Introduction of a Public service 'scrappage'scheme and creating jobs for our young .

Joe1919

Introduction of a Public service 'scrappage'scheme and creating jobs for our young people.

I was just looking at the teachers pay scales.
These vary from 30,904 to 59,359. There are also other allowances.
http://www.tui.ie/Salary_Scales/Default.286.html

I presume other public service jobs have similar stretched out pay scales.(but perhaps not as wide).

I would accept that many of our public servants are perhaps burnt out at this stage and lack vigour and perhaps this is behind much of their discontent, excessive sick-leave, lack of enthusiasm etc.
For example, when my father was in hospital, I notice some of the nurses were tired and lacked enthusiasm.

So what I propose is that some vigour be brought back into the public service by encouraging those public servants who lack vigour (and are say, unable to answer phones etc.) to retire.

These public servants could be allowed cash in on their pension plus allowed the difference between the minimum of their wage scale and their present rate. (This could be 22,000 for a teacher with only 14 years service & some kind of 'averaging may be necessary to cover lower grades in the public service.)

Those who would replce them would come in on the minimum of the pay scale.

In this way, everyone could be a winner.
" Worn out civil servants could retire and let younger people take over.
" There would be jobs for our school leavers.
" Less un-employment payments.
" Self-financing.
" Better service to the public.
" Those who retire would be doing the right thing by not 'hogging' their jobs.

Any thoughts. Could it work?

MrsNY

You are forgetting about the Embargo on recruitment.....

Sleepy

I think it's fair to say that the OP isn't forgetting about the embargo, just ignoring it for the purpose of throwing out a suggestion. To be honest, the current embargo is the union's fault. If the unions weren't guaranteed to block any attempts at redundancies there'd be no need for a blanket ban on hiring to promote 'natural shrinkage'. This, in effect, has forced the government to either take on the unions properly or use a hammer in the place of the required scalpel. Since our government are too gutless to actually just dismiss the unions and block strke action, they've gone the politically easier route.

There's merit to the suggestion Joe, however, I'd imagine those that would avail of such a scheme would, as usual, be the competent workers who could find employment outside of the sector rather than the dead wood who're all happy to do their crosswords until retirement.

Joe1919

MrsNY wrote: »

You are forgetting about the Embargo on recruitment.....

Yes, I see your point but this could be overcome. The intention of the embargo is to get overall levels down. However, if we could persuade more people to retire than would normally retire, this problem could be overcome. It is these extra retirements that could be replaced.

i.e. A fairly senior public servant on a high pay scale retires. e.g. A teacher on 50,000. He/she is replaced (only if it is necessary to replace).

Alternatively, a ratio type system could be introduced.e.g. Allow the filling of 50% of vacancies if the retirement rate could be doubled.

(I accept much fine tuning may be necessary with my proposal).

Riskymove

basically the first part of your idea is being implemented; the ISER scheme is resulting in many public servants retiring

however, as pointed out, very few being recruited/promoted to replace those who leave

Joe1919

Sleepy wrote: »

There's merit to the suggestion Joe, however, I'd imagine those that would avail of such a scheme would, as usual, be the competent workers who could find employment outside of the sector rather than the dead wood who're all happy to do their crosswords until retirement.

I see your point. For the scheme to work, we need more openness and accountability among the professions. (Unfortunately we seem to have a tradition of covering up for dysfunctional people. We see the trouble this got the church into)
The scheme would have to be adjusted so as it is not too attractive for public servants to leave.
The public service would have to be more open and truthful and show up this 'deadwood'. This deadwood would have to be persuaded to leave.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joe1919

Riskymove wrote: »

basically the first part of your idea is being implemented; the ISER scheme is resulting in many public servants retiring

however, as pointed out, very few being recruited/promoted to replace those who leave

The present scheme is probably voluntary and costly. The problem may be that the employees has all the control over whether they leave or not and hence the managment does not reap much benefit in terms of retiring inefficent staff.
What I am suggesting is a cheaper scheme that would be more under the control of the managments.

Joe1919

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I often wondered why more hospitals could not be privitised. Is a hospital really that much different from an airline?

But anyhow, what I am saying does not prevent the reduction of areas of the public service. But I am presuming that the government may want to keep some areas under direct control.

ei.sdraob

Introduction of a Public service 'scrappage' scheme and creating jobs for our young

brilliant rofl funniest thing i heard all day

good post this is gonna be fun to read

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ardmacha

Public servants lack enthusiasm because they have chosen to privilege safe, secure, pensionable employment over doing something more entrepreneurial, dynamic, and vital with their lives.

Why is treating the ill or educating the young not a vital activity or why should people be disparaged for wanting to do these things? Why should educating a class of 6 year old or working in a research lab in a university not regarded as dynamic?

Riskymove

ardmacha wrote: »

Why is treating the ill or educating the young not a vital activity or why should people be disparaged for wanting to do these things? Why should educating a class of 6 year old or working in a research lab in a university not regarded as dynamic?

we all know that the basic tactic is as follows:

want to bash the public sector? portray them all as useless highly paid desk jockeys taking the food from your child's mouth


want to defend public sector? talk about valiant firefighters and sturdy nurses doing the vital jobs we dont want to do


the truth, as always, is in between

its just sad that we cant all meet in that middle and discuss the solutions rationally

Count Dooku

A lot of people are joining public services in order to be in safe place, when they will be old. I can imagine how strong resistance could be in case if it will be implemented

Joe1919 wrote: »

I was just looking at the teachers pay scales.
These vary from 30,904 to 59,359. There are also other allowances.
http://www.tui.ie/Salary_Scales/Default.286.html

IMHO teachers are rare exception, when public servants really deserve their salaries, because they are working for future

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ZYX

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, the problem is private hospitals do well because they cherry pick the best patients. So if for example you are relatively young and healthy and need your gall bladder removed then, no problem go to private hospital. If you are old with multiple medical problems and are a surgical risk you may not be done in private hospital. They will transfer you to public hospital. If you have chronic serious condition like haemophilia or cystic fibrosis then again public hospital is for you. This is also the reason private hospitals don't offer 24 hour proper A&E depts. On top of all this is the huge rates health insurance companies pay private hospitals. This is very likely to be dramatically reduced in next few years. You will then see private hospitals that are not co-located closing down.

Welease

Joe1919 wrote: »

In this way, everyone could be a winner.
" Worn out civil servants could retire and let younger people take over.
" There would be jobs for our school leavers.
" Less un-employment payments.
" Self-financing.
" Better service to the public.
" Those who retire would be doing the right thing by not 'hogging' their jobs.

Any thoughts. Could it work?

I'm not sure you have really done the calculations correctly.. I don't think they country could afford this..

Having less unemployment payments by virtue of paying people more to retire increases the cost to the country.
Is it really self financing? Instead of paying a single persons salary, the government will now pay a lower salary + costs + benefit contributions etc PLUS the retired personal wage bonus + pension etc.

You can't make sweeping statements like "better public service" without any detail on what exact changes and impacts would result.
People look at the extremes and think wow this saves 20K+ per swap.. but the impact is you are replacing a very senior trained and experienced teacher with a relative novice right out of school.. That will never guarantee a more effeicient service.

etc etc etc.

In many areas we don't need a 1:1 swap.. we need to rationalise the amount of people.

It's not a bad idea, but it think there are potentially easier more cost effective solutions available..
Meritocracy for example... Pay people based on their contribution to the department they work in.. If you are going to do sod all, then your renumeration will reflect that (up to and including termination), if you work hard and provide good service then you are treated and recompensed as an asset to the company (country).

Joe1919

Riskymove wrote: »

its just sad that we cant all meet in that middle and discuss the solutions rationally

I agree with you here.
It seem to me a shame that some cost effective comprimise cant be worked out.
I feel particularly sad for the present generation of school leavers who have qualificitions but few jobs.

magicEye

The way I see it, the old lazy civil servant is in a win-win situation either way.

He/She can either have a job for life (even if she does nothing all day) or retire before having enough time, how can some people be that lucky, I really don't know.....

BroomBurner

First off, the term "scrappage" when relating to human beings, is very offensive. So kudos for the sly dig there.

Secondly, who is to say a new group of school-leavers are going to be any good? The last stereotype I heard about students was how lazy and work-shy they were, and fond of daytime tv Yeah, you'll get a really good quality public sector by doing that.

In fact, your idea is so good, maybe you should sell the concept to some of the larger private sector companies out there!

RGS

donegalfella wrote: »

When it comes down to it, a hospital is a service like any other. However, people of a socialist mentality will campaign vigorously for public hospitals on the basis that they are "entitled" to free medical care. People rarely claim that they are "entitled" to free air travel, and so governments experience less political pressure to maintain state-owned airlines.

Private hospitals dont care about the old, the handicapped, the accident victims
Private hospitals only care about the bottom line--profit.
Patients who develop serious post minor op problems in private hospitals are rapidly transferred to public hospitals to be provided with top class surgical and nursing care.
Where would all our consultants learn their craft without the major public teaching hospitals providing the training and critical mass required for consultants to progress.

Cherry picking private hospitals are not the answer.

jumpin_macflash

this thread is so narrow minded and offensive like so many threads popping atm. and its very obvious that those who want to cull the public service workers for daring to try and keep their wages have met very few nurses or teachers, because the majority are like the majority of the private sector, very hard working and conscientious.

next time a nurse cleans out your bed pan tell shes paid too much and see what reaction you get.

Kristopherus

jumpin_macflash wrote: »

this thread is so narrow minded and offensive like so many threads popping atm. and its very obvious that those who want to cull the public service workers for daring to try and keep their wages have met very few nurses or teachers, because the majority are like the majority of the private sector, very hard working and conscientious.

next time a nurse cleans out your bed pan tell shes paid too much and see what reaction you get.

Well said. Best contribution by far. Maybe that patient should be Donegalfella:rolleyes:

gurramok

jumpin_macflash wrote: »

this thread is so narrow minded and offensive like so many threads popping atm. and its very obvious that those who want to cull the public service workers for daring to try and keep their wages have met very few nurses or teachers, because the majority are like the majority of the private sector, very hard working and conscientious.

next time a nurse cleans out your bed pan tell shes paid too much and see what reaction you get.

Yeh, protect their overpaid wages at the expense of the general public and NEW entrants to the public service.

An average teacher salary of 60k a year does not deserve sympathy to keep those wages at the expense of everyone that suffers from their 'strike/work to rule' action.

Kristopherus

gurramok wrote: »

Yeh, protect their overpaid wages at the expense of the general public and NEW entrants to the public service.

An average teacher salary of 60k a year does not deserve sympathy to keep those wages at the expense of everyone that suffers from their 'strike/work to rule' action.

Very few teachers are on an average salary of 60k. Added to that there are thousands upon thousands of public servants who work damn hard. Funny we never hear about overpaid private sector workers.

gurramok

Kristopherus wrote: »

Very few teachers are on an average salary of 60k. Added to that there are thousands upon thousands of public servants who work damn hard. Funny we never hear about overpaid private sector workers.

Yeh right regarding teachers. http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0416/teachers.html

Overpaid private sector workers compete against the planet.

P. Breathnach

gurramok wrote: »

... Overpaid private sector workers compete against the planet.

That's bollocks. Some of our highest paid private sector workers are lawyers, bankers, medics, bookies, accountants, drug dealers (both legal and illegal), and entertainers. Many of them don't even compete with one another in Ireland, let alone with the planet.

gurramok

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's bollocks. Some of our highest paid private sector workers are lawyers, bankers, medics, bookies, accountants, drug dealers (both legal and illegal), and entertainers. Many of them don't even compete with one another in Ireland, let alone with the planet.

Lawyers - where is the govt regulation to open up their practice?
Bankers - Most are controlled by govt intervention(NAMA) hence where is the clampdown on excesses?
Medic - Oh yes, that protected shop by the medical profession, where is the regulation?

Regulation - setup by the public sector. One wonders:rolleyes:

Bookies - huh? Explain that one
Accountants - they have good business in a severe recession,

Drug dealers - The legal ones, IPSU. They have been rightly been challenged by the govt for overcharging.

Why don't you outline the vast majority of the private sector where the wages are incomparable to the public sector?

P. Breathnach

gurramok wrote: »

Lawyers - where is the govt regulation to open up their practice?
Bankers - Most are controlled by govt intervention(NAMA) hence where is the clampdown on excesses?
Medic - Oh yes, that protected shop by the medical profession, where is the regulation?

Regulation - setup by the public sector. One wonders:rolleyes:

Bookies - huh? Explain that one
Accountants - they have good business in a severe recession,

Drug dealers - The legal ones, IPSU. They have been rightly been challenged by the govt for overcharging.

Why don't you outline the vast majority of the private sector where the wages are incomparable to the public sector?

I see. Where people or classes of people in the private sector are very highly paid -- what some might see as overpaid -- you want to hold the public sector responsible for much of it.

I suspect that you hold tightly on to the idea that I was challenging, the idea that private sector pay rates are decided by competition with the global economy.

Look, there are two simple truths that many people are slow to acknowledge: that not everything about the public service is bad, and not everything about the private sector is good.

OMD

Kristopherus wrote: »

Very few teachers are on an average salary of 60k. Added to that there are thousands upon thousands of public servants who work damn hard. Funny we never hear about overpaid private sector workers.

Any teacher with 20 years experience would earn over 60K a year (after pay cuts). So any teacher over about 42 years old or so would earn 60K. If they had honours degree or masters or had a promotion they would reach 60K much sooner.

Welease

jumpin_macflash wrote: »

this thread is so narrow minded and offensive like so many threads popping atm. and its very obvious that those who want to cull the public service workers for daring to try and keep their wages have met very few nurses or teachers, because the majority are like the majority of the private sector, very hard working and conscientious.

next time a nurse cleans out your bed pan tell shes paid too much and see what reaction you get.

Absolutely.. we must never attempt to streamline any service within the PS because nurses work hard... The numerous layers of unnecessary management within the HSE must not be dealt with because nurses work hard.. /boggle

Do some of you people actually believe what you post?

They are a lot of very hard working dedicated people within both the Public and Private sectors. There are also wasters within both sectors, and there are roles that provide zero benefit to either organisation. As a nation we need to continue to look at if we are getting the best value for money from our services, and to look at if we can offer the best value to private companies who could locate here, and neither sector should be immune from that.

Taxipete29

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have no ideas how you are comparing airlines with health care. Air travel for many is a luxury and not essential. Almost all health care is needed and in many cases essential.

P. Breathnach

Welease wrote: »

... Do some of you people actually believe what you post?

That's a real problem: people who defend the public service and people who attack the public service seem capable of holding the most preposterous beliefs. And as long as people hold firmly to beliefs that have no foundation in fact, constructive dialogue is impossible.

They are a lot of very hard working dedicated people within both the Public and Private sectors. There are also wasters within both sectors, and there are roles that provide zero benefit to either organisation...

True. But there should be no need for you to point that out. It's in the category called "the bleedin' obvious".

Japer

Welease wrote: »

They are a lot of very hard working dedicated people within both the Public and Private sectors. There are also wasters within both sectors, and there are roles that provide zero benefit to either organisation.

True to some extent, but I do not care about any "wasters" in the private sector. I can choose to support them or not, as the case may be. Market forces ensure not many wasters stay wasters for ever. In contrast, I do care about wasters in the public sector, the vast majority of whom work less hard and less hours than I have to, as it is my taxes - which I have no choice in paying - which go towards paying their wages and pensions.

jumpin_macflash

Welease wrote: »

Absolutely.. we must never attempt to streamline any service within the PS because nurses work hard... The numerous layers of unnecessary management within the HSE must not be dealt with because nurses work hard.. /boggle

Do some of you people actually believe what you post?

you should read posts before replying like that.

do i believe what i post? what, that a lot of public sector workers are not absolute lazy scroungers, absofuckinglutely.

the majority in this forum attack public workers as a whole when in reality there are quite a large proportion of the 300,000 workers that are quite good at their job. of course there is scope for reform, and in the current economy thats essential, but public service 'scrappage scheme' is hugely insulting to those who do a good job, if you cant see that then... /boggle.

jumpin_macflash

Japer wrote: »

True to some extent, but I do not care about any "wasters" in the private sector. I can choose to support them or not, as the case may be. Market forces ensure not many wasters stay wasters for ever. In contrast, I do care about wasters in the public sector, the vast majority of whom work less hard and less hours than I have to, as it is my taxes - which I have no choice in paying - which go towards paying their wages and pensions.

you know for a fact i suppose having conducted a vigourous study of the work ethic in the public service. or did you just read in some newspaper.

johnnyskeleton

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's bollocks. Some of our highest paid private sector workers are lawyers, bankers, medics, bookies, accountants, drug dealers (both legal and illegal), and entertainers. Many of them don't even compete with one another in Ireland, let alone with the planet.

With all of the above, people can chose to abstain from their services (e.g. do their own conveyancing (no law against it), stay at home and eat chicken soup (medics), don't gamble (obviously), do their own taxes (the reveneue are very friendly and helpful), drink instead of take illegal drugs, use herbal and natural remedies instead of pharmecuticals and entertain themselves.

You don't have to pay bono €1 when you buy his CD, you can simply not buy his CD ("I know a place called vertigo" what does that even mean?). Fundamentally, no matter what the good or service is, you can buy it, not buy it, or buy something as a substitute. This creates competition in the public sector. Competition can be between two similar products (in the examples above, 2 different accountants) or between buying and abstaining ("it's too expensive to get a solicitor, sure I'll represent myself").

This is not true of the public sector. I am legally required to pay taxes with the threat of a penal sanction if I fail to do so. These taxes are taken and used as payment for the public sector. If I am healthy, can I refuse to pay for the HSE? If I want to home school my children, can I refuse to pay for the Dept of Education's budget? If I am not charitable, can I refuse to contribute the ~30% of the taxes I pay which goes to social welfare?

This means that the ultimate consumers of public services (i.e. citizens) have no control over price. Therefore, this should be set by the government. The government has a duty to ensure that the citizens get good value from the public sector. This means efficiency in productivity and in pay.

The government have no duty to protect public sector pay and conditions. If anything, the government should be working against public sector pay and conditions and always trying to keep them low (in much the same way as a private company will do).

So the idea that the public sector should be overpaid because some sectors of the private sector are overpaid is a nonsense argument. The government should try to employ people at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer for the maximum amount of efficiency. Because if a private sector worker is not offering an efficient service at the right price, they will price themselves out of the market.

P. Breathnach

Japer wrote: »

True to some extent, but I do not care about any "wasters" in the private sector. I can choose to support them or not, as the case may be. Market forces ensure not many wasters stay wasters for ever. In contrast, I do care about wasters in the public sector, the vast majority of whom work less hard and less hours than I have to, as it is my taxes - which I have no choice in paying - which go towards paying their wages and pensions.

Essentially, you are trying to give yourself a permit to join in the attacks on the public sector.

There are wasters in the private sector, and you can not always make a real choice between supporting them or not, because you might not know about their deficiencies until it is too late. In addition, there are other issues about the private sector way of doing things that many people here are not acknowledging - restrictive practices, unfair contracts, failure to meet legal requirements, sharp practice, and much else.

I have no intention of vilifying the private sector collectively, because that would be wrong. But giving them a free pass in order to set up a private-sector-good-public-sector-bad model is just as wrong.

P. Breathnach

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

With all of the above, people can chose to abstain from their services (e.g. do their own conveyancing (no law against it), stay at home and eat chicken soup (medics), don't gamble (obviously), do their own taxes (the reveneue are very friendly and helpful), drink instead of take illegal drugs, use herbal and natural remedies instead of pharmecuticals and entertain themselves...

I could also try to find an uninhabited island and live there alone and unnoticed.

johnnyskeleton

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I could also try to find an uninhabited island and live there alone and unnoticed.

Exactly, the only way to avoid the overpaid and bloated public service would be to live in your own island state as a hermit. But even still you can sail to the mainland every so often and avail of competitively priced private sector goods and services.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Essentially, you are trying to give yourself a permit to join in the attacks on the public sector.

There are wasters in the private sector, and you can not always make a real choice between supporting them or not, because you might not know about their deficiencies until it is too late. In addition, there are other issues about the private sector way of doing things that many people here are not acknowledging - restrictive practices, unfair contracts, failure to meet legal requirements, sharp practice, and much else.

I have no intention of vilifying the private sector collectively, because that would be wrong. But giving them a free pass in order to set up a private-sector-good-public-sector-bad model is just as wrong.

wasters in private sector usually lead to company going out of business (or they get fired)

the government is already bankrupt (and no one is getting fired or held responsible)

the sooner people realize that the government is bankrupt the better we all be

joolsveer

ei.sdraob wrote: »

wasters in private sector usually lead to company going out of business (or they get fired)

Wasters in the banks (including the Central Bank) who caused the current financial situation get rewarded for their efforts. It reminds me of that ad "what is a financial regulator"?

Joe1919

Just some replies.

The original post is not an attack on the public service but a suggestion that some vigour be put back into it by very strongly encouraging staff with poor moral and work motivation to leave. It is an attempt (among other things) to deal with the alleged low moral in the public service that so many public servants themselves are claiming.

No one wants their children in school with a teacher who has no motivation or see their parents being treated by un-motivated health staff or Garda with low moral etc. So if any public servant states that they no longer have any motivation to do their duties, they should be allowed do the decent thing and leave. There are plenty of un-employed and qualified people out there to do their job,in most cases, if this is necessary.

Enthusiastic and hard working public servants should have nothing to fear.

There may also be benefits for workers who are 'burnt out' or unmotivated. I agree that what I propose may not suit everyone. Some critics of the public service would probably see the public service as 'rotten to the core' so to speak and beyond redemption and hence what I am saying is utterly futile. Some defenders, on the other hand see nothing at fault with moral in the public service that could not be cured by removing the pay cut (and perhaps a pay increase for their grade or department). Such are two ends of the arguments. There are probably more.

Anyhow the potential is there (if you examine the pay scales) to get the job done cheaper and possibly better by hiring people (who are actually interested in working) at the lower pay scales.

ei.sdraob

joolsveer wrote: »

Wasters in the banks (including the Central Bank) who caused the current financial situation get rewarded for their efforts. It reminds me of that ad "what is a financial regulator"?

once again the banks should not have been given a cent

lets remember who gave the money to the banks? yep the government, last i checked they are a subset of the PS

oh and last i checked the Central Bank are also a subset of the PS too,

and as primetime has shown the CB, Regulator and the Government all put a blind eye on the out of control lending (hell some of the money was lend to fellow cronies), they were the ones who could have stopped the madness in its tracks and didnt

put the blame squarely where it lies

:mad:

jumpin_macflash

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once again the banks should not have been given a cent

lets remember who gave the money to the banks? yep the government, last i checked they are a subset of the PS

oh and last i checked the Central Bank are also a subset of the PS too,

and as primetime has shown the CB, Regulator and the Government all put a blind eye on the out of control lending (hell some of the money was lend to fellow cronies), they were the ones who could have stopped the madness in its tracks and didnt

put the blame squarely where it lies

:mad:

are you for real.

blame the public service for the banking collapse. blame the public service (not just the civil service i presume, why stop there) for the actions of the private banking industry.

do the public service cause cancer too?

ei.sdraob

jumpin_macflash wrote: »

are you for real.

blame the public service for the banking collapse. blame the public service (not just the civil service i presume, why stop there) for the actions of the private banking industry.

do the public service cause cancer too?

im not blaming the public service

im reminding you that a subset of the employees employed by the state have failed to do their jobs and then have handed money to bankers despite protests from the people

i dont agree with a cent being given to banks

RGS

It is quite clear a certain section of the population, especially on this forum, will never accept that there are exceptionally talented, hard working dedicated people in the Public Service. To these people all public servants are wasters and all are overpaid and they are not interested in facts and figures.

They have listened to and devoured the spin from IBEC and Govenment which has created a PS V Private sector battle leaving the ruling classes smiling and pocketing the wealth of the state.

The public sector were note responsible for our current difficulties thats all down to the Private Sector and the greed of developers and bankers.

johnnyskeleton

RGS wrote: »

It is quite clear a certain section of the population, especially on this forum, will never accept that there are exceptionally talented, hard working dedicated people in the Public Service. To these people all public servants are wasters and all are overpaid and they are not interested in facts and figures.

Do we have talented hard working dedicated peopel working in the public sector? Yes

Can we afford to keep paying them at current levels? No

If their pay has been cut to well below their private sector equivalent, and they can't make any further paycuts, should we just accept that? No.

If needs be, should there be job losses in the public sector? Yes, if needs be.

This is the general attitude. No one is insulting the public sector. It's just that we can't afford them anymore. It's sad that people in Waterford Crystal had paycuts and ultimately lost their jobs, but people could no longer afford the crystal they made at the cost of production in Waterford.

It's a strawman argument to suggest that people are bashing the public sector - no one is trying to insult them. But we, the consumers of public services, can no longer afford to pay as much as we have been paying, and the service provider is being paid less by us to provide those services. The service provider can decide, just like a private company, to:
1) see if they can cut wages and increase production;
2) cut staff numbers and lower the level of service provided; or
3) borrow money to keep the ship afloat and hope business picks up.

It's a question of how this corporation is going to survive. It can't keep borrowing forever, so there must be either reductions in pay for the same level of staff or reductions in staff with consequent reduction in the level of service provided to the people.

It is an unfortunate by-product that public sector workers are affected by this, but considering their relatively high wage levels (compared to other EU countries) they should be able to bear these necessary changes.

RGS

It is an unfortunate by-product that public sector workers are affected by this, but considering their relatively high wage levels (compared to other EU countries) they should be able to bear these necessary changes.[/QUOTE]

What EU country do you propose we use as a benchmark for the PS
France, Germany or perhaps Bulgaia, Estonia or should be just pick the place with the lowest wage and impose those wages on the PS.

Perhaps all jobs both Private & Public in Ireland should be paid the same as the lowest in the EU.

Welease

RGS wrote: »

What EU country do you propose we use as a benchmark for the PS
France, Germany or perhaps Bulgaia, Estonia or should be just pick the place with the lowest wage and impose those wages on the PS.

Perhaps all jobs both Private & Public in Ireland should be paid the same as the lowest in the EU.

A good level to start is one that the country can afford by the tax take.
I have no idea how far above or below we are on that figure.. But if we are having to borrow to meet the commitments then it's far to say it needs to be lowered (until the tax take can be increased).

And to be honest a lot of the potential solutions can be done by folks in the PS before wages need be cut. We have seen the wastage in HSE over buying branded drugs, wastage on travel/entertainment in FAS etc.. that all adds to the bottom line.. If those were cut sufficiently, then any shortfall (if it exists) could be drastically minimized.

ei.sdraob

RGS wrote: »

What EU country do you propose we use as a benchmark for the PS
France, Germany or perhaps Bulgaia, Estonia or should be just pick the place with the lowest wage and impose those wages on the PS.

Perhaps all jobs both Private & Public in Ireland should be paid the same as the lowest in the EU.

how about competing with our neighbors in UK?

the private sector workers are learning the hard way about competition with UK

for that matter how about just balancing the damn books, what would you call a company that operates with 25billion+ a year and increasing losses? bankrupt?