Questions for the Public sector worker

Danbo! · 21-10-2009 8:25pm #1

Why do you actually have Job Security? I've never understood this. How would you feel if this was taken away? Annoyed? Would you strike?

Why, when you get paid by paypath, do you get an extra 30 mins to go to the bank on payday to cash the cheque you didnt get?

Why do you get an extra day off at bank holidays?

Why do you insist that the pension levy was a salary reduction, when actually it was just a fraction of one of your perks taken away?

Do you not realise that the unions have been driving your wages to stupidly high levels to the point where the government cannot afford to pay you anymore? And now as soon as the union says "strike" you all bend over?

Do you really not see that there are 400,000 people on the scratcher looking for any work they can get, and you're striking?

Yes yes, the goverment and banks have done their part to destroy the economy, so why stoop to their level and take a hit at it yourselves? Striking is only going to make things worse.

Koloman · 21-10-2009 8:39pm

It's like a 3 strikes and your out situation for our nation

Strike 1, The reckless government.

Strike 2, The reckless banks/developers.

Strike 3, The reckless strike action by the out of touch and well insulated from reality public sector unions.

If that third strike happens then it's goodnight Irene!

ardmacha · 21-10-2009 8:44pm

Why do you actually have Job Security? I've never understood this.

What do you mean by Job security? Demand for my services remains in good times or bad, guaranteeing me a job whether I am in public sector or the private.

Why, when you get paid by paypath, do you get an extra 30 mins to go to the bank on payday to cash the cheque you didnt get?

I don't.

Why do you get an extra day off at bank holidays?

I don't. Does anyone?

Why do you insist that the pension levy was a salary reduction, when actually it was just a fraction of one of your perks taken away?

Perhaps because it was a pay reduction.

hawker · 21-10-2009 8:47pm

Stee wrote: »

Why do you actually have Job Security? I've never understood this. How would you feel if this was taken away? Annoyed? Would you strike?

Why, when you get paid by paypath, do you get an extra 30 mins to go to the bank on payday to cash the cheque you didnt get?

Why do you get an extra day off at bank holidays?

Why do you insist that the pension levy was a salary reduction, when actually it was just a fraction of one of your perks taken away?

Do you not realise that the unions have been driving your wages to stupidly high levels to the point where the government cannot afford to pay you anymore? And now as soon as the union says "strike" you all bend over?

Do you really not see that there are 400,000 people on the scratcher looking for any work they can get, and you're striking?

Yes yes, the goverment and banks have done their part to destroy the economy, so why stoop to their level and take a hit at it yourselves? Striking is only going to make things worse.

Since 1995 we don't have job security.

Since several years ago new recruits do not receive this 30 mins.

I don't get an extra day off for bank holidays. I never have.

The pension levy is a salary reduction. Has this levy gone directly into paying this pension? I'll answer that for you. No!!

I don't believe I am highly paid for what I do. I'm not in a Union.

How many times are the government going to hit the PS to balance the books? They need another 4bn next year. Are we supposed to pay for that as well?

When are all private sector workers going to be happy? When do they think we've taken enough of a hit? When will you all realise that we're not all well paid and lower paid workers cannot afford any more?

BroomBurner · 21-10-2009 8:49pm

Stee wrote: »

Why do you actually have Job Security? I've never understood this. How would you feel if this was taken away? Annoyed? Would you strike?

Why, when you get paid by paypath, do you get an extra 30 mins to go to the bank on payday to cash the cheque you didnt get?

Why do you get an extra day off at bank holidays?

Why do you insist that the pension levy was a salary reduction, when actually it was just a fraction of one of your perks taken away?

Do you not realise that the unions have been driving your wages to stupidly high levels to the point where the government cannot afford to pay you anymore? And now as soon as the union says "strike" you all bend over?

Do you really not see that there are 400,000 people on the scratcher looking for any work they can get, and you're striking?

Yes yes, the goverment and banks have done their part to destroy the economy, so why stoop to their level and take a hit at it yourselves? Striking is only going to make things worse.

Here we go again:

1. We do not have job security, at least quite a lot of us don't.

2. We all do not get 30 minutes banking-time (I for one don't).

3. We don't get an extra day off at bank holidays. Some members do get additional days off twice a year - Christmas and Easter. Don't know why, but as the saying goes - don't hate the player, hate the game.

4. Your take on how PS members feel about the unions that represent them is overly simplistic and, actually, outright ignorant of facts.

5. Many PS workers have spouses who lost their jobs/have reduced pay, however, you might prefer to believe that we all live in a bubble and inter-marry and never feel whats going on in the world outside.

6. At least the PS have an option on what to do to fight their corner. You might not agree with it, but that's what they're doing.

Finally, it's very melodramatic to go whinging and screeching about the public sector going on strike. It is a trade unions job to fight for their members. This is what their doing. As Noreen very simply and effectively put it, this is a show before negotiations. Always happens.

Absurdum · 21-10-2009 8:51pm

Stee wrote: »

Why do you actually have Job Security? I've never understood this. How would you feel if this was taken away? Annoyed? Would you strike?

Define "Job Security"? In my department, many of those on contracts have been let go, I know of a couple who have been dismissed. I do my job and I do it well.

Stee wrote: »

Why, when you get paid by paypath, do you get an extra 30 mins to go to the bank on payday to cash the cheque you didnt get?

I don't and I don't know of anybody that does

Stee wrote: »

Why do you get an extra day off at bank holidays?

What do you mean by an "extra day off"? I work on probably half the bank holidays.

Stee wrote: »

Why do you insist that the pension levy was a salary reduction, when actually it was just a fraction of one of your perks taken away?

less pay = pay cut

I currently pay 13.5% of my salary + PRSI towards my pension - I will most likely have paid this for 40 years upon retirement. That is not "just a fraction"

Stee wrote: »

Do you not realise that the unions have been driving your wages to stupidly high levels to the point where the government cannot afford to pay you anymore? And now as soon as the union says "strike" you all bend over?

I don't give a damn about unions, public or private sector, and never have, so does not apply to me

D

Stee wrote: »

o you really not see that there are 400,000 people on the scratcher looking for any work they can get, and you're striking?

see above

also note that industrial action does not necessarily mean strike

Stee wrote: »

Yes yes, the goverment and banks have done their part to destroy the economy, so why stoop to their level and take a hit at it yourselves? Striking is only going to make things worse.

see above, again

Danbo! · 21-10-2009 9:04pm

hawker wrote: »

Since 1995 we don't have job security.

Fair enough, didnt know that.

hawker wrote: »

Since several years ago new recruits do not receive this 30 mins.

I worked as temp in PS for a summer and got it

hawker wrote: »

I don't get an extra day off for bank holidays. I never have.

As above, a bank holiday came with a privilege day.

hawker wrote: »

The pension levy is a salary reduction. Has this levy gone directly into paying this pension? I'll answer that for you. No!!

Ok, do you have a source for that?

hawker wrote: »

I don't believe I am highly paid for what I do. I'm not in a Union.

I was pointing the question towards PS workers within a Union who are intent on striking, should have put that in title

hawker wrote: »

How many times are the government going to hit the PS to balance the books? They need another 4bn next year. Are we supposed to pay for that as well?

They said they can take 1.3bn from PS, and 1.3bn from social welfare. I'd assume the savings are annual, as they are taking a percentage of annual salary

hawker wrote: »

When are all private sector workers going to be happy? When do they think we've taken enough of a hit? When will you all realise that we're not all well paid and lower paid workers cannot afford any more?

Im just asking the questions. But as you may or may not understand, my own view is that there should be paycuts. I've taken a 10% cut and lost 15 colleagues out of 40, because the bosses arent doing as much business, and taking in less money. This results in less tax, so therefore, your bosses taking in less money.

BroomBurner wrote: »

Here we go again:

What do you mean, here we go again? If you're sick of answering these quesions, dont answer them

BroomBurner wrote: »

1. We do not have job security, at least quite a lot of us don't.

Ok, I just found that when I worked in PS there were a lot of slackers and people flaunting the system and never seemed to have any trouble. It seemed that because it wasnt profit driven, it was not very effecient

BroomBurner wrote: »

2. We all do not get 30 minutes banking-time (I for one don't).

Some do, is this just administrative staff?

BroomBurner wrote: »

3. We don't get an extra day off at bank holidays. Some members do get additional days off twice a year - Christmas and Easter. Don't know why, but as the saying goes - don't hate the player, hate the game.

Fair enough

BroomBurner wrote: »

4. Your take on how PS members feel about the unions that represent them is overly simplistic and, actually, outright ignorant of facts.

Ignorance is what brought me here to ask the questions

BroomBurner wrote: »

5. Many PS workers have spouses who lost their jobs/have reduced pay, however, you might prefer to believe that we all live in a bubble and inter-marry and never feel whats going on in the world outside.

This is becoming ridiculous, what bubble?

BroomBurner wrote: »

6. At least the PS have an option on what to do to fight their corner. You might not agree with it, but that's what they're doing.

Again, fair enough

BroomBurner wrote: »

Finally, it's very melodramatic to go whinging and screeching about the public sector going on strike. It is a trade unions job to fight for their members. This is what their doing. As Noreen very simply and effectively put it, this is a show before negotiations. Always happens.

My original post may be whingey and screechey, Im genuinely intereted in hearing both sides of this story

BubbleB · 21-10-2009 9:05pm

Do not have job security........very few doctors do.

Do not get extra day at bank holidays......just work them.

Do not get extra 30minutes to cash a cheque though paid by via PayPal.

It was a pay reduction.

Not all of us are in unions.......maybe some organisations do it for the public INO or IMO?!?!?

I am not highly paid for what I do.

"the out of touch and well insulated from reality public sector".......hmmmm I think not, I see and deal with thinks on a daily basis that private sector worker could barely understand yet help people overcome.

I really don't think the PS is to blame for the state of the country. Yes there are people who are over paid but they are not the majority.

stepbar · 21-10-2009 9:06pm

Did the government ever get round to enacting a bill enabling a department the power to sack a civil servant?

BroomBurner · 21-10-2009 9:10pm

stepbar wrote: »

Did the government ever get round to enacting a bill enabling a department the power to sack a civil servant?

Yes, a civil servant can be fired.

hawker · 21-10-2009 9:10pm

stepbar wrote: »

Did the government ever get round to enacting a bill enabling a department the power to sack a civil servant?

As far as I am aware, yes they did. I've a funny feelng there is another question coming.

Absurdum · 21-10-2009 9:12pm

stepbar wrote: »

Did the government ever get round to enacting a bill enabling a department the power to sack a civil servant?

If someone needs to be sacked, they can be.

The Orb · 21-10-2009 9:12pm

Stee wrote: »

Why do you actually have Job Security? I've never understood this. How would you feel if this was taken away? Annoyed? Would you strike?

Why, when you get paid by paypath, do you get an extra 30 mins to go to the bank on payday to cash the cheque you didnt get?

Why do you get an extra day off at bank holidays?

Why do you insist that the pension levy was a salary reduction, when actually it was just a fraction of one of your perks taken away?

Do you not realise that the unions have been driving your wages to stupidly high levels to the point where the government cannot afford to pay you anymore? And now as soon as the union says "strike" you all bend over?

Do you really not see that there are 400,000 people on the scratcher looking for any work they can get, and you're striking?

Yes yes, the goverment and banks have done their part to destroy the economy, so why stoop to their level and take a hit at it yourselves? Striking is only going to make things worse.

There is no guaranteed job in either the civil or public service

Bank time, yes its daft (but hasn't contributed to the country's woes, bit of perspective please)

No extra day off for bank holidays, there is a privelege day at xmas and easter, an old fashioned throwback to the days when many people had to travel back to Dublin, clearly daft in this day and age,

The pension levy was a pay cut, the levy does not go into a pension fund, it goes into the exchequer, ergo a pay cut

Wages are not stupidly high, some civil and pubklic servants are badly paid, some public servants are paid too highly, familiarise yourslef with the grades and payscales and don't generalise

Who is striking? There are no strikes yet. However if the govt lets AIB pass on a 3% rise to bank employees using taxpayers money and then cut my salary by too much then I will strike. I am willing to take another pay cut but I won't have the piss taken out of me to make up for Fianna Fail's ineptitude

OP, you are bit strong on propoganda and short on facts

stepbar · 21-10-2009 9:14pm

Absurdum wrote: »

If someone needs to be sacked, they can be.

By who?

Absurdum · 21-10-2009 9:16pm

stepbar wrote: »

By who?

from upon high obviously

what are you getting at here?

hawker · 21-10-2009 9:18pm

As far as I'm aware Civil Servants can be fired locally.

BroomBurner · 21-10-2009 9:19pm

Stee wrote: »

What do you mean, here we go again? If you're sick of answering these quesions, dont answer them

Ok, I just found that when I worked in PS there were a lot of slackers and people flaunting the system and never seemed to have any trouble. It seemed that because it wasnt profit driven, it was not very effecient

Some do, is this just administrative staff?

Fair enough

Ignorance is what brought me here to ask the questions

This is becoming ridiculous, what bubble?

Again, fair enough

My original post may be whingey and screechey, Im genuinely intereted in hearing both sides of this story

- try having a look through some other posts on the public sector, you might get an idea of what it is like.

- there are slackers everywhere, in every sector, in every walk of life and in every company. I am all for the public sector trying to make a profit where it can, but it's not always possible. A lot of services are offered free, or at a cut-price, so as to provide the most efficient and effective service to the public. I said "a lot", not "all".

- No, not an admin thing, I'm not sure about the extra days off (there are only two). Maybe it's purely CS, as opposed to PS. The CS btw only accounts for roughly 9% (or is it 13% anyone??) of the overall PS, so we're not even talking majorities here.

- the bubble I was referring to was in your first post, where you questioned how PS members can strike while private sector members were losing their jobs, etc. I was merely countering that with the fact that the PS do not stick within their own sector! Also, a good few members of the PS have lost jobs (contract workers, part-time teachers, SNA's, etc.)

- there genuinely aren't only two sides to the story. Everyone is in a different boat, and to lump all PS workers together, and then unite them in a misguided hatred is wrong on many levels.

Also, please don't forget that there are still plenty of people working in Ireland, and members of ESB, BOI, Zurich, etc. who all signed up to bench-marking have received their payments. There is proof there that the private sector isn't as unhealthy as the papers would have you believe.

nellumr · 21-10-2009 9:20pm

Does anyone who works in the public serice see much nepotism, waste, piss taking etc

hawker · 21-10-2009 9:24pm

nellumr wrote: »

Does anyone who works in the public serice see much nepotism, waste, piss taking etc

Nepotism - yes to a certain degree.

Waste - most definitely yes. They should be f**ked out.

Piss taking - not understanding this one.

Absurdum · 21-10-2009 9:26pm

hawker wrote: »

Nepotism - yes to a certain degree.

can you elaborate on that point please?

imme · 21-10-2009 9:26pm

Stee wrote: »

Why do you actually have Job Security? I've never understood this. How would you feel if this was taken away? Annoyed? Would you strike?

Why, when you get paid by paypath, do you get an extra 30 mins to go to the bank on payday to cash the cheque you didnt get? (1)

Why do you get an extra day off at bank holidays? (2)

Why do you insist that the pension levy was a salary reduction, when actually it was just a fraction of one of your perks taken away? (3)

Do you not realise that the unions have been driving your wages to stupidly high levels to the point where the government cannot afford to pay you anymore? (4) And now as soon as the union says "strike" you all bend over? (5)

Do you really not see that there are 400,000 people on the scratcher looking for any work they can get, and you're striking?

Yes yes, the goverment and banks have done their part to destroy the economy (6), so why stoop to their level and take a hit at it yourselves?(7) Striking is only going to make things worse.

(1) I guess the 30mins thing is historical and just hasn't been changed.
(2) What now?

(3) effectively it is a salary deduction.
(4) do unions set pay for public sector employees now? were current pay rates not set under partnership agreements?
(5) "bend over"

(6) very true
(7) banks don't seem to have changed in any way

BroomBurner · 21-10-2009 9:28pm

nellumr wrote: »

Does anyone who works in the public serice see much nepotism, waste, piss taking etc

I can only comment on the CS, but nepotism doesn't happen in the hiring of staff. It's all done through the Public Appointments Service and a job is dependent on first getting through an exam (where you are known as a number) and then a second round of tests and/or an interview, depending on what grade you are aiming for. Some grades require a 3rd and 4th round of tests.

Waste - every sector has waste. I've only worked in two areas in the CS and both have a strong team of hard-working, dedicated people.

Piss-taking - I have seen an equal amount of this in both the public sector and the private sector (worked there for a number of years), so it is not anything above and beyond the norm and it is most definitely NOT exclusive to the PS.

nellumr · 21-10-2009 9:31pm

hawker wrote: »

Nepotism - yes to a certain degree.

Waste - most definitely yes. They should be f**ked out.

Piss taking - not understanding this one.

Just treating the job as an easy ride, not taking it seriously etc
As for the nepotism I know it's rampant in the private sector due to small family owned buisnesses.

nellumr · 21-10-2009 9:32pm

BroomBurner wrote: »

I can only comment on the CS, but nepotism doesn't happen in the hiring of staff. It's all done through the Public Appointments Service and a job is dependent on first getting through an exam (where you are known as a number) and then a second round of tests and/or an interview, depending on what grade you are aiming for. Some grades require a 3rd and 4th round of tests.

Waste - every sector has waste. I've only worked in two areas in the CS and both have a strong team of hard-working, dedicated people.

Piss-taking - I have seen an equal amount of this in both the public sector and the private sector (worked there for a number of years), so it is not anything above and beyond the norm and it is most definitely NOT exclusive to the PS.

With the nepotism thing I also mean political connections, not just family connections.

ParkRunner · 21-10-2009 9:32pm

stepbar wrote: »

Did the government ever get round to enacting a bill enabling a department the power to sack a civil servant?

http://www.idis.gov.ie/repca1.nsf/80255f01003f497980255ecb00542f35/cb868c29dcbe12608025724a004f8776?OpenDocument

Some bedtime reading for you

stepbar · 21-10-2009 9:32pm

Absurdum wrote: »

from upon high obviously

what are you getting at here?

hawker wrote: »

As far as I'm aware Civil Servants can be fired locally.

A civil servant can be sacked by order of the minister of the department in question or by a senior civil servant if the position is at the lower grades.

A civil servant cannot be fired by their immediate manager. That's what I'm getting at.

hawker · 21-10-2009 9:32pm

Absurdum wrote: »

can you elaborate on that point please?

Well strictly I suppose it isn't Nepotism in the true sense of the word. But I've seen 'favours' done for close colleagues in a place I worked. In other words I've seen people promoted/transferred because they know the right people.

Hope that clears it up

hawker · 21-10-2009 9:34pm

nellumr wrote: »

Just treating the job as an easy ride, not taking it seriously etc
As for the nepotism I know it's rampant in the private sector due to small family owned buisnesses.

I'd only be lying if I said I didn't witness piss-taking. But I'd group that in with waste in my opinion. Both are linked.

Rampant is not a word I'd use for it. But imo it does happen.

BroomBurner · 21-10-2009 9:35pm

nellumr wrote: »

With the nepotism thing I also mean political connections, not just family connections.

Not that I'm aware of, perhaps in the past or something. The rules behind applying state very clearly and categorically that any communications from a third party with regards an applicant will deem that application null and void.

I remembered that part very clearly when I was applying and was quite impressed. You can call me naive if you want, but I got a job in the PS and I know no politicians, etc.

nellumr · 21-10-2009 9:37pm

BroomBurner wrote: »

Not that I'm aware of, perhaps in the past or something. The rules behind applying state very clearly and categorically that any communications from a third party with regards an applicant will deem that application null and void.

I remembered that part very clearly when I was applying and was quite impressed. You can call me naive if you want, but I got a job in the PS and I know no politicians, etc.

I remember applying for the office of the comptroller general and like you said before you were really just a number at the early stage.

Absurdum · 21-10-2009 9:38pm

stepbar wrote: »

A civil servant can be sacked by order of the minister of the department in question or by a senior civil servant if the position is at the lower grades.

A civil servant cannot be fired by their immediate manager. That's what I'm getting at.

I'm sure that is also similar in large private sector organisations too though, it would have to go HR, a line manager or production manager wouldn't have that kind of power usually.

hawker · 21-10-2009 9:39pm

BroomBurner wrote: »

Not that I'm aware of, perhaps in the past or something. The rules behind applying state very clearly and categorically that any communications from a third party with regards an applicant will deem that application null and void.

I remembered that part very clearly when I was applying and was quite impressed. You can call me naive if you want, but I got a job in the PS and I know no politicians, etc.

In my experience some recruitment done locally (promotions included) can show a certain degree of favouritism.

stepbar · 21-10-2009 9:41pm

EF wrote: »

http://www.idis.gov.ie/repca1.nsf/80255f01003f497980255ecb00542f35/cb868c29dcbe12608025724a004f8776?OpenDocument

Some bedtime reading for you

I knew that already.

Does anyone not see the problem with such an inefficent and unwieldy way of dealing with disciplinary issues?

BroomBurner · 21-10-2009 9:41pm

Absurdum wrote: »

I'm sure that is also similar in large private sector organisations too though, it would have to go HR, a line manager or production manager wouldn't have that kind of power usually.

Yeah, it would have to be, in order to stop someone bearing a grudge getting to fire someone else just because they wanted to.

It's very difficult to fire anyone from a company, regardless of whether it's private or public. I remember one place I worked for couldn't get rid of one person. The person in question held a job interview over the phone in the middle of a busy office and everyone just stayed quiet and hoped they would get the job, as management couldn't find a definitive reason to fire them.

BroomBurner · 21-10-2009 9:42pm

hawker wrote: »

In my experience some recruitment done locally (promotions included) can show a certain degree of favouritism.

That's a shame :mad:

Absurdum · 21-10-2009 9:44pm

hawker wrote: »

In my experience some recruitment done locally (promotions included) can show a certain degree of favouritism.

That can apply everywhere though.

hawker · 21-10-2009 9:47pm

BroomBurner wrote: »

That's a shame :mad:

Very much so.

Absurdum · 21-10-2009 9:48pm

BroomBurner wrote: »

Yeah, it would have to be, in order to stop someone bearing a grudge getting to fire someone else just because they wanted to.

It's very difficult to fire anyone from a company, regardless of whether it's private or public. I remember one place I worked for couldn't get rid of one person. The person in question held a job interview over the phone in the middle of a busy office and everyone just stayed quiet and hoped they would get the job, as management couldn't find a definitive reason to fire them.

Yeah I agree with that. The culture seems to be to try and move the person somewhere else rather than to deal with it, in my experience anyway. I know of two that were fired outright in the last couple of years, one was for taking the piss with sick leave and the other was for theft of a laptop (which I believe he was charged over).

dixiefly · 21-10-2009 9:49pm

I have been lucky enough to work in both private sector (large and small businesses) and the Public sectors. Had to almost sweat blood at times to maintain competitiveness in the private industries I worked in.

However in my times in the Public Sector I have encountered many hard working dedicated individuals and there just as extensive range of challenges in the Public sector as there is in the Private sector.

There were good jobs in the Public Sector going during the boom. I have a question for the OP - why didnt you try to get into the Public Sector at that time if it was such a well paying doss job?

Have a look at this article from Fintan o' Toole - he reckons that the wealthy are getting away scott free in this debate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1006/1224255979985.html
Scapegoating public sector lets wealthy off the hook
In this section »
Ireland's Yes allows treaty face final Czech hurdleWhere next in O'Donoghue's trajectory of 'running sore'?Irish politics big on perks, but what of values?A new kind of leadership now requiredOctober 6th, 1900: New approaches to child-rearing called into questionBat-biter's memoir sinks its teeth into Ozzy's lifeFocus on the real divide, the one between those who can afford to live on less and those who can’t, writes FINTAN O'TOOLE

WE ARE the Plastic People of the Universe. As the huge swing in the second Lisbon referendum shows, Irish public opinion is astonishingly volatile and malleable. The plastic can be reshaped with relative ease. You can watch it being done in the demonisation of public servants.

This time last year, there was an emerging sense of outrage directed overwhelmingly at that existing economic consensus. Anger was focused on misgovernment, on the reckless and unethical banking system and on a broader culture of greed.

But those with a stake in that system were not about to give up easily. They understood that their best chance was to provide an alternative scapegoat: public sector workers. This may be a crude strategy of divide, distract and rule, but sometimes the old tricks are the best. This one has been working like a dream. We’ve now suddenly got to a point where almost everything is off the table except cutting public sector wages.

This shaping of options could hardly be more brazen. Remember, for example, the Commission on Taxation? This time last year, it was going to be at the centre of the Government’s strategy for tackling the crisis in the public finances. Now, suddenly, it has been consigned to the exterior darkness of what Brian Cowen calls “long-term focus” and everyone else can call oblivion. Taxation is off the table. With almost no discussion, one of the two arms of fiscal strategy (what is raised and what is spent) has been cut off.

With Nama and further bank bailouts “the only game in town”, the whole discussion on the public finances has been channelled into one little stream: the filthy parasites who teach our children, nurse the sick and try to protect us from crime.

There is one sense in which the public sector unions deserve what they’re getting. Through the secretive benchmarking process, they bought in to the idea of setting wages in the public and private sectors against each other. This was always absurd and deceitful. The deception is the idea that workers in the two sectors of the economy can be compared in some cool, scientific way. In fact, we’re dealing not with science but with politics. What is the equivalent in private firms of a garda or a primary school principal? What is the equivalent in State employment of a shop assistant or a sales rep or a mushroom picker?

The reality is that the two sectors have huge structural differences. More people in the public sector have third-level degrees: 40 per cent compared to 20 per cent. Almost 30 per cent of public sector workers are professionals, compared with just 7 per cent of those in private firms. There are far fewer non-Irish nationals in State jobs, a group that tends to be the most exploited. Workers in the public sector are on average four years older and the length of service is longer (by five years for men and three years for women). And women suffer less discrimination in the public than in the private sector: the gender pay gap is narrower.

Gender is one of the issues that nobody seems to want to talk about. The most striking area in which there is a “public sector premium” is in pay rates for women. According to the CSO figures, the premium is 15 per cent for men but 23 per cent for women. The reason for this is obvious enough – it is harder to discriminate against women in the public service than in private firms. Partly as a result, the really glaring gap is between women in the two sectors of employment, with those in public jobs earning almost €10 an hour more than their sisters in private companies.

The other group that clearly benefits from being in the public sector is low-paid workers. Broadly speaking the difference between public and private pay rates is largest at the bottom and narrows as you move up the scale. (For the bottom 10 per cent, the gap is 22 per cent; for the top 10 per cent it is 6 per cent.) Part of the reason for this is obvious enough: most of the lower-paid workers in public jobs have the protection of trade unions.

If we’re serious about bringing public sector wages into line with those in private firms, we need to allow more exploitation of women and of the low-paid, who benefit most from having State jobs. This may be an absurd conclusion, but it is the logic of an argument that suggests that public sector workers be penalised because so many in the private sector suffer from gender discrimination, exploitation and rotten pensions.

We need to cop on to the game that’s being played here and focus on the real divide, which is not that between public and private but that between those who can really afford to live on less and those who can’t. Wages should be cut from the top down, through taxation in the private sector and pay cuts in the public sector.

hawker · 21-10-2009 9:49pm

Absurdum wrote: »

That can apply everywhere though.

I'm sure it does apply to a lot of places. Both public and private sectors.

nellumr · 21-10-2009 9:50pm

Apart from large multi nationals I think the same prevails in the private sector also, I think it's a part of Irish culture to get soemone else to help out.

Danbo! · 21-10-2009 10:08pm

The Orb wrote: »

OP, you are bit strong on propoganda and short on facts

I agree tbh. I wrote the OP after reading a few recent articles about public service, all seemed to be very unbalanced which is probably what made the tone of the OP a little angry

It was actually like reading up on Lisbon, propaganda from both sides.

Its a tough thing to understand, for me anyway, but having read the above im getting my head round it, and lumping all PS workers into the sterotype in my head probably isnt the best idea. The stereotype being what I saw for 3 months in one department in one office of the Civil Service.

dodgyme · 21-10-2009 10:44pm

The main problem with the Public sector is that it absorbs the useless much better then the private sector and then in the last few years has rewarded them with upward benchmarking.

parsi · 22-10-2009 8:28am

stepbar wrote: »

A civil servant can be sacked by order of the minister of the department in question or by a senior civil servant if the position is at the lower grades.

A civil servant cannot be fired by their immediate manager. That's what I'm getting at.

In any large organisation (eg banks, large multinationals, airlines) it's not the imemdiate manager who does the firing.

eamo127 · 22-10-2009 8:45am

The PS do not have a clue what it's like to lose your job. It happened me and I'm trying to support 4 young kids. They take their job security for granted and yet on this thread they are all screaming that they don't have job security! 400K on the dole, so how many of these are PERMANENT PS? Zero.

I wish the PS a taste of the fear and vulnerability associated with job loss - they would be on their knees thanking the taxpayer for their situation, not hurting us and our families with their striking.

Sometimes I think that the sooner the IMF comes in and forces the government to clean up their wastefulness, the better. Here's a small example of someone I know who works for irish aid:

Salary: 90K basic - job only exists because of EU court action forcing govt to hire permanently the voluntary workers. Guy I know took a year out from real work, kept applying for extension and under some eu contract law they forced the taxpayer to hire them permanently - guess what? 50K back pay FFS!!!
20K extra for working abroad - they work abroad all the time and rent their houses out here
Maids and servants to beat the band
Housing, schooling, medical etc. provided on resort complexes - rarely have to see the real poverty around them.
One guy I know has had his golf handicap drop from 18 to 8 in the last year while in Southern Africa.
Same guy complains bitterly about pay and conditions and thinks everyone earns more than him. Really out of touch

dearg lady · 22-10-2009 8:51am

Stee wrote: »

I agree tbh. I wrote the OP after reading a few recent articles about public service, all seemed to be very unbalanced which is probably what made the tone of the OP a little angry It was actually like reading up on Lisbon, propaganda from both sides.

Its a tough thing to understand, for me anyway, but having read the above im getting my head round it, and lumping all PS workers into the sterotype in my head probably isnt the best idea. The stereotype being what I saw for 3 months in one department in one office of the Civil Service.

Well Stee fair play to ya for actually reading the answers and taking them on board, which is more than many posters on here do. I've seen first hand the laziness and waste that does happen in parts of the public sector like you have seen. But I have worked in 4 very different sections of the public sector and seen this waste in only one of those sections, and dislike all public sector getting lumped in together.

It frustrated me terribly to see the incredible laziness in this one particular section, I lasted a very short time there, I just couldn't handle the attitude of many of the staff. i think automatic increments should have been done away with long ago and reward public sector worker based on individual performance. This would show clearly the underperforming staff and sections, and would also be a motivation for the large proportion(despite what some posters on here say

) who work hard.

ceret · 22-10-2009 9:30am

ardmacha wrote: »

Why do you get an extra day off at bank holidays?

I don't. Does anyone?

I know someone who works in a county council office that gets a 'Privilige Day' (day off) after a bank holiday.

ceret · 22-10-2009 9:33am

The Orb wrote: »

Bank time, yes its daft (but hasn't contributed to the country's woes, bit of perspective please)

No extra day off for bank holidays, there is a privelege day at xmas and easter, an old fashioned throwback to the days when many people had to travel back to Dublin, clearly daft in this day and age,

A privilige day is basically a extra day off. If you can call the pension levy a pay cut (which I agree that it is), then you should call the privilige day a day off.

Would you give them up? As a sign of goodwill and modernisation?

dearg lady · 22-10-2009 9:34am

ceret wrote: »

I know someone who works in a county council office that gets a 'Privilige Day' (day off) after a bank holiday.

I've heard of this happening, but it's two privilege days a year, it's still a bit mad, but not for EVERY bank hol

unless the person in question is working the bank holiday? Then it's correct but same applies in private sector

dearg lady · 22-10-2009 9:56am

ceret wrote: »

A privilige day is basically a extra day off. If you can call the pension levy a pay cut (which I agree that it is), then you should call the privilige day a day off.

Would you give them up? As a sign of goodwill and modernisation?

You're right, it is an extra day off (with a silly name!) I don't get em, I think there's only a few sections of public sector do(stand to be corrected on that)

ardmacha · 22-10-2009 10:04am

I wish the PS a taste of the fear and vulnerability associated with job loss -

Well that's nice. You choose your career as a balance between your interests and the prospects in that career. Some careers vary more than others in their prospects, if you feel vulnerable then why did you not choose a less vulnerable job? Why should others be condemned because they were wise enough to choose a less vulnerable job?

Questions for the Public sector worker

Comments