Public Sector Pay. This one is 68 - 83K

Tim Robbins

Here's a nice little number.
35 hours per week.
31 days off per year.
Big Pension.
All the usual perks.
And of course very nice salary much more than most skilled workers in the private sector.

Have a look:

https://www.publicjobs.ie/cand/jobdetails_eng.asp?JobID=4321&hdnJobID=2709

I'm off the opinion this more clear evidence that the public sector are over paid. The propety was a false economy but is going through a market correction now with prices dropping by 50%.

The other false economy is public service pay which also needs a market correction as evident by this and many other overpaid jobs.

However we'll be doing well to cut these over paid jobs by 5% when the reality is they need to be cut by a lot more.

Discuss...

LoLth

well, the working week and holidays you quoted are wrong for th efirst position:


The standard working week applying to the post is: 28 hours


The annual leave associated with the post is: 24 days


not much better tbh

in all honesty, is this overpaid? the first post has a quite large list of responsibilities and seems almost managerial in nature (reporting directly to the general manager). What does a similar post in a private institution earn? Until we see the job spec for the private equivalent it would be speculative at best to make a judgement of any kind.

nhughes100

Why don't you apply for it if it's so great or does the little drawback of having to deal with the mentally ill and the associated qualifications put you off?

LoLth

all three positions appear to be of great responsibility and are definitely management level positions. Not exactly a good demonstration of ht eaverage PS worker imho.

also, you list BIG pension as one of the benefits... where does it say in any of the briefs that they get more than the normal PS pension? To such an extent that you seperate it from "the usual perks". personally I think someone doing this job in the private sector would also be on a "very nice salary" that is "more than most people in the private sector". you're not looking at a job spec the average person can apply for. And these are the minimum requirements. I would hope that the person that gets the job might also have relevant experience surpassing the minimum 5 years (after attaining a National Social Workers Qualification - anyone know whats involved in that?).

sorry OP but this looks like you just saw the salary and went "AHA! lets stir up some public sector bashing again!"

I'm not saying that they arent high wages, they certainly are but I just cant say that they're not deserved for the job thats being described and the minimmum requirements for application. However, 50% of the wage? Ever hear the adage, "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys"? Not saying 34-42k is peanuts but we need to compare like with like. if the private sector equivalent earns 50k gross (incl bonuses but excluding pension contributions) then what sort of lower standard would the HSE have to settle for to fill the role? again, this is public health service you are quoting and positions of responsibility in the public health service (and with the recruitment freeze on I would guess that these were early retirements that created these vacancies and the very fact that they are exempt from the freeze would suggest that they are quite critical positions - this is just a guess though so I could be wrong), I would certianly hope that the government are offering decent incentives to attract the best they can afford. Now, as long as the best possible candidate actually gets the job.... but thats another "issue" isnt it?

dvpower

nhughes100 wrote: »

Why don't you apply for it if it's so great or does the little drawback of having to deal with the mentally ill and the associated qualifications put you off?

Why would dealing with the mentally ill put anyone off applying for this position? Especially a social worker with experience working in the area of mental health.

P. Breathnach

Tim Robbins wrote: »

... Discuss...

I have read the job specification. It is a relatively senior position, including supervisory and management elements.

It is not obvious to me that the job is overpaid. I say that on the basis that I don't actually know what the burden of work and responsibility is like. My guess is that you don't know either, but feel free to enlighten me further if I am mistaken in my guess.

Tim Robbins

nhughes100 wrote: »

Why don't you apply for it if it's so great or does the little drawback of having to deal with the mentally ill and the associated qualifications put you off?

It's nothing to do with me.

This is to do with the finacial state our country is in. Yes a social worker is a very important job. Yes they're great people.

But can we afford these salaries?

Tim Robbins

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have read the job specification. It is a relatively senior position, including supervisory and management elements.

I can't understand how something can be such an important senior position and only be 35 hours per week.

Usually senior management work in companies I have worked for work 60 hour weeks.

It is not obvious to me that the job is overpaid. I say that on the basis that I don't actually know what the burden of work and responsibility is like. My guess is that you don't know either, but feel free to enlighten me further if I am mistaken in my guess.

Obviously I don't know everything. But, it just seems very high to me.
Considering the mess the country is in.

LoLth

i dont think these are really what would normally be considered a "social worker" position.... also, two of the three jobs state that the user needs to make themselves available outside of the hours quoted for external duties.. maybe the management side is covered in that part?

dvpower

LoLth wrote: »

What does a similar post in a private institution earn? Until we see the job spec for the private equivalent it would be speculative at best to make a judgement of any kind.

Probably impossible to say in Ireland, since most social workers are employed by the state and mny of those who aren't are likely to be funded by the HSE and follow HSE scales.

But this one in London pays £30k - £42k, this one in Kent pays £35k - £41k and this one in Northamptonshire pays £33k - £35k.

We could probably knock a good chunk off the salary and still attract good candidates, expecially in the current environment. In the private sector, employers would look at the current jobs market and then pitch the job based on that. But these jobs are being pitched at the same rate as last year even while the jobs market has taken a nosedive.

jimmmy

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can't understand how something can be such an important senior position and only be 35 hours per week.

Usually senior management work in companies I have worked for work 60 hour weeks.

Obviously I don't know everything. But, it just seems very high to me.
Considering the mess the country is in.

Well said. It may have " supervisory and management elements", but so do a lot of jobs in Dunnes stores. Do not forget the other perks of the job too...eg the pension gratuity on retirement / completion of service of one and a half years salary tax free, and 50% of finishing salary pension.

Dozen Wicked Words

dvpower wrote: »

Probably impossible to say in Ireland, since most social workers are employed by the state and mny of those who aren't are likely to be funded by the HSE and follow HSE scales.

But this one in London pays £30k - £42k, this one in Kent pays £35k - £41k and this one in Northamptonshire pays £33k - £35k.

We could probably knock a good chunk off the salary and still attract good candidates, expecially in the current environment. In the private sector, employers would look at the current jobs market and then pitch the job based on that. But these jobs are being pitched at the same rate as last year even while the jobs market has taken a nosedive.

I have said before (in other posts), I shall say it again. I think looking at UK salaries is bordering on irrelevant. Unless you are going to change the rate in line with Sterling. Euro jobs currently look very attractive because instead of the Euro being worth 69-70p its 90p.

Social workers in the UK have some of the lowest morale in the country, feeling underpaid and undervalued, leading regularly to tragedies and inability of Local Authorities being able to fill the positions.

Saying that Northampton is a great place to work!

Tim Robbins

dooferoaks wrote: »

I have said before (in other posts), I shall say it again. I think looking at UK salaries is bordering on irrelevant. Unless you are going to change the rate in line with Sterling. Euro jobs currently look very attractive because instead of the Euro being worth 69-70p its 90p.

Social workers in the UK have some of the lowest morale in the country, feeling underpaid and undervalued, leading regularly to tragedies and inability of Local Authorities being able to fill the positions.

Saying that Northampton is a great place to work!

I remember once reading the UK was the fourth most powerful economy in the world (after Germany, Japan, the US).

It's seems unsustainable that we could pay far more than the UK who also have their own currency. This means they can devalue whenever they want which is the same as cutting public service pay.

We can't do that but pay far more - makes no sense.

jimmmy

dooferoaks wrote: »

Social workers in the UK have some of the lowest morale in the country,

never mind the marale of the social workers in the UK....think of the morale of many in the private sector here as they suffer redundancy / pay cuts / lack of security / pension wipe outs , and as they struggle to support the highest paid public sector in the known world ( avg of 966 per week : source c.s.o. ).

dvpower

dooferoaks wrote: »

I have said before (in other posts), I shall say it again. I think looking at UK salaries is bordering on irrelevant.

Why, what's so unusual about our planet?

dooferoaks wrote: »

Unless you are going to change the rate in line with Sterling. Euro jobs currently look very attractive because instead of the Euro being worth 69-70p its 90p.

Happy to do the calculations:
But this one in London pays €33k - €46k, this one in Kent pays €38k - €45k and this one in Northamptonshire pays €36k - €38k.

dooferoaks wrote: »

Social workers in the UK have some of the lowest morale in the country, feeling underpaid and undervalued, leading regularly to tragedies and inability of Local Authorities being able to fill the positions.

And who can blame them; looking over the fence at their counterparts here getting paid around double their rate?

Tim Robbins

jimmmy wrote: »

never mind the marale of the social workers in the UK....think of the morale of many in the private sector here as they suffer redundancy / pay cuts / lack of security / pension wipe outs , and as they struggle to support the highest paid public sector in the known world ( avg of 966 per week : source c.s.o. ).

+1

Dozen Wicked Words

The UK may well be, or has been a large economy but I do not think they have ever paid their Public sector workers enough.

The irish jobs you have indicated paid too much? Possibly.

The UK jobs you have indicated paid enough? Not in my opinion, for a job with intense stress, massive responsibility for the most at risk in the community which doesn't just end when they go home at 5 oclock.

I would not want any of the jobs you have listed even for the money offered in Ireland.

I don't doubt your belief in your argument, or the sincerity of your fear for the country if something is not done, I just have a problem with the looking over the neighbours wall to see what they do or dont have.

Sponge Bob

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Here's a nice little number.

Have a look:

https://www.publicjobs.ie/cand/jobdetails_eng.asp?JobID=4321&hdnJobID=2709

Discuss...

This job specifically involves dealing with Dublin smackheads 24/7 and also with the scissor sisters type of utterly dysfunctional skanger scum and their poor benighted next generation.

Furthermore every time one of these scumbags 'falls through the safety net' you get vilified for it....especially if they kill someone south of the Grand Canal where they 'do not belong' .

You could not get me to do that job for twice the money .

Get real Tim willya

Tim Robbins

dooferoaks wrote: »

I just have a problem with the looking over the neighbours wall to see what they do or dont have.

Why not?
Seems a very pragmatic thing to do to compare salaries to other western countries (especially the first country people traditionally emigrate to).

dvpower

Sponge Bob wrote: »

This job specifically involves dealing with Dublin smackheads 24/7 and also with the scissor sisters type of utterly dysfunctional skanger scum and their poor benighted next generation.

I didn't see that in the jobspec

Lu Tze

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have read the job specification. It is a relatively senior position, including supervisory and management elements.

It is not obvious to me that the job is overpaid. I say that on the basis that I don't actually know what the burden of work and responsibility is like. My guess is that you don't know either, but feel free to enlighten me further if I am mistaken in my guess.

It seems to me that whenever there appears to be a salary disparity between private and public sector pay, the arguement from unions et al seems to be that the jobs aren;t really comparable.

I've heard this enough times that i have decided to post up the salaries from a public job advert that was sent to me in june of last year.

(1) ASSISTANT ENGINEER


Salary: €41,786 to €60,036 (LSI 2)

(2) GRADUATE ENGINEER

Salary: €33,164 - €39,991


As a graduate, the pay difference from what i recieved (3 years previous - but it was the same scale as i was offered a job at the time) to the minimum pay here 9% greater in public sector.

When this job advertised i was at the same level (assistant engineer) and well inside eligibility criteria, and the difference to the minimum on this pay scale is 24%.

In relation to the "if it is so good why didn't you go for it then" comment which is inevitably coming

I was offered two jobs as a graduate in the PS, but the reason has stayed the same why i wouldn't join unless i don't have any other options, as i worked there before
- the work is uninteresting, unfulfiling, with very little technical aspects to it which would hamper progression in the various disciplines, and not enough work (at those levels) to fill the day (these are all dependant on being in a position in the offices, not on site!)
- Entering at the higher levels as project manager would be a viable option however.

SLUSK

The public sector is way overpaid in Ireland, in most other countries people in the public sector earn less than in the private sector. This sounds like some sort of middle management job which according to my guestimation would max pay 55k in the private sector and there you would have to do alot of unpaid overtime as well since you are on a set salary and not on an hourly wage.

Sponge Bob

dvpower wrote: »

I didn't see that in the jobspec

What do you think a senior social worker does in Dublin ?

Would they manage teletubbies or maybe counsel the contestants on some Bill Cullen reality shows ????

Amhran Nua

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I remember once reading the UK was the fourth most powerful economy in the world (after Germany, Japan, the US).

Runs about number seven these days and falling.

Sponge Bob

Sponge Bob wrote: »

This job specifically involves dealing with Dublin smackheads 24/7 and also with the scissor sisters type of utterly dysfunctional skanger scum and their poor benighted next generation.

Furthermore every time one of these scumbags 'falls through the safety net' you get vilified for it....especially if they kill someone south of the Grand Canal where they 'do not belong' .

You could not get me to do that job for twice the money .

Get real Tim willya

oh come on anyone who is going for that position has chosen that as a career and knows what to expect.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

oh come on anyone who is going for that position has chosen that as a career and knows what to expect.

Does that mean that they should not be paid an appropriate rate?

Nermal

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Does that mean that they should not be paid an appropriate rate?

An appropriate rate is the minimum necessary to get a qualified applicant, not a number read off a scale or based on how awful the job is. People who hire in the private sector know this, those who hire in the public sector do not, because they have absolutely no incentive to save money.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Does that mean that they should not be paid an appropriate rate?

If you start paying people big money for jobs based on criteria like that you attract people who are only in it for the money, and have no vocational calling other than a comfortable lifestyle. As such you get a lot of overpaid and barely competent people who are miserable with what they are doing. It happened with IT, I'm not pointing any fingers at medicine, politics speaks for itself, it might be an idea to avoid it with social services.

irish_bob

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's nothing to do with me.

This is to do with the finacial state our country is in. Yes a social worker is a very important job. Yes they're great people.

But can we afford these salaries?

ive had dealings with social workers , ive found them to be wooly liberal doo gooders and profesional hand wringers who do nothing but deliberate

irish_bob

SLUSK wrote: »

The public sector is way overpaid in Ireland, in most other countries people in the public sector earn less than in the private sector. This sounds like some sort of middle management job which according to my guestimation would max pay 55k in the private sector and there you would have to do alot of unpaid overtime as well since you are on a set salary and not on an hourly wage.

thats because most countries didnt have betie ( the gift that kept on giving to unions ) aherne as leader

P. Breathnach

Nermal wrote: »

An appropriate rate is the minimum necessary to get a qualified applicant ...

Given the demands that I expect the job might entail, it might well be that the pay is indeed the minimum necessary to attract qualified and suitable applicants.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If you start paying people big money for jobs based on criteria like that you attract people who are only in it for the money, and have no vocational calling other than a comfortable lifestyle...

Vocational calling? Do you mean that people should do the work out of the goodness of their hearts, and be grateful for any little bit of pay they get?

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Vocational calling? Do you mean that people should do the work out of the goodness of their hearts, and be grateful for any little bit of pay they get?

Nope. But the IT industry was flooded with people who thought they would get rich doing it, and ended up stuck doing work they had little interest in, leading ultimately to a glut of very mediocre workers with far too high expectations. Same with this and with anything - if the financial rewards are the main motivation, you get people who just want the financial rewards.

And to be honest I don't really appreciate the tone of your comment, I was making a serious point. Some people are genuinely interested in social services and will get involved with it and prosper with or without the CEO salaries.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... And to be honest I don't really appreciate the tone of your comment, I was making a serious point. Some people are genuinely interested in social services and will get involved with it and prosper with or without the CEO salaries.

Equally, I didn't like the tone of what you said. Certain occupations have traditionally been described as vocations, and for many years they were poorly paid, and there was a prevailing view that the work was its own reward. So I was making a serious point.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Equally, I didn't like the tone of what you said. Certain occupations have traditionally been described as vocations, and for many years they were poorly paid, and there was a prevailing view that the work was its own reward. So I was making a serious point.

Well, didn't mean to get your back up. The simple fact is that overpayment can be as detrimental to a profession as underpayment, as counterintuitive as it may seem.

gurramok

Hold on, thought there was a recruitment embargo for the PS?? Why is that advert there in the first place!!

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

Hold on, thought there was a recruitment embargo for the PS?? Why is that advert there in the first place!!

some posts will be allowed to be filled but only on approval of the minister for finance; obviously they have decided that the social worker system cannot do without these posts

Riskymove

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can't understand how something can be such an important senior position and only be 35 hours per week.

Usually senior management work in companies I have worked for work 60 hour weeks.

35 hour week is simply the standard official line, 7 hours a day five days a week

i am not 100% but I imagine 60 hours a week officialy written into a job spec may actually break the law (working time legislation)

anyway my point is that while the 35 hours may be the official line, that does not mean that the post would not require time beyond that depending on your workload etc

Tim Robbins

Riskymove wrote: »

35 hour week is simply the standard official line, 7 hours a day five days a week

i am not 100% but I imagine 60 hours a week officialy written into a job spec may actually break the law (working time legislation)

The EU came out with some legislation about the maximum amount of hours that could be worked in a week but I think it's actually more than 60.

Contracts for companies I word phrase it as:
"From time to time, business requirements may mean extra hours are required".

anyway my point is that while the 35 hours may be the official line, that does not mean that the post would not require time beyond that depending on your workload etc

Perhaps. There's an impression that very few in the public sector work beyond 35 hours.

I have nothing against public sector people only working 35 hours. I just don't think they should be getting paid the same as the private sector who work 37.5 hours usually by their contract and usually a lot of extra hours without any extra pay.

It just doesn't make sense.

Riskymove

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps. There's an impression that very few in the public sector work beyond 35 hours.

I have nothing against public sector people only working 35 hours. I just don't think they should be getting paid the same as the private sector who work 37.5 hours usually by their contract and usually a lot of extra hours without any extra pay.

It just doesn't make sense.

it doesn't make sense if you base it on impressions or opinions or myths etc

in my experience there are plenty of people at this level working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay, its just part of the job responsibility at that level

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

it doesn't make sense if you base it on impressions or opinions or myths etc

in my experience there are plenty of people at this level working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay, its just part of the job responsibility at that level

Lots of people in the country have partners, siblings, cousins, neighbours, friends, clubmates etc working in the public sector....I can assure you that if you think there are "plenty of people" from the public service " working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay " that is not consistent with the thoughts + experiences of many others. Why not get the public service unions to try to get a bit of pay for all these unpaid public service hours worked ? :D:D

Tim Robbins

Riskymove wrote: »

it doesn't make sense if you base it on impressions or opinions or myths etc

in my experience there are plenty of people at this level working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay, its just part of the job responsibility at that level

I dispute that. The old Consultants were contracted to work 35 hours a week only.

Many of them crammed this 35 hours into 3 or 4 days and then hoped off to the private clinic to rip us further. They were well known for it and many of them are still doing it. Harney had to spend 2 years negotiating with them so that on the new consultant contracts you couldn't do this. And then went mental and protracted the hole thing.

I also know people who work public service and they out the door "on the dot" usually.


I have also several anecdotes of them taking long coffee breaks, long lunch breaks so I am sorry your anecdotes are just cancelled out by my own.
What's make private sector workers skeptical is that there's rarely any sort of concept of performance review in the public service. This can only just increas coffee breaks and taking it easy on the job.

Your thoughts...

Riskymove

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I dispute that. The old Consultants were contracted to work 35 hours a week only.

there are more than consultants in the public service at management levels, I never said that EVERYONE acted like that

I also know people who work public service and they out the door "on the dot" usually.

so do I...lots of them

I have also several anecdotes of them taking long coffee breaks, long lunch breaks so I am sorry your anecdotes are just cancelled out by my own.

yes, these things happen as well


so my basic point again

in my experience there are plenty of people at this level working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay, its just part of the job responsibility at that level

see, "plenty" and there are..you cannot tar everyone the same

you are taking an ad for 3 management social worker posts adn commenting on them based on impressions and anecdotes; i imagine such a job would be a bit more involved and stressful than a standard administration one and can envisage it requiring extra hours

What's make private sector workers skeptical is that there's rarely any sort of concept of performance review in the public service. This can only just increas coffee breaks and taking it easy on the job.

Your thoughts...

I agree completely about perfromance reviews...I think if you follow my posts you'll see I am someone calling for large-scale reform of the public sector to allow management tackle such issues as under and non-performance


there are major issues in the public service around this but for every waster allowed to skive around there are more trying to do their job as best as they can

and there are certainly plenty of people who work beyond the 35 hours duee to their workload and their commitment

I can assure you that if you think there are "plenty of people" from the public service " working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay " that is not consistent with the thoughts + experiences of many others.

I am aware of you prejudice against the public service jimmy and your attempts to portray all 330,000 workers as skiving, useless people so i do not really care what your thoughts and experiences are

Why not get the public service unions to try to get a bit of pay for all these unpaid public service hours worked

because I believe that working beyond your set hours when necessary to get your job done is part of your job

in many management positions there is no overtime payable regardless of what you work and people (the reasonable ones) accept this

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

jimmy and your attempts to portray all 330,000 workers as skiving, useless people so i do not really care what your thoughts and experiences are

I never said " all 330,000 workers" are "skiving, useless people". Many are fine, hard-working people. However your claim that there are "plenty of people" from the public service " working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay " is simply not bought. As another poster wrote "anecdotes of them taking long coffee breaks, long lunch breaks so I am sorry your anecdotes are just cancelled out by my own."

Mad Finn

Sponge Bob wrote: »

This job specifically involves dealing with Dublin smackheads 24/7 and also with the scissor sisters type of utterly dysfunctional skanger scum and their poor benighted next generation.

No it doesn't. It involves bossing around the people who "deal with Dublin smackheads 24/7..."

It's in the fattiest layer of management. The very sort of PS job that should be the target of a neutron bomb at this point in time.

But of course, these are the people who get to make the decisions on where cuts must fall and they're hardly going to vote themselves out of a cushy number, are they?

It is the front line staff who will suffer. Really suffer.

Because they haven't got the balls to demand cuts where they are really needed. They think if they all join together they can squeeze the taxpayer for "more investment in vital services."

So they get tarred with the same brush as the holder of this cushy post.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

I never said " all 330,000 workers" are "skiving, useless people". Many are fine, hard-working people. However your claim that there are "plenty of people" from the public service " working beyond 35 hours for no extra pay " is simply not bought. As another poster wrote "anecdotes of them taking long coffee breaks, long lunch breaks so I am sorry your anecdotes are just cancelled out by my own."

so I say "plenty" and you say "many"...whats the difference?

Long Onion

The only way to improve the performance of the public sector is to revove the security of tenure. There are far too many people who are prepared to do absolutely nothing productive or innovative as long as their job is there in the morning and they get their increments and pension.

I work in a bank and am surrounded by staff who couldn't care less about the grade they recieve on a performance review, they just want to do the minimum required to keep their job, no ambition, no drive. If they were given security of tenure they would do absolutely nothing at all.

Giving security of tenure to the civil service was a grand Weberian ideal, it is desireable in some cases such as the judiciary, elsewhere it just retards progress. Unless people can be dismissed for doing nothing, many will do exactly that - every day of their lives until they turn 65.

Dimitri

i really think its the ps workers in ireland refused to work beyond the 35 hours set out in their contracts, and highlight how little difference there is between most private and public sector positions. Excluding the obvious ones where you don't get employed by the private sector to do, guards army navy etc. The simple fact of the matter is ps workers for the most part are not paid more than the counterparts. If you adjust the figures to take out the bloated salaries of the very top management in the cs and ps and take out the politicians pay which often sneaks into the ps average and equally take out top managers ceo payments from private sector companies and you'll find for the most part they are the same. During the begining and middle of the boom, its was almost impossible to fill most skilled or professional positions which became vacant in the ps simply because while the job was secure came with a good pension the wages were too low and there were no bonuses being paid. Logically most people took the higher risk private sector job, those jobs are gone or going now hence higher risk. However in an attempt to quell union disquiet and to solve staffing problems, instead of completely overhauling the ps cs and and health boards the government set up the hse and threw money at everyone, most ps workers went underpaid for long periods of time, and took it on the chin for job and wage security. The government made it worse by throwing money at it, but to cut wages even further will only perpetuate the cycle of job loses, as the ps effectively are the only sizeable group of consumers and their hard earned disposable income is already way down. Moreover cutting pay in the ps will also damage it severly in the long run and a they will be crucial for our economic recovery if it ever happens.

A far more beneficial course of action would be to completely overhaul the ps, cs and hse, using the threat of pay cuts to force the unions into agreeing necessary changes. Redeployment of staff from outdated positions to areas where they are needed is crucial particularly in the hse. Reworking the manner in which tender process is conducted is also critical, the criteria set down while necessary for some jobs is not for others and when it is not the work could often be done far cheaper. The policies decided upon by government and followed by the ps are generally grossly inefficient. They might be a realistic solution to a specific or recurring problem in one part of the country but when applied nationally they may cause more problems than they solve in another part. We need to address these problems urgently, they should have been addressed when we had the money to address them but as always the ever destructive unions were caved into too hard and too fast by a weak and inept government. For me the saddest part is i could not envisage any other party acting any differently if they were in power at the time.

P. Breathnach

Mad Finn wrote: »

No it doesn't. It involves bossing around the people who "deal with Dublin smackheads 24/7..."

It's in the fattiest layer of management. The very sort of PS job that should be the target of a neutron bomb at this point in time...

I gather you have not read the job specifications, then. In each case, the person appointed would be expected to take on a caseload as well as a management/leadership role.

How is a team of, say, 12 social workers supposed to function effectively without somebody to co-ordinate the work?

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

jimmy and your attempts to portray all 330,000 workers as skiving, useless people so i do not really care what your thoughts and experiences are

I never said " all 330,000 workers" are "skiving, useless people". Why do you insinuate I do ? Many are fine, hard-working people.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

so I say "plenty" and you say "many"...whats the difference?

No, you said all and I said many. Big difference.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How is a team of, say, 12 social workers supposed to function effectively without somebody to co-ordinate the work?

What makes you think there are a " team of, say, 12 social workers " underneath the person whose job was advertised ? The job advertised is for a "Principal Social Worker"....do you think every "Principal Social Worker" " co-ordinates the work of " " a team of, say, 12 social workers "