this point about what citizens deserve. However politics eventually has to accept the reality of an economic situation.

partyguinness

potlatch wrote: »

I'm beginning to tire of the 'debate' on public versus private wages. Most people are simply looking at it the wrong way round.

People working in the private sector shouldn't be complaining about public sector workers. They should be complaining about employers' refusal to provide the same good pay, job security and employment conditions in the private sector as those in the public sector.

An OECD study confirmed that the Irish private sector is not a high wage economy compared to the EU-15. Some public sector workers earn very high salaries, but most (low-grade civil servants, public service workers [bus drivers, bin men, etc.]) don't earn that much.

As the economy boomed, Ireland became more unequal. More and more of the wealth generated by workers went to bosses and investors while employees have had to accept less and less. We're being told to work harder, but the Irish Competitiveness Council found Irish SMEs to be very badly managed.

I think the nation's been brainwashed. Private sector workers need to take employers on for a fair deal like those in the public sector.

If only there were organisations that could campaign for better working conditions for employees...

Oh dear...where do I start.:rolleyes: This is worng on so many levels..and who pays for all this. Thats where the public sector just dont get it.

Unlike the private sector, the public sector does not generate profit or income.

Remeber the public purse (filled by private sector taxes) pays for the public sector.

To suggest that the private sector sld demand more money is naive in the extreme.

As for the badly managed SME, they will either sink or swim.

As for the badly managed publuic sector, sure who cares...the public finances will bail them out. No initiative whatsoever.

In fact that statement is so retarded I am not even going to bother trying to debate with the person who wrote it.

murphaph

Anyone who thinks Ireland is a low-cost/low wage economy needs their head examined. Come to Germany-NO MINIMUM WAGE at all here! People work for €400 a month and it's legal. Not moral IMO, but legal! And this is a perceived "high cost economy".

In Germany when your year I unemployment benefit runs out you step down to ALGII (€351 oer month plus rent paid in a SMALL apartment for a single person). That's all you get.

It encourages people to work that's for sure!

Irish people need to understand something-the standard of living to which we became accustomed (everyone believed they should own a 3 bed semi and two newish cars) was much more than most of their european neighbours would ever expect. Ireland never had a right to such wealth as the country did not and still does not produce (indiginously) things that the world wants. All Ireland does is host FDI and now that is too expensive there so it's game over unless costs fall dramatically and/or Ireland starts to develop true indiginous high value industry, like Finland for example.

It goes without saying that the public sector is way overpaid, even at the lower levels, in comparison to our european neighbours.

Thinkingaboutit

Banksters not public sector workers, are the problem.

mcloughj

Was always amused by economic experts appearing in the media saying 'high public sector pay' and 'recession' or 'economic meltdown' in the same sentence but never actually saying the two were linked.

And it was said so often that everyone started to believe the public sector caused the economic crisis.

Very Bush administration linking Iraq and 9/11 without actually saying it for definite.

partyguinness

mcloughj wrote: »

Was always amused by economic experts appearing in the media saying 'high public sector pay' and 'recession' or 'economic meltdown' in the same sentence but never actually saying the two were linked.

And it was said so often that everyone started to believe the public sector caused the economic crisis.

Very Bush administration linking Iraq and 9/11 without actually saying it for definite.

I have heard my friends in the public sector say this.

"Oh its not our fault, we are just being used as scapegoats blah blah etc etc."

They are right it's not their fault. Nobody is saying that it is..FFS:rolleyes:. I have heard nobody saying otherwise except the..public sector.

They equate wage cuts with "Lets blame the public sector"

The crux of the Public sector wages debate is that the Gov has reduced income and needs to cut spending.

Very simple.

brianthebard

murphaph wrote: »

Anyone who thinks Ireland is a low-cost/low wage economy needs their head examined. Come to Germany-NO MINIMUM WAGE at all here! People work for €400 a month and it's legal. Not moral IMO, but legal! And this is a perceived "high cost economy".

In Germany when your year I unemployment benefit runs out you step down to ALGII (€351 oer month plus rent paid in a SMALL apartment for a single person). That's all you get.

It encourages people to work that's for sure!

Does it? Is that why there are 3.4million people unemployed in Germany? Can you prove in some substantial way your assertions?

the_syco

potlatch wrote: »

They should be complaining about employers' refusal to provide the same good pay

If the employer of the company thought it was paying too much to it's employees in Ireland,, they can f**k off to somewhere where it's cheaper, as Dell did.

The public sector can demand more money, and their employers will give it to them.

potlatch wrote: »

job security and employment conditions in the private sector as those in the public sector.

In the private sector, unless people buy their stuff, jobs can be lost. In the public sector, jobs aren't lost if they're doing a sh|t job, it seems.

murphaph

brianthebard wrote: »

Does it? Is that why there are 3.4million people unemployed in Germany? Can you prove in some substantial way your assertions?

Do you think if people received more generous social welfare payments that they would be more or less inclined to work. Answer that and you've answered your own question.

I personally know people here who work in very low paid jobs rather than rely on 351 quid a month. It's sort of well, obvious.

Germany has disparate regional problems, particularly in the east which go way deeper than social welfare issues-11 million people live in a part of Germany where the infrastructure was left to disintegrate over 50 years and where no industry could compete with western processes when the wall fell. Go to Munich or Stuttgart however and unemployment is substantially lower than Ireland. Germany is much more regionally diverse in this regard and the East (sadly) pulls the german unemployment figure right up. It will take many decades to overcome the failures of the GDR.

If you took the East away Germany would have a healthy unemployment rate and remember before the current worldwide crisis, Germany's economy was rebounding and unemployment (even in the east) was falling. These measures of hardcore cuts in social welfare spending are a relatively recent invention and are controversial (google Harz IV) but they were having an impact.

My own gut feeling is that Germany will recover well once the worldwide credit crisis is on the retreat. We'll see though.

jimmmy

mcloughj wrote: »

Was always amused by economic experts appearing in the media saying 'high public sector pay' and 'recession' or 'economic meltdown' in the same sentence but never actually saying the two were linked.

And it was said so often that everyone started to believe the public sector caused the economic crisis.

The people at the top in charge were all paid by the govt, and will receive their high pensions.

The politicians who made the decisions, the central banks, the regulator etc. If all of these had acted properly we would have had no bubble / crisis. And its not as if they were not well paid....they were amongst the highest paid in the world. Whats making the crisis worse is the high level of govt spending, partly on the highest paid govt employees ( + retired employees ) in the known world.

optocynic

partyguinness wrote: »

The crux of the Public sector wages debate is that the Gov has reduced income and needs to cut spending.

Very simple.

The crux of the problem is the social partnership joke.. and the bullying, petulant tactics of the Union's.

Kama

As has been frequently repeated, you cannot run a public service on market principles, unless you want the guards to behave like the clampers and milk you for revenue.

This is not to say the public service cannot or does not need to be reformed, just that the market-model doesn't transfer, or if it does it functions perversely. If you introduce target-driven incentives systems, they, rather than the task itself, become prioritized; we can see this in New Labour reforms.

The crux of the Public sector wages debate is that the Gov has reduced income and needs to cut spending.

Very simple.

The alternate to this cyclical position is that this is precisely when the government needs to increase spending, create jobs, invest in infrastructure, and generally apply a stimulus. The problem with the deflationist approach is that the economy will keep shrinking the more you keep slashing, with decreasing revenues. There's more feedback system, less linear accounting exercise.

That being said, I'm fully in support of wage cuts at the managerial end; as an ex-PS worker the 'Indian' ratio is too low. But the overpaid wages of managerials are emergent from mapping to...you guessed it, inflated managerial costs in the private sector, which have been INCREASING even during the current economic decline:



Now, the voices cheering for 'competitiveness' are studiously inattentive to this factor of the cost base; IBEC's turkeys do not vote for Christmas, their shrill denunciation of public sector wages seems as much to distract from the overpaid privilege of their 'union members' or to forward an ideological agenda than any real concern with competitiveness.

FlutterinBantam

optocynic wrote: »

I'm in the private sector, and I have been very well treated by my employers.

I'm gonna take a leap here, and say you are in the Public Sector... either that or a Union rep.

Public sector pay cuts have to happen... at the higher levels especially!
It is not the wrong debate... it is the right debate.. one of the many right debates.

You want to minimise profits, tax success, and basically scare off investors and entrepeneurs!!

Socialist, and obtuse!

Excellent post.

Does this person not realise that there is an economy out there ?

This is typical Union bulldust which bears no relation to reality and the situation we are in.
All you will get are the champagne socialists who refuse to take risks, refuse to reward risk, the same people who bed themselves into Public Sector and semi state jobs and proceed to rot the place from within.

Place is full of 'em unfortunately.

gerry28

Oh dear...where do I start. This is worng on so many levels..and who pays for all this. Thats where the public sector just dont get it.

I see this quite often on boards... as if we have to answer to the private sector because thay pay the tax.

We are a society - I answer to the government and so do you. Wealth generated from taxing the private sector (for the privilage of operating in ths country) is used to pay for essential services.

We are not an optional extra - we are an integral part of society.

optocynic

Kama wrote: »

As has been frequently repeated, you cannot run a public service on market principles, unless you want the guards to behave like the clampers and milk you for revenue.

And the don't do this already with their strategically placed speed traps on every major, straight and well lit road in Dublin, but none on the dark winding, narrow roads of the other counties, where most of the deaths happen??

Kama wrote: »

This is not to say the public service cannot or does not need to be reformed, just that the market-model doesn't transfer, or if it does it functions perversely. If you introduce target-driven incentives systems, they, rather than the task itself, become prioritized; we can see this in New Labour reforms.

I would personally like to see target driven reforms in the PS. How can we say if it will work or not? Try it. I bet it will increase the level of service we PAY for. It will also weed out the work-dodgers, of which there are a few. Your clairvoince of the target driven scenario failure is amazing... now, look into your crystal ball and tell me Wednesdays winning lottery numbers

Kama wrote: »

The alternate to this cyclical position is that this is precisely when the government needs to increase spending, create jobs, invest in infrastructure, and generally apply a stimulus. The problem with the deflationist approach is that the economy will keep shrinking the more you keep slashing, with decreasing revenues. There's more feedback system, less linear accounting exercise.

That being said, I'm fully in support of wage cuts at the managerial end; as an ex-PS worker the 'Indian' ratio is too low. But the overpaid wages of managerials are emergent from mapping to...you guessed it, inflated managerial costs in the private sector, which have been INCREASING even during the current economic decline:



Now, the voices cheering for 'competitiveness' are studiously inattentive to this factor of the cost base; IBEC's turkeys do not vote for Christmas, their shrill denunciation of public sector wages seems as much to distract from the overpaid privilege of their 'union members' or to forward an ideological agenda than any real concern with competitiveness.

I can't argue with the problems of managerial cost in the PS. Benchmarking PS with market driven, pro-active, entrepeneurial, risk-rewarding private business is apples and oranges...

mcloughj

partyguinness wrote: »

Nobody is saying that it is..FFS:rolleyes:

That was exactly my point. Nobody is saying it is... directly. But it suits certain groups to make it seem like it is the public services fault.

so FFS :rolleyes: right back at ya.

Kama

I see this quite often on boards... as if we have to answer to the private sector because thay pay the tax.

Who pays the piper, calls the tune, I'm afraid. The public sector does indeed need to be answerable to the taxpayer for producing value, avoiding this fact does the public service no credit. The correct answer imho is to show the value created, and why this value of public goods cannot be effectively produced by the private sector, rather than claim not to be answerable.

optocynic

gerry28 wrote: »

I see this quite often on boards... as if we have to answer to the private sector because thay pay the tax.

We are a society - I answer to the government and so do you. Wealth generated from taxing the private sector (for the privilage of operating in ths country) is used to pay for essential services.

We are not an optional extra - we are an integral part of society.

I think the Government should answer to us!
Does everyone else agree??

asdasd

I personally know people here who work in very low paid jobs rather than rely on 351 quid a month. It's sort of well, obvious.

Even though I actually think that Ireland's social welfare payments are too high, particularly for those who haven't paid in, your point here is clearly invalid.

You said that low social welfare reduces the unemplyment rate. It was pointed out that Germany has high unemplyment, and has had it for years. So your point is disporven unless you can prove that other factors outweight the supposed advantgage of low welfare payments.

optocynic

asdasd wrote: »

Even though I actually think that Ireland's social welfare payments are too high, particularly for those who haven't paid in, your point here is clearly invalid.

You said that low social welfare reduces the unemplyment rate. It was pointed out that Germany has high unemplyment, and has had it for years. So your point is disporven unless you can prove that other factors outweight the supposed advantgage of low welfare payments.

The Population of Germany is just over 82million.
with 3.4 million unemployed
This is 4.2%

Now look at the Irish numbers!

asdasd

Wealth generated from taxing the private sector (for the privilage of operating in ths country) is used to pay for essential services.

I dont realy get the "privilage of operating in the country" part. As for the rest of the argument. Tax flows from the private to the public sector. Primarily it goes on wages. The wages are higher in the public sector, rather than the private sector. Clearly that is going to be an issue with private sector tax payers.

AS for the capitalist classes, it depends. Capitalism is a non-zero sum game in most cases ( although not property, or finance which just shuttle money about).

In other words if Bill the Capitalist gets rich by inventing something, he makes Bob the proletarian richer ( for instance, an emplyee of Bill Gates), If Bill the public sector worker gets richer it comes out of Bob's pocket.

We may need Bill the public sector worker, of course. If we was a policemna, a fireman, or a nurse, for instance. however we may not, if he is middle management,. And it is middle management who tend to lose their jobs in a recession in the private sector. The people with skillz tend to be ok.

Because this doesnt happen in the Public sector the pain is spread amongst worthwhile frontline troops and everybody else.

Kama

optocynic wrote:

And the don't do this already with their strategically placed speed traps on every major, straight and well lit road in Dublin, but none on the dark winding, narrow roads of the other counties, where most of the deaths happen??

So you agree that a target-driven revenue-returning model is a 'bad thing'?

I would personally like to see target driven reforms in the PS. How can we say if it will work or not? Try it. I bet it will increase the level of service we PAY for.

I'm not utterly against incentives, and I'm quite for public sector reform. I just don't agree that importing market principles will make it all better. It introduces a whole new level of the precise administrative bulls*hit and paperwork that generally is what people are saying we should cut out of the public service. PMDS is a joke, tbqfh.

Target-chasing and faux-market systems goes for the numbers, rather than improving the service; in a hospital I know they keep beds with people who could be released, because it would cost more to treat sick people if they let them in. Which makes perfect, if perverse, sense, if you are only watching the numbers. Or you do only minor, easy operations to increase your success rate, while not treating more serious illness. Have a look at performance culture under New Labour, that's what you are talking about. No crystal ball is needed, just comparison with another regime which did this.

I can't argue with the problems of managerial cost in the PS. Benchmarking PS with market driven, pro-active, entrepeneurial, risk-rewarding private business is apples and oranges...

But you accept the growing levels of managerial cost in the private sector, during a severe recession as driving up costs and reducing competitiveness?

My position is that the increased security of public sector work should be priced into the renumeration, btw. The rush by the Left to 'defend' public services, like much partisan oppositional stuff, tends to neglect the need for reform in the face of the 'threat'.

asdasd

The Population of Germany is just over 82million.
with 3.4 million unemployed
This is 4.2%

Now look at the Irish numbers!

1) The Irish numbers are clearly affected by the recent recession. Germany has had circa 10% unemplyment for years. Therefore low welfare does not encourage people to take up jobs. unemplyment in a recession is expected. Germany has long term unemplyment in a boom.
2) You cant divide the number of unemployed by the population, since more than half the population doesnt work and doesnt claim - children, pensioners ( germany has dispropotionalily more than Ireland), students ( Germans stay in Uni until 27 in many cases), disability, house wives or husbands who dont claim unemploymen ( they may get other benefits). So double it. Germany is now at 8% and rising.

Davidth88

Thats an odd OP . If we ( I work in the private sector for a mutli national ) did as the OP suggests , my employer would just say goodbye and move to Poland or India .

As for public sector pay, well I certainly feel the benchmarking process did no one any favours , what exactly was it benchmarked against ? ( thats a secret more closely guarded than the formula to Coca Cola ).

irish_bob

optocynic wrote: »

That is exactly what needs to be said..

But we all know, the unions have FAR too much pull with the panderers in the Government who shake at the kness at the mere mention of a strike.

Have we not learned that we need to stand strong against the Unions?

Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare

brian lennehan has the guts to tackle public sector pay and the unions but the gutless and utterly useless cowen is still wedded to the partnership process

asdasd

So you agree that a target-driven revenue-returning model is a 'bad thing'?

Obviously the problem here is the management. I am often amazed how people think that the PS cannot be measured. The problem is that the PS is never held accoutable for propert criteria, and thus gets to measure itselg based on easily achievealbe but useless ( and/ or revenue garnering ) measures.

So the bonus for the head of the tRaffic corps, and the entire Cops should depend not on how many more people they pull in for speeding ( which wuld make them pick the easiest targets like a dual carriageway with an unusually low speed limit ) but on the number of fatalities reduced.

Similarly hospitals should not be judged on thow many beds are flowing, or people seen, or doctors availalbe but on how many lives are saved, and how many people cured, and the general health of their area.

The former could be achieved by less careful attention ( see more patients but with less care), the latter is obviously the real criteria which should be measured.

Kama

Speaking of management, first stop for the knife imho should be the HSE, whose tendency to give cushy locked-in contracts to private consultants makes a mockery of them having their own internal well-paid advisors.

Again, taking what was worst with the UK quango model, and slavishly following after in true post-colonial style...

As to measurement, my point is not that it can't be measured, but that the target comes to replace the goal, as an 'unforeseen consequence'. It's arguable that this is a design/engineering problem, 'getting the targets right'.
There are international examples; Sing's policy of linking civil servant renumeration to economic performance for instance, as giving them a stake-incentive. I like your high level' general health concept, but low-level micro-management on target principles gets pretty perverse pretty fast.

optocynic

Kama wrote: »

So you agree that a target-driven revenue-returning model is a 'bad thing'?.

If managed by Morons... YES!

Kama wrote: »

I'm not utterly against incentives, and I'm quite for public sector reform. I just don't agree that importing market principles will make it all better. It introduces a whole new level of the precise administrative bulls*hit and paperwork that generally is what people are saying we should cut out of the public service. PMDS is a joke, tbqfh.

Target-chasing and faux-market systems goes for the numbers, rather than improving the service; in a hospital I know they keep beds with people who could be released, because it would cost more to treat sick people if they let them in. Which makes perfect, if perverse, sense, if you are only watching the numbers. Or you do only minor, easy operations to increase your success rate, while not treating more serious illness. Have a look at performance culture under New Labour, that's what you are talking about. No crystal ball is needed, just comparison with another regime which did this.

We need private sector mentality. We can manage to reach targets, and be successful, with a minimum of buraucracy. Why can't the Public Sector adopt this?.[/quote]

Kama wrote: »

But you accept the growing levels of managerial cost in the private sector, during a severe recession as driving up costs and reducing competitiveness?.

I totally disagree with this. If a private sector manager does not perform, he is shown the door. Does this happen in the Public sector?

Kama wrote: »

My position is that the increased security of public sector work should be priced into the renumeration, btw. The rush by the Left to 'defend' public services, like much partisan oppositional stuff, tends to neglect the need for reform in the face of the 'threat'.

You can always tell a Public Sector worker.
But you can't tell him much!
And you probably have to tell him in triplicate!

Here lies the waste!

irish_bob

murphaph wrote: »

Anyone who thinks Ireland is a low-cost/low wage economy needs their head examined. Come to Germany-NO MINIMUM WAGE at all here! People work for €400 a month and it's legal. Not moral IMO, but legal! And this is a perceived "high cost economy".

In Germany when your year I unemployment benefit runs out you step down to ALGII (€351 oer month plus rent paid in a SMALL apartment for a single person). That's all you get.

It encourages people to work that's for sure!

Irish people need to understand something-the standard of living to which we became accustomed (everyone believed they should own a 3 bed semi and two newish cars) was much more than most of their european neighbours would ever expect. Ireland never had a right to such wealth as the country did not and still does not produce (indiginously) things that the world wants. All Ireland does is host FDI and now that is too expensive there so it's game over unless costs fall dramatically and/or Ireland starts to develop true indiginous high value industry, like Finland for example.

It goes without saying that the public sector is way overpaid, even at the lower levels, in comparison to our european neighbours.

excellent post , it is absurd that irish consultants earn double what thier counterparts in the father land earn considering germany is a richer country than us , the same goes for police , nurses and all other ps workers , we need a reality check quick , the property boom we had is gone and wont ever be back , the revenue which allowed our ps workers claim the title of europes highest paid is dried up and the only possible way ps wages could be sustained is if thier were huge increases in income tax levels

irish_bob

mcloughj wrote: »

Was always amused by economic experts appearing in the media saying 'high public sector pay' and 'recession' or 'economic meltdown' in the same sentence but never actually saying the two were linked.

And it was said so often that everyone started to believe the public sector caused the economic crisis.

Very Bush administration linking Iraq and 9/11 without actually saying it for definite.

you ego is too big for this thread , not many would have the neck to bring 9-11 into a debate about ps wages but you managed it

optocynic

irish_bob wrote: »

excellent post , it is absurd that irish consultants earn double what thier counterparts in the father land earn considering germany is a richer country than us , the same goes for police , nurses and all other ps workers , we need a reality check quick , the property boom we had is gone and wont ever be back , the revenue which allowed our ps workers claim the title of europes highest paid is dried up and the only possible way ps wages could be sustained is if thier were huge increases in income tax levels

... and doesn't that just look like one of the Brian's 'Tough decisions'...
But which are really cowardly options. If you take all our money... we have nothing to spend! This is a small island... trickle-down is all that is going to work here!

Why are the Brian's scared sh!tless of SIPTU/ICTU?

irish_bob

optocynic wrote: »

... and doesn't that just look like one of the Brian's 'Tough decisions'...
But which are really cowardly options. If you take all our money... we have nothing to spend! This is a small island... trickle-down is all that is going to work here!

Why are the Brian's scared sh!tless of SIPTU/ICTU?

the reasons are many but they all amount to the same thing , a loss of votes , ive said it before and il say it again , when a ps worker is sacked , the politician in that workers area risks loosing a house full of votes and perhaps several households who are related to the canned public servant , if thier is one thing we irish like , its keeping money in the family and a broke hardware store owner , farmer or panel beater who has a wife , daughter , son or even second cousin twice removed who works in the ps will back the union and public sector possition to the hilt , we are a short sighted self serving people , most of us cant see past the end of our nose , fianna fail have no idealogical love of the state sector like labour do but fianna fail know the irish people like no other party as they are the party that most reflects the irish charechet , they know that the ps vote is far bigger than the actual numbers employed by the state , its all about votes at the end of the day , which brings me to fine gael , if they had any brains at all they would be going all out for the private sector vote and to hell with all others , the rest has every other party to represent thier interests

mcloughj

irish_bob wrote: »

you ego is too big for this thread , not many would have the neck to bring 9-11 into a debate about ps wages but you managed it

I made a parallel between the disengenious talk that launched the iraq war to the same type of talk that led people to think that the public service caused the recession.


I could have said something about the Nazi propaganda machine but I thought i'd try to be relevant to today.

optocynic

mcloughj wrote: »

I made a parallel between the disengenious talk that launched the iraq war to the same type of talk that led people to think that the public service caused the recession.


I could have said something about the Nazi propaganda machine but I thought i'd try to be relevant to today.

So, people that want to see the Public Sector streamlined and made more efficient, to save the country are..... Nazis??... Reactionary Republicans??

That's a bit of a leap! Don't you think?

Darragh29

potlatch wrote: »

I'm beginning to tire of the 'debate' on public versus private wages. Most people are simply looking at it the wrong way round.

People working in the private sector shouldn't be complaining about public sector workers. They should be complaining about employers' refusal to provide the same good pay, job security and employment conditions in the private sector as those in the public sector.

An OECD study confirmed that the Irish private sector is not a high wage economy compared to the EU-15. Some public sector workers earn very high salaries, but most (low-grade civil servants, public service workers [bus drivers, bin men, etc.]) don't earn that much.

As the economy boomed, Ireland became more unequal. More and more of the wealth generated by workers went to bosses and investors while employees have had to accept less and less. We're being told to work harder, but the Irish Competitiveness Council found Irish SMEs to be very badly managed.

I think the nation's been brainwashed. Private sector workers need to take employers on for a fair deal like those in the public sector.

If only there were organisations that could campaign for better working conditions for employees...

I'm kind of inclined to agree with you up to a point. I worked for one large multinational in Ireland and when we had major problems with some very basic things like fair employment rules, access to promotional opportunities (failure to advertise vacancies, jobs for the boys, etc), annual pay increases, we tried to go to a union and use the state industrial relations machinery that is available for resolving these kind of problems, and here's what happened:

(1) The company refused point blank to engage with any state body or agency. It's view was and remains, "we have our own departments that deal with all these matters in-house"...

(2) It turned out that even though we couldn't enjoy the very fundamental courtesies that public sector workers would expect, like for example a vacancy that you might want to apply for, being advertised in your workplace, the company was completely at liberty to say, "fu*k you lads and your Labour Court and your LRC, and if you don't like it, LEAVE!"...

So I'm all for standing up for your rights, but there needs to be much stronger legislation protecting workers that feel compelled to use fair industrial relations processes and procedures to further or protetc their employment rights. I personally know fo a few cases, one being my own, where the outcome of standing up to an employer was constructive dismissal...

mcloughj

optocynic wrote: »

So, people that want to see the Public Sector streamlined and made more efficient, to save the country are..... Nazis??... Reactionary Republicans??
That's a bit of a leap! Don't you think?

That is a bit of a leap alright... I wonder why YOU made it? Because i said nothing of the sort.

My point is that there seemed to be a campaign to link the recession to public service pay without actually saying it. Using tactics similar to those used by the american govenment of recent years. That's as far as my point went.

optocynic

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm kind of inclined to agree with you up to a point. I worked for one large multinational in Ireland and when we had major problems with some very basic things like fair employment rules, access to promotional opportunities (failure to advertise vacancies, jobs for the boys, etc), annual pay increases, we tried to go to a union and use the state industrial relations machinery that is available for resolving these kind of problems, and here's what happened:

(1) The company refused point blank to engage with any state body or agency. It's view was and remains, "we have our own departments that deal with all these matters in-house"...

(2) It turned out that even though we couldn't enjoy the very fundamental courtesies that public sector workers would expect, like for example a vacancy that you might want to apply for, being advertised in your workplace, the company was completely at liberty to say, "fu*k you lads and your Labour Court and your LRC, and if you don't like it, LEAVE!"...

So I'm all for standing up for your rights, but there needs to be much stronger legislation protecting workers that feel compelled to use fair industrial relations processes and procedures to further or protetc their employment rights. I personally know fo a few cases, one being my own, where the outcome of standing up to an employer was constructive dismissal...

I am not for a moment discounting your story, but I also now work for a large multinational, and they take very good care of me and my team.

The only cases of constructive dismissal I have seen were with underperforming malcontents.. who wanted more money, regardless of poor performance... Thank God they didn't have SIPTU to fall on... the Multinational would have just left these shores for a more 'grown-up' workforce/society.

My experience is... work well, achieve results... and the multinational will reward you very well.

optocynic

mcloughj wrote: »

That is a bit of a leap alright... I wonder why YOU made it? Because i said nothing of the sort.

My point is that there seemed to be a campaign to link the recession to public service pay without actually saying it. Using tactics similar to those used by the american govenment of recent years. That's as far as my point went.

Well... let me see.
Poor financial market regulation?.. check
Is the financial regulator a public sector body?.. check..

I think a bit of the blame goes there. But not all.
I do however think that the public sector workers need to have integrity and embrace the social 'partnership' they so vocally wanted in the past.

If we are partners in this... let's all feel the pain... equally.

Darragh29

optocynic wrote: »

I am not for a moment discounting your story, but I also now work for a large multinational, and they take very good care of me and my team.

The only cases of constructive dismissal I have seen were with underperforming malcontents.. who wanted more money, regardless of poor performance... Thank God they didn't have SIPTU to fall on... the Multinational would have just left these shores for a more 'grown-up' workforce/society.

My experience is... work well, achieve results... and the multinational will reward you very well.

Unfortunately that was not my experience, and I know I worked extremely hard when I worked for a particular multinational. Where I worked, the harder you worked at your "core job", the more you were likely to remain in that job.

If you were the type of person who was inclined to attend a lot of meetings and talk about the work as opposed to actually doing the work, then you were moving in the right circles with respect to the management team and you were told about promotional opportunities in the workplace where other people would not be even made aware of these same opportunities.

To say that everyone who feels the need to take a grievance outside the workplace is a malcontent I feel is not fair on many people who are essentially placed into the role of whistleblower, when they run into corruption and sharp practice within the workplace.

Kama

I totally disagree with this. If a private sector manager does not perform, he is shown the door.

Yes, we are doing this oh-so-effectively in our banking system, aren't we? Rewarding risk failure, and showing them all door public largesse. I'd be more sympathetic to the risk-reward argument i we didn' have this context, tbqfh.

You say you disagree, but not with the figures for rising compensation which are themselves damaging competitiveness. Is competitiveness what you are interested in, or merely a pretext to indulge a bias and have a bit of a rant?

As to the 'highest paid' thing, it's a great headline but can be somewhat misleading. Take Ronan Lyons on teachers, he conveniently neglects the fact that we have higher contact hours and class sizes than the countries he compares us to, and then claims 'overpaid for equivalent work'. Instead, we had a policy choice to have fewer teachers who are paid more.

Now e have some spectacularly overpaid public servants at the upper echelons, and this is what we should be hitting first; much as IBEC should be arguing for reining in managerial compensation, if they are really concerned with competitiveness.

Oh, cheers asdasd for actually making constructive suggestions on reform...