Public Servants & Mortgages

Dannyboy83

(Some) members of the public service have became used to high income, which seemed the norm during the Celtic Pyramid years and consequently took on large mortgages/obligations.

Unfortunately, times have changed, it looks like there will be large reductions in personal income and/or large tax increases, leaving a large gap in the personal balance sheet, with expenditure possibly exceeding income.

In the event that pay cuts will be introduced, many members of the public service will still have large mortgages/obligations to address. i.e. reduced income with no major change in expenses.

What plans do you have in place to deal with this?
Will you seek to balance the books via reducing expenses, or will you cover the gap through borrowing?

Wishbone Ash

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Will you seek to balance the books via reducing expenses, or will you cover the gap through borrowing?

I definately won't be borrowing more but I will have to reduce spending on car, shopping, insurance, DIY, AVC's, pubs, restaurants, holidays, babysitters, cinema, theatre, clothes etc. Unfortunately, if other public sector workers are in similar circumstances, it will mean a great reduction in expenditure in the above and probably lead to more job losses.

nesf

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I definately won't be borrowing more but I will have to reduce spending on car, shopping, insurance, DIY, AVC's, pubs, restaurants, holidays, babysitters, cinema, theatre, clothes etc. Unfortunately, if other public sector workers are in similar circumstances, it will mean a great reduction in expenditure in the above and probably lead to more job losses.

Are public servants spending much money outside of necessities and fewer luxuries though? I mean, the impression I get from the statistics anyway is that both public and private sector workers aren't spending their money, they're all worried about potential tax hikes/pay cuts/redundancies etc et al. I'm beginning to question how big a deflationary effect this pay cut will actually have, I mean if I was in PS I'd have cut my spending down already by a fair chunk.

Dannyboy83

nesf wrote: »

Are public servants spending much money outside of necessities and fewer luxuries though? I mean, the impression I get from the statistics anyway is that both public and private sector workers aren't spending their money, they're all worried about potential tax hikes/pay cuts/redundancies etc et al. I'm beginning to question how big a deflationary effect this pay cut will actually have, I mean if I was in PS I'd have cut my spending down already by a fair chunk.

Good point.
And assuming much of this available money (public or private) is already being spent outside of the Republic, this would contribute to the idea that the deflationary effect *might* be considerably less than one would expect, for such a dramatic cut.

How long will it take before we can realistically measure the effect NESF?

Also, assuming many retailers will have a bad Xmas, cease imports and close up shop, what kind of impact would this have, on deflation specifically?

View

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Will you seek to balance the books via reducing expenses, or will you cover the gap through borrowing?

They'll surely cover the gap through borrowing. After all, they could hardly reduce expenses on a personal level while opposing reducing expenses on a public level (via street protests), could they?

Now, like the Government, all they need do is find a bank that is indefinitely willing to loan them the money to cover the gap between their personal expenditure and their actual income...

BostonB

Banks would never do that would they?

Hang on a minute...

nesf

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Good point.
And assuming much of this available money (public or private) is already being spent outside of the Republic, this would contribute to the idea that the deflationary effect *might* be considerably less than one would expect, for such a dramatic cut.

How long will it take before we can realistically measure the effect NESF?

Also, assuming many retailers will have a bad Xmas, cease imports and close up shop, what kind of impact would this have, on deflation specifically?

Deflationary effects can only be guessed and estimated (imperfectly) many months after an event and even then it's impossible a lot of the time to isolate one event and examine its effect.

Basic idea is if people are already cutting back on discretionary spending then there will be a smaller decrease in their spending in absolute terms from a tax rise/whatever than if you implemented it when discretionary spending was high. There's a limit at which people can't not not spend money, they have to eat, drink, have heating etc. All within reason obviously.

Economies are highly complex entities. They behave in very complicated and interesting ways. Any concept of linear ideas of deflationary effects (i.e. a 1% increase in tax will decrease spending by X at all possible times) isn't going to capture the behaviour when you're looking at times of unusual highs or lows in public mood/tax levels and what have you.

BostonB

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

(Some) members of the public service have became used to high income, which seemed the norm during the Celtic Pyramid years and consequently took on large mortgages/obligations.

Unfortunately, times have changed, it looks like there will be large reductions in personal income and/or large tax increases, leaving a large gap in the personal balance sheet, with expenditure possibly exceeding income.

In the event that pay cuts will be introduced, many members of the public service will still have large mortgages/obligations to address. i.e. reduced income with no major change in expenses.

What plans do you have in place to deal with this?
Will you seek to balance the books via reducing expenses, or will you cover the gap through borrowing?

Look for a bail out?

Theres no reason to make such a long winded song ad dance about it. Even the unions have (finally) admitted wage bill has to come down, and the size of the PS shrink.

Dannyboy83

BostonB wrote: »

Theres no reason to make such a long winded song ad dance about it.

I was trying to avoid offending people, hence the clarity/long windedness depending on your perspective.

gurramok

Why should there be special treatment for public servants(17 odd % of the workforce) who overextended themselves?

Reduce your lifestyle and start living within your means.

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

Why should there be special treatment for public servants(17 odd % of the workforce) who overextended themselves?

Reduce your lifestyle and start living within your means.

indeed and anyway why focus on public servants?

surely "some members of the public Private service have became used to high income, which seemed the norm during the Celtic Pyramid years and consequently took on large mortgages/obligations."

there are people out there who are over extended and struggling to make ends meet in both public and private sector

and there are people in both sectors doing alright

TGPS

I'm a public servant on a decent wage who works bloody hard for it. My wages have been cut, my response has been to start a part-time buisiness.

During the boom years I bought a modest house outside of Dublin and I've never driven anything newer than about 3 years old.

I watched my colleagues buy first one house, then a second one and in some daft cases even a third one on similar salaries to myself. I could never understand it - I've always lived well within my means.

Now, I'm still living within my means - I save more than I actually did five years ago but the car is 10 years old and the lifestyle has changed (in some ways for the better).

I shop up North; I shop online - partly because out of necessity; partly in protest at the Government; and partly because Irish business representative bodies are forever having a go at myself and my colleagues, which they're entitled to do, but they can't complain if the people they are bitching about on Monday, don't morph into loyal customers on Saturday.

I didn't strike on Tuesday because I believed that industrial action in this case was morally and ethically unjustifiable.

bridgitt

TGPS wrote: »

I'm a public servant on a decent wage who works bloody hard for it.

Good for you.

TGPS wrote: »

I shop up North; I shop online

Nobody can stop you doing this, but did you ever stop and think where part of your wages come from ? Part come from borrowings, as the country is borrowing 25 billion a year just to keep going. The rest comes from people who pay vat and tax here. That is how the government can write you a cheque. It is where the money comes from. Granted it then stops part of that money paid to you, and calls it income tax, but that is where the 20 billion a year the goverment spends on pay and pensions comes from. Its almost equivalent to the government tax take. Enjoy it while it lasts, becasue the government will not be able to afford to pay you forever, while your spending goes to support the vat and taxes of her Majestys government, whose public servants are paid much less than ours.

The more people shop up North , and if everyone done their shopping and trade and holidays outside the country, the quicker the country will collapse and government cheques bounce, so you are doing the right thing.

TGPS

bridgitt wrote: »

Good for you.



Nobody can stop you doing this, but did you ever stop and think where part of your wages come from ? Part come from borrowings, as the country is borrowing 25 billion a year just to keep going. The rest comes from people who pay vat and tax here. That is how the government can write you a cheque. It is where the money comes from. Granted it then stops part of that money paid to you, and calls it income tax, but that is where the 20 billion a year the goverment spends on pay and pensions comes from. Its almost equivalent to the government tax take. Enjoy it while it lasts, becasue the government will not be able to afford to pay you forever, while your spending goes to support the vat and taxes of her Majestys government, whose public servants are paid much less than ours.

The more people shop up North , and if everyone done their shopping and trade and holidays outside the country, the quicker the country will collapse and government cheques bounce, so you are doing the right thing.

......eh I should've mentioned I'm an economist so I've a pretty good idea how money circulates in the economy and how it leaks out (and in).

Yes, I shop up North, but it's for essentials - groceries, baby stuff and the odd bottle of wine (ok the last one isn't essential!).

As for the whole taxes to Her Majesty / giving the Queen her shillings argument - what nonsense! No one was making or makes that argument when we pay UK contractors for work done here. Also is it a one way street - do we object to paying HM's taxes but not receiving them?

I'd happily shop and purchase locally, but Irish businesses have to give me a better reason than the flag.


TGPS

aphex™

TGPS wrote: »

I didn't strike on Tuesday because I believed that industrial action in this case was morally and ethically unjustifiable.

Fair play to you. Things have to be kept in perspective- they're looking for 4 odd billions cuts whereas the real deficit is 20+ billion. If they're already striking now what are they gonna do for the next 16 billion? Those figures need to be stated in every discussion on the issue on radio, tv and here IMO.

BostonB

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I was trying to avoid offending people, hence the clarity/long windedness depending on your perspective.

People in any sector, unemployed, or not, with mortgages or not all have the same problems of balancing income with expenditure.

You're only reason to single out a narrow band of people is to persist the them and us attitude. If a PS claims they'll cut expenditure, its obvious you want to make a simplistic comparision with the PS wage bill. So in effect its the same topic as so many other threads all on the same subject.

Both public and private sectors have to take a large adjustment. However you can't expect the masses to accept with out resistence, it if the fat cats of both sectors are left largely untouched. The on going campaign to set one side off the other distracts from the failures of govt and their continuing protection of their vested interests.

bridgitt

TGPS wrote: »

I'd happily shop and purchase locally, but Irish businesses have to give me a better reason than the flag.

What about the reason that their taxes are paying you, and you are getting a better pay and pension than they are taking themselves ( and usually for working shorter hours ) ?
Would you be happy to accept the public service salary the vat and taxes paid up north support ?

Dannyboy83

its obvious you want to make a simplistic comparison with the PS wage bill.

And why do you object to this?
Is it an unreasonable comparison?

Both public and private sectors have to take a large adjustment. However you can't expect the masses to accept with out resistance, it if the fat cats of both sectors are left largely untouched.

I've never heard the "Fat Cat's being untouched" ever voiced as a reason for striking by any individual on strike. It has been a preemptive strike to prevent expense reduction in the public sector.
I think its easy to have a careful attitude toward your own finances and a more carefree attitude toward others.

The on going campaign to set one side off the other distracts from the failures of govt and their continuing protection of their vested interests.

I don't necessarily believe there is a campaign. I don't believe that the government are capable of orchestrating one.

TGPS

bridgitt wrote: »

What about the reason that their taxes are paying you, and you are getting a better pay and pension than they are taking themselves ( and usually for working shorter hours ) ?
Would you be happy to accept the public service salary the vat and taxes paid up north support ?

First, I made the conscious decision to come into the Public Service in Ireland 10 years ago having previously worked abroad for an NGO and before that for a "Big Four" accountancy firm back when there was a Big Five.

My pay reduced significantly and the perks completely. I have a very good pension because when I worked in the private and NGO sectors I made proper provisions; my public sector pension here is good, but in terms of benefits it will provide it is a small proportion of my total pension pot.

As for accepting "....the public service salary the vat and taxes paid up north support" - Yes I would gladly accept the salary - it's lower than what I'm on now, but so is VAT. Income taxes are higher, but they have a health service that works, decent community infra-structure and business culture that embraces customer service.

I'm in Ireland, because I'm from here, my extended family are here and because I didn't want my kids growing up with strange accents! If I didn't have kids I'd be off like a shot.

Instead, of bitching about my salary being cut I've been doing something constructive about it. I may pay VAT in the North, but I pay income tax here (and some VAT) and if all keeps going well I'll be giving someone a few hours work a week after Christmas, with more to follow.

P. Breathnach

bridgitt wrote: »

What about the reason that their taxes are paying you, and you are getting a better pay and pension than they are taking themselves ( and usually for working shorter hours ) ?
Would you be happy to accept the public service salary the vat and taxes paid up north support ?

So tell us, jimmmy: is it okay for private sector people to shop in NI?

MaceFace

TGPS wrote: »

First, I made the conscious decision to come into the Public Service in Ireland 10 years ago having previously worked abroad for an NGO and before that for a "Big Four" accountancy firm back when there was a Big Five.

My pay reduced significantly and the perks completely. I have a very good pension because when I worked in the private and NGO sectors I made proper provisions; my public sector pension here is good, but in terms of benefits it will provide it is a small proportion of my total pension pot.

As for accepting "....the public service salary the vat and taxes paid up north support" - Yes I would gladly accept the salary - it's lower than what I'm on now, but so is VAT. Income taxes are higher, but they have a health service that works, decent community infra-structure and business culture that embraces customer service.

I'm in Ireland, because I'm from here, my extended family are here and because I didn't want my kids growing up with strange accents! If I didn't have kids I'd be off like a shot.

Instead, of bitching about my salary being cut I've been doing something constructive about it. I may pay VAT in the North, but I pay income tax here (and some VAT) and if all keeps going well I'll be giving someone a few hours work a week after Christmas, with more to follow.

Seems like you are just guilty no matter what you say - your crime - working in the PS.

Is there anyone here who has not shopped Up North or Online?
Oh, and if anyone has a problem with shopping outside the jurisdiction, whatabout shopping in Tescos or Argos which are not Irish companies?

Times have changed and no one has a right to complain about anyone spending their money where they like (as long as it is legal of course).

bridgitt

Thank you, but when I asked "Would you be happy to accept the public service salary the vat and taxes paid up north support ? " I meant would you be happy to accept a UK level of salary in your current job, given your employer ( the government ) is broke ?

TGPS wrote: »

I may pay VAT in the North,

Plus the people who sell you the goods pay their income tax, vat etc to the UK exchequer. The money you get in your paypacket ( much of which is borrowed as you know, given the country borrowing 25 billion per year )
goes straight to another country, in to their tax system, to pay their public servants ( all of who earn considerably less than their counterparts south of the border ).

TGPS wrote: »

but I pay income tax here (and some VAT)

The income tax you pay is merely a witholding tax on the money the government pays you. If you earn 100k doing full time permanent government work and pay say 30 k income tax, its the same as if the government gave you 70 k in to your hand to start with.

You are right anyway, because the sooner the IMF move in the better - as said earlier the more people shop up North , and if everyone done their shopping and trade and holidays outside the country, the quicker the country will collapse and government cheques bounce, so you are doing the right thing. I say the " sooner the IMF move in the better ", because most people do not have a good secure income or very good pension.

gurramok

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So tell us, jimmmy: is it okay for private sector people to shop in NI?

Jimmy? Thats a serious allegation of account duplication to get around a ban. How low can one get :eek:

Anyway, yes its grand to go up north for anyone who is NOT on strike.

TGPS

bridgitt wrote: »

Thank you, but when I asked "Would you be happy to accept the public service salary the vat and taxes paid up north support ? " I meant would you be happy to accept a UK level of salary in your current job, given your employer ( the government ) is broke ?.

Yes, I would be happy to accept pay and conditions for the equivalent job in the UK but only if everything else is brought approximately into line with the UK too

bridgitt wrote: »

Plus the people who sell you the goods pay their income tax, vat etc to the UK exchequer. The money you get in your paypacket ( much of which is borrowed as you know, given the country borrowing 25 billion per year )
goes straight to another country, in to their tax system, to pay their public servants ( all of who earn considerably less than their counterparts south of the border )..

Money will always leak out of this economy. If I buy a car, large chunks of the purchase price go outside the country. If I shop in local shops employing foreign nationals a certain amount of what I spend will be remitted back to their families and their country.

That's before you even get to things like holidays, entertainment, a lot of groceries etc.

bridgitt wrote: »

The income tax you pay is merely a witholding tax on the money the government pays you. If you earn 100k doing full time permanent government work and pay say 30 k income tax, its the same as if the government gave you 70 k in to your hand to start with.

You are right anyway, because the sooner the IMF move in the better - as said earlier the more people shop up North , and if everyone done their shopping and trade and holidays outside the country, the quicker the country will collapse and government cheques bounce, so you are doing the right thing. I say the " sooner the IMF move in the better ", because most people do not have a good secure income or very good pension.

"Unfortunately" the IMF won't becoming anywhere near here and the sooner the likes of Kevin Myers etc realise that the sooner we can move on to a more constructive debate. The IMF won't be landing any time soon because the European Commission will intervene long before that becomes necessary.

If businesses want to attract to more business then they should give consumers a reason to shop here. They can only compete on price up to a point because of the cost base I agree, but they could compete on value - except it's the same old story - something goes wrong, they complain and look for a hand out rather than trying to innovate and create.

I started a business 8 months ago and manged to grow it modestly (very modestly!!) - it's hard, but not impossible......

halkar

$hit will really hit the fan once ECB start raising interest rates which has been predicted for next year.
The effect of the the levies, tax increases were minimal with the savings on mortgage interests this year on mortgage holders. I dare to think what will happen in Ireland when rates increase to 3-4% :mad:

Dannyboy83

TGPS wrote: »

I'd happily shop and purchase locally, but Irish businesses have to give me a better reason than the flag.

The flag is a pretty good reason for shopping up North.
If you wish to see reform, then go and get the best value.

Artificially supporting some system now will just lead to a bigger problem further down the line. Kicking the can down the alley for when people have no money.

A fundamental part of reform in this country will comprise of landlords lowering their rents, government reforming their taxes, vat and rates, and a variety of other changes which need to occur, having a cumulative effect.

So if a retailer offers bad value and we adhere to protectionism and "Buy Irish", then we are preventing reform from occurring. That's the last thing we want.
If a retailer here is offering good value and we buy in the North out of spite, then of course it is damaging.

TGPS

halkar wrote: »

$hit will really hit the fan once ECB start raising interest rates which has been predicted for next year.
The effect of the the levies, tax increases were minimal with the savings on mortgage interests this year on mortgage holders. I dare to think what will happen in Ireland when rates increase to 3-4% :mad:

We're on the cusp of a serious deflationary spiral - if rates go up we'll be kicked into it.

At best we can hope for an extended period of stagnation.

P. Breathnach

gurramok wrote: »

Jimmy? Thats a serious allegation of account duplication to get around a ban...

As jimmmy might say if he were here, and as bridgitt might say when he is not here, I made no allegation; I simply addressed another poster in a particular way. Perhaps it was because bridgitt causes me to think of jimmmy.

bbam

BostonB wrote: »

Even the unions have (finally) admitted wage bill has to come down, and the size of the PS shrink.

Thankfully I agree the unions are turning to realise this, I doubt if the next day strike will go ahead...

What I do hope is that PS wage bill is adressed through a graded system of reductions...

We should however worry about front line PS staff numbers being cut, these are rarely the folks draining the money and at least there is a return on their monies.. I hope to see the plethera of middle managers whom have made many sideways moves benig culled off..

This is where the problems are, we don't have too many teachers, guards, firemen, ambulance drivers or nurses...
We have too many pen pushers in shirts and ties walking round like the system would collapse without their presence

P. Breathnach

bbam wrote: »

... We have too many pen pushers in shirts and ties walking round like the system would collapse without their presence

A popular point of view. Maybe you could say how many non-frontline staff we need?

TGPS

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The flag is a pretty good reason for shopping up North.
If you wish to see reform, then go and get the best value.

Artificially supporting some system now will just lead to a bigger problem further down the line. Kicking the can down the alley for when people have no money.

A fundamental part of reform in this country will comprise of landlords lowering their rents, government reforming their taxes, vat and rates, and a variety of other changes which need to occur, having a cumulative effect.

So if a retailer offers bad value and we adhere to protectionism and "Buy Irish", then we are preventing reform from occurring. That's the last thing we want.
If a retailer here is offering good value and we buy in the North out of spite, then of course it is damaging.

As I've said, if a retailer, business offers me value (as I define it) I'll shop there - wherever they are.

I offer two cases. I'm a keen cyclist and last summer bought a fairly high end road bike on the Cycle to Work Scheme (the C2W scheme didn't cover the whole price!!!).

I shopped in the local bike shops here for the bike I wanted and everything was extra - I made a few calls and found the same bike in a shop in Liverpool for about a third cheaper BUT, the Liverpool shop said if I wanted the bike it would take at least 3 hours for them to sell it to me as I'd have to be measured, fitted and observed, then the bike would be tweaked etc until it fit me and my cycling style perfectly. They also offered me free upgrades on a number of components.

If the bike was just a third cheaper I wouldn't take day to fly and get it from Liverpool, but as he was offering a professional bike fitting service and a custom build it was worth it - no bike shop in Ireland offers this totality of service.

Secondly, I bought an electrical appliance at the weekend - priced it up online and went to the local (and locally owned) shop to see if they could match the UK price - they couldn't even come close but I still bought from them because they came close enough (within 25%); they sponsor the local sports team on which one of my kids plays; and they threw in free delivery (even if it was only 5 miles down the road).

Customer service doesn't cost much - is it less expensive to provide it in the UK than here?

bbam

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A popular point of view. Maybe you could say how many non-frontline staff we need?

Six..

Seriously though, the last thing we need is a reduction in actual service while there are redundant duplicated positions left in tact. It's common knowledge for example that when the health boards were combined to form the HSE there was not the required reduction in staff numbers that could have been made, nor were there serious levels of redeployment..

This isn't a scenario unique to the public sector either..

Dannyboy83

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A popular point of view. Maybe you could say how many non-frontline staff we need?

A good point and a good question.
Impossible to answer from my point of view of course as I don't have the necessary information.

But I could give two examples which I heard on RTE last year, offered by public servants who were exasperated at the barriers to their work.

First example:
Many public servants were sitting in any office.
Daylight savings had come into effect.
One worker wanted to adjust the clock.
The worker was warned not to do so.
They clock has to be adjusted by the necessary engineer, else it could lead to a demarcation dispute.

Now I realize that this is a tricky area, and there are no hard and fast answers when it come to demarcation and H&S etc.
But the above example would seem to highlight a complete, total and utter lack of effort (common sense aside) on behalf of the people who make these decisions, to encourage productivity/cost saving.
The on-site managers must have some discretion with the rules.

A manager who does have discretion and cannot employ it in this situation should be demoted or retrained.

Second example:
A worker in the HSE was tired of taking flak, so they rang up complaining about toilet paper. In order to 'release' toilet paper, two managers were required to sign off on it.
That seems like a sensible decision when it comes to expensive items.
There must, however, be some method to distinguish between a laser printer and a roll of toilet paper. Again lack of common sense and effort with the rules/legislation.

I don't blame the public sector workers for lack of productivity in those cases, that would drive anyone insane. Equally it protects the lazy.

BostonB

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

And why do you object to this?
Is it an unreasonable comparison?

Duplication of threads. It the same issue again and again...

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I've never heard the "Fat Cat's being untouched" ever voiced as a reason for striking by any individual on strike. It has been a preemptive strike to prevent expense reduction in the public sector.
...

The reason why people strike are varied. The opinion that people don't feel the banks, developers, and politicans are taking their share of the cuts has often been expressed. I'm surprised you've not heard that.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't necessarily believe there is a campaign. I don't believe that the government are capable of orchestrating one.

I'd agree. Seems like theres an agenda though. If the schools are off, only public sector workers go shopping, and then mainly in the north, if you were to believe the media. Similar spin on other stories too. THat story was originally reported as being families going shopping and quickly changed to PS workers and no mention of kids or families. No mention that its the same on other school holidays like the Dec 8th.

Then you get umpteen threads about the same thing on the boards. If this was about iPhones it would be merged into one thread by now.

BostonB

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A good point and a good question.
Impossible to answer from my point of view of course as I don't have the necessary information.

But I could give two examples which I heard on RTE last year, offered by public servants who were exasperated at the barriers to their work.

First example:
Many public servants were sitting in any office.
Daylight savings had come into effect.
One worker wanted to adjust the clock.
The worker was warned not to do so.
They clock has to be adjusted by the necessary engineer, else it could lead to a demarcation dispute.

Now I realize that this is a tricky area, and there are no hard and fast answers when it come to demarcation and H&S etc.
But the above example would seem to highlight a complete, total and utter lack of effort (common sense aside) on behalf of the people who make these decisions, to encourage productivity/cost saving.
The on-site managers must have some discretion with the rules.

Second example:
A worker in the HSE was tired of taking flak, so they rang up complaining about toilet paper. In order to 'release' toilet paper, two managers were required to sign off on it.
That seems like a sensible decision when it comes to expensive items.
There must, however, be some method to distinguish between a laser printer and a roll of toilet paper. Again lack of common sense and effort with the rules/legislation.

I don't blame the public sector workers for lack of productivity in those cases, that would drive anyone insane. Equally it protects the lazy.

Is this any different than there being 4 managers on the floor on PC World/Atlantic and none of them will man a till. Or dealing with Dell or NTL and getting nowhere until you peel the layers of support until you get to someone who will use common sense. According to some these companies should have gone bust years ago because bad service, inefficiency can't happen in the private sector.

P. Breathnach

bbam wrote: »

Six..

Seriously though, the last thing we need is a reduction in actual service while there are redundant duplicated positions left in tact. It's common knowledge for example that when the health boards were combined to form the HSE there was not the required reduction in staff numbers that could have been made, nor were there serious levels of redeployment..

This isn't a scenario unique to the public sector either..

I recognise that there seems to be a problem with the HSE (note that I said "seems"; I don't know enough to make an informed judgement of my own).

On the other hand, the delivery of frontline services needs to be organised and supported. In general, the people who do the work of backing up the frontline services do not themselves operate in the front line.

For example, all but the smallest schools have a non-teaching principal, and all schools have secretaries; is this reasonable? Is it reasonable for a local authority to employ people to keep the financial records? Is it reasonable for the civil service to employ people to develop policy and draft legislation?

My point is that if that good front line service needs good back office services. It is not reasonable to say that we need one, but don't want the other.

I do not object to people pointing to things that are excessive, unnecessary, wasteful, or ineffective. I am in favour of improvement where it is possible. But blanket comments tend to be unfair on many good people who are doing valuable work. Some of those good people are the "faceless bureaucrats" that commentators of a tabloid-press mindset are so fond of condemning.

Euro_Kraut

I very much buy into Freidman’s Permanent Income Hypothesis. Public Sector workers (and others) should rationally be expecting a pay cut and probably have already begun to reduce spending according.

TGPS

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A good point and a good question.
Impossible to answer from my point of view of course as I don't have the necessary information.

But I could give two examples which I heard on RTE last year, offered by public servants who were exasperated at the barriers to their work.

First example:
Many public servants were sitting in any office.
Daylight savings had come into effect.
One worker wanted to adjust the clock.
The worker was warned not to do so.
They clock has to be adjusted by the necessary engineer, else it could lead to a demarcation dispute.

Now I realize that this is a tricky area, and there are no hard and fast answers when it come to demarcation and H&S etc.
But the above example would seem to highlight a complete, total and utter lack of effort (common sense aside) on behalf of the people who make these decisions, to encourage productivity/cost saving.
The on-site managers must have some discretion with the rules.

Second example:
A worker in the HSE was tired of taking flak, so they rang up complaining about toilet paper. In order to 'release' toilet paper, two managers were required to sign off on it.
That seems like a sensible decision when it comes to expensive items.
There must, however, be some method to distinguish between a laser printer and a roll of toilet paper. Again lack of common sense and effort with the rules/legislation.

I don't blame the public sector workers for lack of productivity in those cases, that would drive anyone insane. Equally it protects the lazy.

I'd like to make a couple of points - one serious, one relatively trivial.

First, on the clock issue (trivial point!!) - we're based in a building and we're not allowed touch stuff like that because of the lease - it's bonkers I know, but it's nothing to do with demarcation, it's to do with the landlord!

Secondly, I know loads of managers like myself who know exactly what needs to be done in terms of reform, know how to go about doing it and have the stomach for it. But, the senior management and leadership of the Civil and Public Service are, by-and-large, resistant to such change.

If I were the Sec Gen in the Department of Finance I'd look to put all Assistant Principal Officers and above on to 5 year renewable contracts with renewal based on clear reform criteria, including targets for workforce reduction from the top to the bottom and re-deployment across and between all elements of the Civil and Public Service, HSE, Local Authorities etc

If you want to put a figure on the reduction - in my own organisation I'd say there's scope for at least a 25% reduction in staff numbers, including 2 directors.

Finally, this fiction that there are and have been no redundancies in the public service needs to be addressed. In my own organisation we've reduced staffing by 10% by not renewing contracts for staff. There'll be further reductions at the end of each month until next April as no one is having their contracts renewed - by that time we'll have lost about 20% of our staff (based on the head count this time last year) - but there's still some more we could trim, if we were allowed drop certain areas of work.

Euro_Kraut

TGPS wrote: »

I didn't strike on Tuesday because I believed that industrial action in this case was morally and ethically unjustifiable.

Your Union voted in favour though. I too voted against the action but was happy to respect the democratic will of my work collegues. If you are not willing to stand by the vote of your fellow members than you should not be in the Union.

The Union could expell you for this. Alternativly you probably should consider leaving.

TGPS

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My point is that if that good front line service needs good back office services. It is not reasonable to say that we need one, but don't want the other.

This is a good point, but my experience would suggest that there is huge scope for rationalisation - the building I'm normally in houses 3 different public sector bodies - is there any reason why we couldn't share HR, Finance and IT functions (tecnology issues aside).

Likewise with schools - especially in cities couldn't they share services?

the list goes on - local authorities and VEC's etc.

Significant savings (and service improvements) would be possible if we regionalised more - we don't need 30 odd local authorities, a similar number of VECs, FAS offices in every town, multiple Teagasc stations in every county etc.....etc....

P. Breathnach

BostonB wrote: »

Is this any different than there being 4 managers on the floor on PC World/Atlantic and none of them will man a till. Or dealing with Dell or NTL and getting nowhere until you peel the layers of support until you get to someone who will use common sense. According to some these companies should have gone bust years ago because bad service, inefficiency can't happen in the private sector.

Inefficiency in the private sector (and your examples are oh-so-familiar to me) is not a justification for inefficiency in the public sector.

But you make a fair point. We put up with crap from private sector organisations, and don't make as great a song and dance about it as we do about a similar degree of crap from the public service. And before people come in to say that with the private sector we are free to take our business elsewhere, let me point out that many people don't: they put up with the crap. Ryanair has institutionalised the idea of crap service, and people take it. Some people even consider Michael O'Leary a hero although his business model involves treating people badly.

TGPS

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Your Union voted in favour though. I too voted against the action but was happy to respect the democratic will of my work collegues. If you are not willing to stand by the vote of your fellow members than you should not be in the Union.

The Union could expell you for this. Alternativly you probably should consider leaving.

Who says I haven't?

I considered the ballot, voted accordingly and when it went the other way I resigned my AHCPS membership for two reasons - first I didn't believe a day of action was justifiable and secondly the threats being used to whip members into line were suggestive of an organisation that didn't have full control of its membership leading me to wonder if the hearts of individual members were actually in it.

bbam

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I do not object to people pointing to things that are excessive, unnecessary, wasteful, or ineffective. I am in favour of improvement where it is possible. But blanket comments tend to be unfair on many good people who are doing valuable work. Some of those good people are the "faceless bureaucrats" that commentators of a tabloid-press mindset are so fond of condemning.

I didn't say we don't need managment within the public sector, nor did I mean to imply that there are no effective managers there..
My point was that there are excessive numbers of middle managment positions which could well be done without rather than less teachers etc..

Personally I would rather see a reduction in wages and redeployment of headcount, than redundancies. We need to reduce the cost and maintain or improve the service provided.

Euro_Kraut

TGPS wrote: »

Who says I haven't?

Me. Because I presumed so.

I considered the ballot, voted accordingly and when it went the other way I resigned my AHCPS membership for two reasons - first I didn't believe a day of action was justifiable and secondly the threats being used to whip members into line were suggestive of an organisation that didn't have full control of its membership leading me to wonder if the hearts of individual members were actually in it.

Fair enough.

TGPS

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Some people even consider Michael O'Leary a hero although his business model involves treating people badly.

I'd say his model is more about creating rules for people to trip over after which he charges you to be picked up:)

bbam wrote: »

I didn't say we don't need managment within the public sector, nor did I mean to imply that there are no effective managers there..
My point was that there are excessive numbers of middle managment positions which could well be done without rather than less teachers etc..

Personally I would rather see a reduction in wages and redeployment of headcount, than redundancies. We need to reduce the cost and maintain or improve the service provided.

there's no point in singling out middle management - all levels are bloated in the Civil and Public Service - there needs to be both wage reduction and redundancies as well as redeployment.

There also needs to be a culture of accountability - having loads of Guards, Teachers and Nurses is useless if they are crap. It shoudn't be easy to fire someone, but it shouldn't be as difficult as it currently is to remove someone who is rubbish at their job and taking the p1$$.

Dannyboy83

BostonB wrote: »

Duplication of threads. It the same issue again and again...

I agree there is massive duplication of threads, and there is an annoying trend for a topic about beans to be diverted into a public v private war, but I've not seen this particular comparison I've made anywhere else on the board and I thought it would be a new angle and should be an interesting thread.
I'm trying to avoid covering the same territory myself, but I cannot do anything about those, on either side, who are so enraged that they may feel compelled to sway every thread.

Would you mind if I put the original question to you?

Public or private, it doesn't matter. Some private workers are in favour of strikes and long term borrowing also and against the idea of reducing expenses. The world is not so black and white of course, and they are entitled to their opinion, wheter I disagree is irrelevant, although I don't deny that I would like to convince them that cuts are in the best interest of the nation.

Personally speaking, I'm in the private sector and I have favoured reducing my expenses. I don't see borrowing as a viable option for me, especially as my girlfriend was refused welfare on the means test, but I also have slightly more maneuverability as I didn't buy into the property pyramid (or rather wasn't able to would be a better description).

The reason why people strike are varied. The opinion that people don't feel the banks, developers, and politicans are taking their share of the cuts has often been expressed. I'm surprised you've not heard that.

Genuinely, I have not.
Again, it reflects terribly on the campaign led by the unions that they have not been able to communicate even the core reasons for the strike. The central issue as far as I have heard it, has been the question of cuts.
I've not heard any leader or spokesperson say they would be willing to accept cuts, if similar reform was thrust upon the ministers.
This to me would be the most favourable action and I would have been sympathetic to strikes in that instance.
The line they took caused division and polarisation, on the motive of greed.
An imbecile would have been capable of uniting the public against the ministers on the grounds of reform.
Thus I am confused as to why the Union leaders led such a silly campaign.

I'd agree. Seems like theres an agenda though. If the schools are off, only public sector workers go shopping, and then mainly in the north, if you were to believe the media. Similar spin on other stories too. THat story was originally reported as being families going shopping and quickly changed to PS workers and no mention of kids or families. No mention that its the same on other school holidays like the Dec 8th.

I've witnessed speeches by union leaders on live television.
The message to me was consistent and it was not " cuts in return for reform", but "No cuts under any circumstances, one out, all out".
Therefore, I feel the union leaders have only themselves to blame for a terribly poor campaign/performance.

If there is an agenda, I believe it is the union leaders who have the agenda.
The union leaders seemed to conduct the campaign in the most likely way to stir up anger and least likely way to garner sympathy.
Given the relationship they've had with the decision makers over the last 12 years, it makes me suspicious as to wheter they sold out.
Perhaps they are simply incompetent tho.

Euro_Kraut

TGPS wrote: »

There also needs to be a culture of accountability - having loads of Guards, Teachers and Nurses is useless if they are crap. It shoudn't be easy to fire someone, but it shouldn't be as difficult as it currently is to remove someone who is rubbish at their job and taking the p1$$.

The difficulty is that the metric for success in this area of Govt Policy has been staff numbers. The main parties over the past ten years would promise 15,000 Guards or 20,000 nurses; rather than better policing or better health care. An input became the target, rather than an output.

bbam

BostonB wrote: »

Is this any different than there being 4 managers on the floor on PC World/Atlantic and none of them will man a till. Or dealing with Dell or NTL and getting nowhere until you peel the layers of support until you get to someone who will use common sense. According to some these companies should have gone bust years ago because bad service, inefficiency can't happen in the private sector.

Yes there is a major difference...
In general companies whom run inefficient poor quality services will go out of business or rationalise when things get tough, wage cuts or redundancies, I need not point out that this is wholesale at the moment..

In the public sector inefficient departments just suck up more and more of a dwindling kitty of available money in the public purse. And when things get tough expect that nothing happens...

If you can't see the difference ??

Mcloke

MaceFace wrote: »

Is there anyone here who has not shopped Up North or Online?
Oh, and if anyone has a problem with shopping outside the jurisdiction, whatabout shopping in Tescos or Argos which are not Irish companies?

Times have changed and no one has a right to complain about anyone spending their money where they like (as long as it is legal of course).

Add Lidl, Aldi, Debenhams, Homebase, B&Q, Halfords, JJB and I could go on :rolleyes:

Little old Ireland needs to wake up and realise that Irish people have at last realised how much piss taking was going on here...yes we have higher vat rates (well done FF) and staffing rates (private sector) but we are in the EU which allows us to freely purchase goods from within the EU....do you honestly expect us to pay so much more for stuff if we don't need to?
I don't shop up north as it is just not realistic in relation to where I live but I am not against those who do. I shop online a great deal....why because Ireland cannot or will not compete....competition is a foreign concept! When I buy via amazon they add on the VAT difference on goods that it is applicable to so I am paying the VAT but I am not paying an Irish retailer an extra €50 just for the hell of it!

TGPS

I understand the metrics but if we've to have 15,000 Guards or a certain pupil teacher raitio - that's fine, but it doesn't mean we have to keep what we've got.

If someone is taken on at the moment they're pretty much immune from being let go for incompetence - that needs to change. We can still have our 15,000 Guards - they'll just be better Guards!

TGPS

bbam wrote: »

Yes there is a major difference...
In general companies whom run inefficient poor quality services will go out of business or rationalise when things get tough, wage cuts or redundancies, I need not point out that this is wholesale at the moment..

In the public sector inefficient departments just suck up more and more of a dwindling kitty of available money in the public purse. And when things get tough expect that nothing happens...

If you can't see the difference ??

"In general companies whom run inefficient poor quality services will go out of business......."

........unless you have the word "Bank" in the company title