Have the Public Servants won the dispute?

dvpower

This proposal has been floating around for a few days now and looks to be gaining traction.

rte.ie wrote:

Compulsory unpaid leave of between ten and 14 days per year has been suggested as a temporary alternative.

This is reckoned to be worth about €850m in savings - well on the way to the €1.3bn.

This would seem to represent a victory of sorts for the public servants; they get to hold onto basic pay rates albeit on reduced hours.

But, how would this proposal work? Close down schools and public offices for 10 - 14 days? Reduce services across the board? Surely if it is possible to retain the current level of services with less days worked, a programme of redundancies would be a better alternative?

Thoughts?

seclachi

dvpower wrote: »

This proposal has been floating around for a few days now and looks to be gaining traction.



This is reckoned to be worth about €850m in savings - well on the way to the €1.3bn.

This would seem to represent a victory of sorts for the public servants; they get to hold onto basic pay rates albeit on reduced hours.

But, how would this proposal work? Close down schools and public offices for 10 - 14 days? Reduce services across the board? Surely if it is possible to retain the current level of services with less days worked, a programme of redundancies would be a better alternative?

Thoughts?

At first I thought it was a good idea, but the more I think about it the more stupid it seems to me. In the middle of a recession you need more from your workers not less. Combine this break with the recruitment ban and trickle losses from retirement etc and all of a sudden you have an over stretched public service. Its no good compromise for simply cutting job jobs in the areas they can afford to be lost or a paycut (even though that drops productivity, while job losses increases it).

P. Breathnach

I think the idea won't run, especially in health and education, which are two of the biggest components of the public service.

It might be used in a few areas as a contribution to reducing public sector pay, but as a relatively small one.

damo

No, they havent won anthing. They are coming crashing back down to the real world, kicking and screaming, and it will continue for years to come.

Scenario one: Their pay and pensions will be clawed back to a realistic level with continuous cuts over the next 3-4 years at the direction of the ECB.

Scenario two: Their pay and pensions, and staff numbers, will be viciously hammered down to a realistic level overnight by the IMF.

These latest cuts are just the beginning.

Drawing Dead

dvpower wrote: »

This proposal has been floating around for a few days now and looks to be gaining traction.



This is reckoned to be worth about €850m in savings - well on the way to the €1.3bn.

This would seem to represent a victory of sorts for the public servants; they get to hold onto basic pay rates albeit on reduced hours.

But, how would this proposal work? Close down schools and public offices for 10 - 14 days? Reduce services across the board? Surely if it is possible to retain the current level of services with less days worked, a programme of redundancies would be a better alternative?

Thoughts?

the union heads will tell their members to except it, then they'll go on strike again in the summer because they decide they don't like unpaid leave, and some workers wont want to take compulsory leave as they'll want to earn extra money.

if the unions get away with this it will show, yet again, how spineless, rudderless and incompetent our government is.

this is just another short term solution without addressing the real problem of overhauling the public service and getting it to work efficiently.

Dannyboy83

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think the idea won't run, especially in health and education, which are two of the biggest components of the public service.

It might be used in a few areas as a contribution to reducing public sector pay, but as a relatively small one.

No idea aboute quiet time in other sectors, but in school, they could have an extra week in summer and at xmas.

I guess this would wreak havoc on parents tho, so its questionable.

Edit:
What are the chances they would implement it in health/gardai (two of the higher paid areas which most saving can be made), then decide its a mistake and hire more people to fill the downtime.
Quite high I'd say, given their track record.
All in the program for government I'd say - there you go Greens.

BroomBurner

As a member of the PS, I will not be accepting compulsory unpaid leave. That would be entirely ridiculous.

It could only really work in Education, i.e. do not pay for two weeks during the summer months, or pay summer months as a 3 or 4 day week, as opposed to taking it all in one go.

However, for other departments, I don't see how it would be practical.

seclachi

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

No idea aboute quiet time in other sectors, but in school, they could have an extra week in summer and at xmas.

I guess this would wreak havoc on parents tho, so its questionable.

Edit:
What are the chances they would implement it in health/gardai (two of the higher paid areas which most saving can be made), then decide its a mistake and hire more people to fill the downtime.
Quite high I'd say, given their track record.
All in the program for government I'd say - there you go Greens.

Surely in schools they can just take it out of there 3 month holidays ?

P. Breathnach

BroomBurner wrote: »

As a member of the PS, I will not be accepting compulsory unpaid leave. That would be entirely ridiculous.

It could only really work in Education, i.e. do not pay for two weeks during the summer months, or pay summer months as a 3 or 4 day week, as opposed to taking it all in one go.

However, for other departments, I don't see how it would be practical.

Yet another case of wishing the problem on to the backs of others!

HollyB

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What are the chances they would implement it in health/gardai (two of the higher paid areas which most saving can be made), then decide its a mistake and hire more people to fill the downtime.
Quite high I'd say, given their track record.

At least that'd mean more people employed instead of left on the dole, but I'd say that for the gardaí and frontline health services, they'll probably have to find a way of cutting costs in terms of overtime/allowances/etc. instead. If overtime is to be paid at flat rate instead of time and a half, it's not going to be as attractive as before.

Education will be a difficult one - secondary schools are only open for 167 days a year and primary schools for 183 days as it is. Two weeks would represent 6% of the secondary school year and 5.5% of the primary school year. For working parents of primary school children, it would mean additional childcare costs for the weeks when their children are out of school.

I wonder if they'll convert training days into unpaid leave or something.

BroomBurner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yet another case of wishing the problem on to the backs of others!

How was that wishing the problem on to the backs of others?? I just stated an obvious fact, it would be workable in Education more so than any other department due to the 2/3 month summer holidays where teachers, etc. receive a wage while not actually working. If someone can provide other departments were this would also be similarly as easy as Education, then please, say so.

Actually, as an aside, I think it may be time to start treating each Department as separate entities, including it's staff, budgets, etc. Stop the blanketing exercise that is going on.

AntiRip

BroomBurner wrote: »

As a member of the PS, I will not be accepting compulsory unpaid leave. That would be entirely ridiculous.

I have nothing at all against you but I take your point about it not been practical in some areas but I had to accept 3 weeks off already this year and the possibility of an extra week after christmas. I've no choice.

Also last year i was working the same shift as i am now, days/nights/evenings and had a 25% premium. Now they're only paying me 13% and I have to work an extra 2.5 hours a week also. Again no choice.

Why can't the PS get the Fu@k into the real world! They won't even consider 7%. Maybe I should have went to the ranting forum, but up to now I've had no opinion of the PS but some of the comments make me very angry. And trust me I'm very placid in "real life" but c'mon ffs.

Regards to all

otwb

BroomBurner wrote: »

How was that wishing the problem on to the backs of others?? I just stated an obvious fact, it would be workable in Education more so than any other department due to the 2/3 month summer holidays where teachers, etc. receive a wage while not actually working. If someone can provide other departments were this would also be similarly as easy as Education, then please, say so.

Well pretty much any (cs) department could put people on four day weeks on a rotational basis and it would work. I see your point with regard to public sector front line staff though. Don't pay teachers for a month of their summer holidays fine enough, but how do you get around that with Gardai and nurses? You'd just end up paying overtime / hiring agency staff. The only option here would be not to pay people for their holiday days above the statuary minimum...but I can't see anyone agreeing to that one!

The whole concept of unpaid leave isn't going to deliver what we actually need...which are wage cuts to reduce costs across the board and allow the country to compete in an international market. Cutting hours and not pay is not the answer, thats just maintaining the status quo and leading to further trouble in the long term.

I'm a public sector worker, not in a union, and I'd prefer to take a pay cut and get on with life than to have the threat of further industrial action hanging over me. Yes. I was in work last Tuesday, and I will be on Thursday as well. Lets just get on with life and get the country working again.

BroomBurner

AntiRip wrote: »

I have nothing at all against you but I take your point about it not been practical in some areas but I had to accept 3 weeks off already this year and the possibility of an extra week after christmas. I've no choice.

Also last year i was working the same shift as i am now, days/nights/evenings and had a 25% premium. Now they're only paying me 13% and I have to work an extra 2.5 hours a week also. Again no choice.

Why can't the PS get the Fu@k into the real world! They won't even consider 7%. Maybe I should have went to the ranting forum, but up to now I've had no opinion of the PS but some of the comments make me very angry. And trust me I'm very placid in "real life" but c'mon ffs.

Regards to all

Antirip, I never said anything about being against paycuts. They are a separate issue, and I've made my feelings well known on pay in the PS here on Boards, so not going to repeat myself.

What I meant by my taking 2 weeks off is that, in my job, it would just not work. There are plenty of similar areas in the PS where someone taking 2 weeks off unpaid would just not work, it's not feasible. Hence, my comment on Education being the simplest department to enact this.

P. Breathnach

BroomBurner wrote: »

How was that wishing the problem on to the backs of others?? I just stated an obvious fact, it would be workable in Education more so than any other department due to the 2/3 month summer holidays where teachers, etc. receive a wage while not actually working. If someone can provide other departments were this would also be similarly as easy as Education, then please, say so.

Actually, as an aside, I think it may be time to start treating each Department as separate entities, including it's staff, budgets, etc. Stop the blanketing exercise that is going on.

Your core message is "don't touch me; take money from teachers, but give them nothing for it". So you want them to take the burden while you don't.

BroomBurner

otwb wrote: »

Well pretty much any (cs) department could put people on four day weeks on a rotational basis and it would work. I see your point with regard to public sector front line staff though. Don't pay teachers for a month of their summer holidays fine enough, but how do you get around that with Gardai and nurses? You'd just end up paying overtime / hiring agency staff. The only option here would be not to pay people for their holiday days above the statuary minimum...but I can't see anyone agreeing to that one!

The whole concept of unpaid leave isn't going to deliver what we actually need...which are wage cuts to reduce costs across the board and allow the country to compete in an international market. Cutting hours and not pay is not the answer, thats just maintaining the status quo and leading to further trouble in the long term.

I'm a public sector worker, not in a union, and I'd prefer to take a pay cut and get on with life than to have the threat of further industrial action hanging over me. Yes. I was in work last Tuesday, and I will be on Thursday as well. Lets just get on with life and get the country working again.

That's pretty much exactly what my thinking is on it. Some cases, it's just not practical at all.

4 day weeks could work otherwise, for a limited amount of time, in order to make up the two weeks.

I would prefer, however, if they tackled the pay/increments issue however instead. Stopgap measures are useless, and that's what the "two weeks unpaid leave" is.

BroomBurner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your core message is "don't touch me; take money from teachers, but give them nothing for it". So you want them to take the burden while you don't.

You clearly misunderstood the concept of what I was saying. Try reading it again.

Wheety

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your core message is "don't touch me; take money from teachers, but give them nothing for it". So you want them to take the burden while you don't.

Are you on a windup or did you not read his post properly?

AntiRip

BroomBurner wrote: »

Antirip, I never said anything about being against paycuts. They are a separate issue, and I've made my feelings well known on pay in the PS here on Boards, so not going to repeat myself.

What I meant by my taking 2 weeks off is that, in my job, it would just not work. There are plenty of similar areas in the PS where someone taking 2 weeks off unpaid would just not work, it's not feasible. Hence, my comment on Education being the simplest department to enact this.

No problem, sorry broomburner. Just peed off with paycuts myself

hmmm

If an argument is made that this can be implemented with no diminution of services, it means that the PS is overstaffed and numbers should be reduced. If they say it will impact on services then the cost overwhelmingly falls on the users of the services (longer waiting lists, more crime etc etc). The other scenario is where they have to hire in people to cover for those on unpaid leave which makes no sense.

This is a farcical idea and yet another cop out from the Government (the people who are supposed to run the country, not the unions).

gerry28

I certainly won't consider it a success if i have to give up 10 to 14 days pay.

Sarn

In order to minimise the impact on services it would need to be spread out over the year. In my case my work would still be sitting on my desk when I got back. Another problem I see with 10 - 14 days unpaid leave is the chance that people would just end up working overtime (where available) to catch up and thus reduce the effectiveness of the measure.

Perhaps this could be factored into sick leave. Essentially people wouldn't be paid for their sick leave up to 14 days. The same conditions of providing certs where necessary would be required, but at least it would minimise the impact on services, as that person would have been absent regardless. If someone doesn't take sick leave then mandatory unpaid leave would be taken as normal.

Firetrap

Depends how you look at it. The unions seem to be trying their utmost to keep the pay scales intact. If public servants get straightforward pay cuts, their salaries drop back and it will take them some time to to get back to where they were in 2009. On the other hand, if compulsory unpaid leave comes in, it would be a more temporary measure.

Two haircuts to a public servant's salary in the space of a year. Who'd have thunk it

Wishbone Ash

Sarn wrote: »

In my case my work would still be sitting on my desk when I got back

Sarn wrote:

Another problem I see with 10 - 14 days unpaid leave is the chance that people would just end up working overtime (where available) to catch up and thus reduce the effectiveness of the measure

Yes - a world of difference compared those who work in essential 24hr services. At the moment, in my area, because of the moratorium and retirements/resignations, we are utilising approx. 300hrs of overtime PER DAY just to maintain very basic services. It's becoming increasing difficult to get staff to do overtime so unpaid leave is simply out of the question.

HollyB

Sarn wrote: »

In order to minimise the impact on services it would need to be spread out over the year. In my case my work would still be sitting on my desk when I got back. Another problem I see with 10 - 14 days unpaid leave is the chance that people would just end up working overtime (where available) to catch up and thus reduce the effectiveness of the measure.

I'd say that the best thing to do would be to treat it similarly to annual leave. Decide at the start of the year how many days are going to be taken from people in different departments/sections - some places may be able to absorb 16 days without serious disruption, others would be hard-pressed to cope with 10 or 12 - and adjust pay accordingly. After that, the person has an unpaid leave allowance to be taken whenever they want to, subject to approval from their line manager to ensure appropriate cover in the section.

Sections where there's a lot of claim processing would probably see an additional delay since, as you say, the work isn't going to disappear. The backlogs will increase by a week or two.

One potential problem I could see is with annual leave. People are going to take their unpaid leave first, if it's to be treated as an allowance, because they're not going to be able to get a refund for unpaid leave that they didn't take, so people who are in a situation where they were carrying forward a few days because they weren't able to take all of their annual leave before will find themselves with a few weeks to carry forward and by the third year*, they could have a lot of extra leave built up.



* In the civil service, the rule is that annual leave can be carried forward for a maximum of two years. By the end of the third year, all leave has to be used up. I don't know what the situation is in other areas of the public sector.

Wishbone Ash

HollyB wrote: »

In the civil service, the rule is that annual leave can be carried forward for a maximum of two years. By the end of the third year, all leave has to be used up. I don't know what the situation is in other areas of the public sector.

In my area, it has to be finished by 8am on the first Saturday in April.

AL can only be brought into the following year in very exceptional circumstances and has to be authorised at a very senior level.

P. Breathnach

BroomBurner wrote: »

You clearly misunderstood the concept of what I was saying. Try reading it again.

I read it again. You said

It could only really work in Education, i.e. do not pay for two weeks during the summer months, or pay summer months as a 3 or 4 day week, as opposed to taking it all in one go.

No matter what way I look at it, it seems to say that teachers should get less pay without doing less work. How did I misunderstand it?

dvpower

gerry28 wrote: »

I certainly won't consider it a success if i have to give up 10 to 14 days pay.

If its a choice between 14 days unpaid leave and 14 days cut to basic pay (with no extra time off) then you might reconsider.

If you are forced to take short time working, you will likely get these days back over time. It would be hard to envisage any future new recruitment while existing employees are on short time. If a cut to basic pay is imposed, getting that back will take years.

If I was a public servant, I'd be biting the hand off the government for offering this.

NiteOwl2

Seriously, we are supposed to believe that the government can't afford to pay the Christmas bonus, or overtime for public servants, or vaccination for cervical cancer...but they can afford €54 billion to banks, €750 million for the Port Tunnel (tendered for €450 million, and the government paid an extra €300 million without batting an eyelid), €250 million (and still rising) cost of the P-PARS system for the Health boards, €52 million on electronic voting machines and €800,000 per annum to store the machines, €14 million to Murray consultants to front the "Yes to Lisbon" campaign, etc.

The government is doing a "divide and conquer" strategy between the Private and Public sector, and people are lapping it up. What we need to do now is contact our local Green candidates and urge them to pull out of government now.

Taxipete29

NiteOwl2 wrote: »

Seriously, we are supposed to believe that the government can't afford to pay the Christmas bonus, or overtime for public servants, or vaccination for cervical cancer...but they can afford €54 billion to banks, €750 million for the Port Tunnel (tendered for €450 million, and the government paid an extra €300 million without batting an eyelid), €250 million (and still rising) cost of the P-PARS system for the Health boards, €52 million on electronic voting machines and €800,000 per annum to store the machines, €14 million to Murray consultants to front the "Yes to Lisbon" campaign, etc.

The government is doing a "divide and conquer" strategy between the Private and Public sector, and people are lapping it up. What we need to do now is contact our local Green candidates and urge them to pull out of government now.

You would have a better chance of getting FF backbenchers in vulnerable seats to reject the budget than you would the Greens. They had their chance and blew it.

SkepticOne

NiteOwl2 wrote: »

What we need to do now is contact our local Green candidates and urge them to pull out of government now.

The time to do that was when the greens were meeting over the NAMA issue a couple of months ago where they overwhelmingly voted in favour of NAMA. There is little chance of them pulling out now before the next election.

gurramok

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You would have a better chance of getting FF backbenchers in vulnerable seats to reject the budget than you would the Greens. They had their chance and blew it.

Yeh right. Pandering to a minority of the population at the expense of the vast majority. Won't work.

deise48

damo wrote: »

No, they havent won anthing. They are coming crashing back down to the real world, kicking and screaming, and it will continue for years to come.

Scenario one: Their pay and pensions will be clawed back to a realistic level with continuous cuts over the next 3-4 years at the direction of the ECB.

Scenario two: Their pay and pensions, and staff numbers, will be viciously hammered down to a realistic level overnight by the IMF.

These latest cuts are just the beginning.

realistic level? what are you on about

Barname

dvpower wrote: »

This proposal has been floating around for a few days now and looks to be gaining traction.



This is reckoned to be worth about €850m in savings - well on the way to the €1.3bn.

This would seem to represent a victory of sorts for the public servants; they get to hold onto basic pay rates albeit on reduced hours.

But, how would this proposal work? Close down schools and public offices for 10 - 14 days? Reduce services across the board? Surely if it is possible to retain the current level of services with less days worked, a programme of redundancies would be a better alternative?

Thoughts?

Who is in charge? It appears the Unions run this bankrupt kip for their own gain.

Union leaders sat on the Boards of the Central Bank, FAS etc they turned a blind eye to the recklessness of the bertie bubble as they were simultaneously fleecing the tax coffers

If the 'days off' deal is struck 'services' will be decimated, but once again the Unions DONT CARE

if cowen had a pair he would simply state that he as Taoiseach of this bankrupt kip is actually in charge and that he will slash PS/CS pay as required

but this is cowardly cowen we are talking about. this place is fugged.

MaceFace

Barname wrote: »

if cowen had a pair he would simply state that he as Taoiseach of this bankrupt kip is actually in charge and that he will slash PS/CS pay as required
.

How great would it be to hear him use those exact words!

Dickerty

NiteOwl2 wrote: »

Seriously, we are supposed to believe that the government can't afford to pay the Christmas bonus, or overtime for public servants, or vaccination for cervical cancer...but they can afford €54 billion to banks, €750 million for the Port Tunnel (tendered for €450 million, and the government paid an extra €300 million without batting an eyelid), €250 million (and still rising) cost of the P-PARS system for the Health boards, €52 million on electronic voting machines and €800,000 per annum to store the machines, €14 million to Murray consultants to front the "Yes to Lisbon" campaign, etc.

Most of those were things done when we had money, there is really no point in dwelling on the past now.

And I am a bit sick of the banks bailout discussion - whether through NAMA or nationalisation, we were always going to fork out to the banks. It is not part of our National Debt, so it is not a factor in this.

TGPS

I don't have a problem with this proposal.

If it is a victory it's very much a pyrrhic one, but it allows all concerned to save face - unions can claim there's been no dimunition of salary and government can claim they've reduced the public pay bill. The most important thing is the EU and international markets don't see it as a fudge and it actually generates the promised savings.

MaceFace

TGPS wrote: »

I don't have a problem with this proposal.

If it is a victory it's very much a pyrrhic one, but it allows all concerned to save face - unions can claim there's been no dimunition of salary and government can claim they've reduced the public pay bill. The most important thing is the EU and international markets don't see it as a fudge and it actually generates the promised savings.

It is much too serious for saving face. What this proposal will do is impact everyone the same amount regardless of how well or bad they are paid.
Also, those in receipt of pensions don't take a hit.

Surely those who can afford to pay the most should?

TGPS

MaceFace wrote: »

It is much too serious for saving face. What this proposal will do is impact everyone the same amount regardless of how well or bad they are paid.
Also, those in receipt of pensions don't take a hit.

Surely those who can afford to pay the most should?

Why?

Seriously - why?

This Marxist idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is generally spouted, but the rest of the ideology is not.

I earn a decent salary, yes - but I work hard for it and I worked even harder to get the qualifications (self-funded) that got me into a position to get the job in the first place. So I'd like to hear a rational explanation as to why more of my salary should be taken away.

MaceFace

TGPS wrote: »

Why?

Seriously - why?

This Marxist idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is generally spouted, but the rest of the ideology is not.

I earn a decent salary, yes - but I work hard for it and I worked even harder to get the qualifications (self-funded) that got me into a position to get the job in the first place. So I'd like to hear a rational explanation as to why more of my salary should be taken away.

I am capitialist to the core but here is my reasoning:
We are told that 1.3b must come off the public sector pay bill. What is happening with this unpaid leave is everyone is being hit exactly the same amount (basically docked 2-3 weeks pay per year and not having to work).
There is already tremendous strain on many lower paid workers in the country and my belief is that if these folks are hit too much, they will end up losing everything and the country will be in a worse mess than it is now.

Can someone explain why those in receipt of the pensions will continue to avoid any pain?

Besides this, there is talk that the leave may only save 400m which leaves a 900m gap.

dvpower

NiteOwl2 wrote: »

Seriously, we are supposed to believe that the government can't afford to pay the Christmas bonus, or overtime for public servants, or vaccination for cervical cancer...but they can afford €54 billion to banks, €750 million for the Port Tunnel (tendered for €450 million, and the government paid an extra €300 million without batting an eyelid), €250 million (and still rising) cost of the P-PARS system for the Health boards, €52 million on electronic voting machines and €800,000 per annum to store the machines, €14 million to Murray consultants to front the "Yes to Lisbon" campaign, etc.

The money for the banks is mainly borrowed money. All of the other issues you raised were when we (thought) we had money.

do you really believe that the government has a pot of hidden gold?

scary

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I read it again. You said

No matter what way I look at it, it seems to say that teachers should get less pay without doing less work. How did I misunderstand it?

the idea is that you dont get paid for 14 days that you should, he's saying as far as i can see, is that the only practical way it would work in the education system is to take it from the 3 months that they dont work but get paid for it, they still work less than others and the kids dont suffer. I dont think he's singling out teachers to bear the brunt of it, just pointing out a practical way that it would work in that area.

Dickerty

TGPS wrote: »

I earn a decent salary, yes - but I work hard for it and I worked even harder to get the qualifications (self-funded) that got me into a position to get the job in the first place. So I'd like to hear a rational explanation as to why more of my salary should be taken away.

I'm with you - I have been working nearly 20 years, only now coming into a good wage through further learning, personal sacrifice and hard bloody work. I refuse to accept that I should pay more than people in my organisation (or any other) who barely do the minimum to keep their jobs.

This is not an inheritance tax, I have earned this.

TGPS

MaceFace wrote: »

I am capitialist to the core but here is my reasoning:
We are told that 1.3b must come off the public sector pay bill. What is happening with this unpaid leave is everyone is being hit exactly the same amount (basically docked 2-3 weeks pay per year and not having to work).
There is already tremendous strain on many lower paid workers in the country and my belief is that if these folks are hit too much, they will end up losing everything and the country will be in a worse mess than it is now.

Can someone explain why those in receipt of the pensions will continue to avoid any pain?

Besides this, there is talk that the leave may only save 400m which leaves a 900m gap.

I've no problem taking the hit in my salary - we as a country need to cut back on what we're spending. I don't like it, but that's the way it has to be.

My point is, why is all the emphasis on the earners - what about the net consumers of public services - why shouldn't there be at least a notional contribution extracted from them, especially in the area of social welfare.

Pensions and pensioners are a more complicated issue, but the first thing that should happen there in the public sector is that the link between pensions and salary should be broken. Secondly (again the in the public sector) the non-contributory nature of the pension system has to end and the financing of it put on a much sounder footing. Finally, the country should bring in legislation requiring people to opt out of a pension (rather than the current opt in situation).

The problem with this though is it saves money in 40 years when we need to be saving money now.

On a separate issue, I think it would be wrong to assume that just because people in the public sector are compelled to take unpaid leave they are "....not having to work." On the contrary working will become essential. I know I'll be using the time productively.

the_syco

dvpower wrote: »

But, how would this proposal work?

It doesn't. Look at the amount of consultants where there is only one in the entire country. Had to wait for 6 months for one myself. If he had to take 14 days unpaid leave, there is no-one to cover for him, so the backlog would increase. For small 3 person teams, such as the telephonists, if one person were to be off, the otheres would have to do overtime. This means that whilst someone is doing sweet f**k all at home, someone is covering their shift by doing overtime. How this would save money, I do not know.

Dickerty

scary wrote: »

the idea is that you dont get paid for 14 days that you should, he's saying as far as i can see, is that the only practical way it would work in the education system is to take it from the 3 months that they dont work but get paid for it, they still work less than others and the kids dont suffer. I dont think he's singling out teachers to bear the brunt of it, just pointing out a practical way that it would work in that area.

Teachers are in a very good position with regard to summer salary. They have reduced overheads from travel, lunch or work-related costs, and if they have kids, probably save on those fees when they are at home. So I wouldn't be surprised it they felt a little more pain here then in the Health sector...

rebel.ranter

TGPS wrote: »

I earn a decent salary, yes - but I work hard for it and I worked even harder to get the qualifications (self-funded) that got me into a position to get the job in the first place. So I'd like to hear a rational explanation as to why more of my salary should be taken away.

I can give you a rational explanation, the people who run your company (the government) do not have the money to pay that salary anymore. It is unfortunate & I do not take any delight whatsoever in condoning a cut in anyone's salary but that is the simple truth.
I recently saw a report from a company in the private sector, it showed the number of employees for 2007 & 2008 as being the same but the the salary bill was 25% less in 2008. Unfortunately I think the salaries will drop further in 2009, there will also be job losses. Simply because the income of the company will drop again in 2009, this is something I am fairly sure of too.
I know people in this company who have also funded their education & continue to do so right now but this does not protect them from the cuts.

I'm not trying to have a go but just thought it was worth mentioning.

On the whole unpaid leave idea, I do not think it will work. As others have said if the workload can be managed in less hours then there is over-staffing in that area. That should be dealt with by reducing staff in that area be it by redundancy or redeployment to other areas.
If it cannot be managed in reduced hours then overtime is required or additional resoures will have to be hired. These additional resources will then have to be taken on at the same rates & conditions as those already there so the problem will be compounded further.

Dickerty

the_syco wrote: »

For small 3 person teams, such as the telephonists, if one person were to be off, the otheres would have to do overtime. This means that whilst someone is doing sweet f**k all at home, someone is covering their shift by doing overtime. How this would save money, I do not know.

Are you seriously telling me that such teams are so overworked that they MUST do overtime whenever someone is out sick or on holidays?

Do these staff take their lunch and tea breaks? I bet they do. I don't, because I have a lot to work to do.

I would love to look at the processes that are being engaged in parts of the Private Sector. Management in the PS would not traditionally be overly concerned with automation or process improvement, they didn't need to be. Now they do, I wonder if they know how...

TGPS

rebel.ranter wrote: »

I can give you a rational explanation, the people who run your company (the government) do not have the money to pay that salary anymore. It is unfortunate & I do not take any delight whatsoever in condoning a cut in anyone's salary but that is the simple truth.
I recently saw a report from a company in the private sector, it showed the number of employees for 2007 & 2008 as being the same but the the salary bill was 25% less in 2008. Unfortunately I think the salaries will drop further in 2009, there will also be job losses. Simply because the income of the company will drop again in 2009, this is something I am fairly sure of too.
I know people in this company who have also funded their education & continue to do so right now but this does not protect them from the cuts.

I'm not trying to have a go but just thought it was worth mentioning.

On the whole unpaid leave idea, I do not think it will work. As others have said if the workload can be managed in less hours then there is over-staffing in that area. That should be dealt with by reducing staff in that area be it by redundancy or redeployment to other areas.
If it cannot be managed in reduced hours then overtime is required or additional resoures will have to be hired. These additional resources will then have to be taken on at the same rates & conditions as those already there so the problem will be compounded further.

As I've said many times - I've no problem with the salary cut - as unpalatable as it is, it must be done.

My issue is why is there a much more limited discussion on the consumers than the providers of public services? In economic terms the focus is on a supply side solution to what is partially a demand side problem.

In my own organisation, I reckon we'll manage through it, but it will mean curtailing services. We won't be paying overtime - we haven't done so for over a year now and I can't see that changing. Which means altering the way we work. I expect there will be reduced opening hours for our public offices, more emphasis on engagement with the public through phones and the internet.

My main issue is some of the "enhanced" services we've developed - such as home visiting for some of our more vulnerable and less mobile users - it's time consuming (and therefore disproportionately costly) but makes their lives less stressful (not sure we've a metric for that!!). I think when it comes to keeping the more visible "shop front" open that will take priority over meeting a genuine need.

Jaysoose

So basically they take an extra 10-14 days off a year and get the same amount of work done?

Are they basically admitting that they are inefficient to the point that 10-14 days makes no difference in output?

Well done beardies you have outdone yourselves in trying to protect your grossly overpaid union jobs.

TGPS

Jaysoose wrote: »

So basically they take an extra 10-14 days off a year and get the same amount of work done?

Are they basically admitting that they are inefficient to the point that 10-14 days makes no difference in output?

Well done beardies you have outdone yourselves in trying to protect your grossly overpaid union jobs.

No, I think services will be degraded - less opening hours, longer waiting lists and times and cuts to services.

The other point worth mentioning is that the saving will not be as great as anticipated because even though salaries / wages will be cut, people will be due rebates of tax for the two weeks they don't receive pay for.

If the government really wanted to introduce a cut then they'd insist that say 25% of a person's annual leave entitlement should be taken on an unpaid basis - but as usual the gombeens we (both public and private sector) have voted into office have gone for the.....