Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Job losses in the public sector

  • 28-07-2010 01:42PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭


    I was just thinking of something today. Several times I have heard Union leaders berate people for suggesting there have been no job loses in the public service. They'll say: "there are have been thousand of temporary workers who have lost their jobs".

    This has to be sophistry at its very best. By definition these jobs from the very beginning were "temporary" hence these are not loses in the usual meaning of the words "job loses" and "temporary". It is the equivalent of me saying something like: Poor me, I had to come from my holidays. But what really recks my head is the way the media don't pick up Jack O'Connor et al on their pathetic Robin Hood wannabe arguments. In fact, the Robin Hood wannabes want us all to believe the media is against them.

    Discuss...


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    I was just thinking of something today. Several times I have heard Union leaders berate people for suggesting there have been no job loses in the public service. They'll say: "there are have been thousand of temporary workers who have lost their jobs".

    Discuss...

    its 'contract' staff that has been hit the hardest in this regard as oppossed to 'temporary'

    while there are seasonal and short-term staff......'temporary' is often used to distinguish from 'permanent' but is not that accurate

    some workers can be on contract, as oppossed to temporary, for long periods..years in many cases...without being made permanent

    it is always easier to get rid of such staff than permanent ones


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    I was just thinking of something today. Several times I have heard Union leaders berate people for suggesting there have been no job loses in the public service. They'll say: "there are have been thousand of temporary workers who have lost their jobs".

    This has to be sophistry at its very best. By definition these jobs from the very beginning were "temporary" hence these are not loses in the usual meaning of the words "job loses" and "temporary". It is the equivalent of me saying something like: Poor me, I had to come from my holidays. But what really recks my head is the way the media don't pick up Jack O'Connor et al on their pathetic Robin Hood wannabe arguments. In fact, the Robin Hood wannabes want us all to believe the media is against them.

    Discuss...
    As per the CSo figures in another post the Permenant Job figures are seeing no noticeable difference either.

    10,000 retired last year up from 2,000 in 2008 but the total employment is down (-0.5%)

    Someone is doing their maths wrong somewhere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Riskymove wrote: »
    its 'contract' staff that has been hit the hardest in this regard as oppossed to 'temporary'

    while there are seasonal and short-term staff......'temporary' is often used to distinguish from 'permanent' but is not that accurate

    some workers can be on contract, as oppossed to temporary, for long periods..years in many cases...without being made permanent

    it is always easier to get rid of such staff than permanent ones

    Sure everyone is technically "contract". They use that word to disguise the fact that these are explictly "temporary contracts" as opposed to "permanent contracts". That's because the word "temporary" makes it clear that the job was intended as temporary and hence "thousands of temporary workers have lost their temporary jobs" doesn't sound as effective as "thousand of contract staff have been let go".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    While some jobs in the public service are truly temporary, there are many others that are not. The jobs can be permanent (insofar as any job can be considered permanent) but they are filled by people who are given temporary contracts. This is done for a variety of reasons, such as
    • the person appointed might not yet be fully qualified (e.g. A science teacher who has not yet taken the Irish oral -- a trivial loose end, but a loose end nevertheless)
    • administrators might not yet have gone through all the steps in having the position established as a permanent one (they can be cumbersome)
    • some permanent positions were filled on a temporary basis in anticipation of possible cutbacks
    • some positions were created to address needs, but cautious administrators wanted to reserve to themselves the opportunity to close down an operation.
    I know people who have been in "temporary" positions continuously for years (as much as ten years) and are now departing from the public service.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    I know people who have been in "temporary" positions continuously for years (as much as ten years) and are now departing from the public service.

    yes thats the point.....people may not be permanent but they would not have been let go other than in the current circumstances


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Someone is doing their maths wrong somewhere.

    the problem is that the moratorium was relaxed in certain areas of health and education......so different areas are being affected differently.....the Civil service and gardai for example are apparantly being very badly hit by unfilled posts from early retirement


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    I know people who have been in "temporary" positions continuously for years (as much as ten years) and are now departing from the public service.
    Which is a disgrace. Under EU law you have to be offered a permanent contract after 11 months. The state has managed to circumnavigate these and the Robin Hood wannabes 200K per year don't give two hoots.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66 ✭✭galwaynative


    That's because the word "temporary" makes it clear that the job was intended as temporary

    mad and all as it sounds a high percentage of core roles in PS are filled on a contract basis, it seems to be some sort of hangover (where I work at least) from the last recruitment moritorium in the 80s. In my place of work over 30% of staff are on a contract basis and it is these jobs that are being lost as contracts come up for renewal. And the temporary staff who would normally be taken on for seasonal peaks (term time cover etc) are not being taken on at all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    Riskymove wrote: »
    the problem is that the moratorium was relaxed in certain areas of health and education......so different areas are being affected differently.....the Civil service and gardai for example are apparantly being very badly hit by unfilled posts from early retirement
    When they are allowed to retire at 50 with a lump sum and further employment potential what did they expect to happen there.

    If they are relaxing the moratorium to the extent that there is no difference well then there is no moratorium, so why do they keep going on about it.

    More recent figures will be interesting when ever they appear


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    If they are relaxing the moratorium to the extent that there is no difference well then there is no moratorium, so why do they keep going on about it.

    er...because many people work in the areas where the moratorium is being applied and they are being affected by it

    as long as health and education are being protected for political reasons we are not going to get the big issues sorted

    health and education make up the majority of the PS workers


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    I'm on about the govt not the people affected by this


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    I'm on about the govt not the people affected by this

    oh.....usual Govt spin


    ...and I am sure they'll have more to defend why the overall figures do not reflect it too


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    mad and all as it sounds a high percentage of core roles in PS are filled on a contract basis, it seems to be some sort of hangover (where I work at least) from the last recruitment moritorium in the 80s. In my place of work over 30% of staff are on a contract basis and it is these jobs that are being lost as contracts come up for renewal. And the temporary staff who would normally be taken on for seasonal peaks (term time cover etc) are not being taken on at all.

    And in your experience just as a matter of interest, who is working harder? temporary or permanent?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 666 ✭✭✭deise blue


    Which is a disgrace. Under EU law you have to be offered a permanent contract after 11 months. The state has managed to circumnavigate these and the Robin Hood wannabes 200K per year don't give two hoots.

    Would you care to name the "Robin Hoods" and enumerate their salaries ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    as long as health and education are being protected for political reasons

    The political reasons are that people still want to be cured and their children educated and expect other things to go first. Whatever about health, education has little enough administration and less people per students than other European countries, if numbers were reduced then class sizes would go back to 1950s levels. People rightly feel that quangos and other additions to the public service in the boom should go first, rather than basic education.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    If they are breaking the law well then the higher ups are directly responsible as there is no accountability of any sort in the public sector


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ardmacha wrote: »
    . Whatever about health, education has little enough administration and less people per students than other European countries, if numbers were reduced then class sizes would go back to 1950s levels. People rightly feel that quangos and other additions to the public service in the boom should go first, rather than basic education.

    health and education make up the vast majority of the PS but there are plenty within that who are not teachers, doctors or nurses etc...tbf with regard to education I'd say most of the administrative issues are at third level

    I completely agree that quangos need to be tackeld, but their proportion of the PS is still quite low....meangingful, long-term benefits will not arise without monoliths like the HSE being tackled


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    I have argued here before that there should be inventory of all PS employment in say 2000 and 2008, to see where the extra posts appeared. Some of these can be justified, e.g. more children in a certain area, but I imagine that many will be hard to justify and this would give a routemap for where cuts are appropriate. Policy at the moment is headless, penalising the efficient areas as these are expected to have the same cuts as the areas with lots of slack where cuts are easy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    So let me get this straight in my own head

    When people talk about 350-360k PS employees this is the level of permanent full time staff and on top of this there are thousands and thousands of contract staff?? Is this really the case or does the 350-360 include these contract staff??

    Are we saying that in reality there may be nearly 400k PS employees?? (so the 360 full time permanent plus say 40k contract staff) Maybe more???


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    413,000 Public sector employees at last count


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66 ✭✭galwaynative


    When people talk about 350-360k PS employees this is the level of permanent full time staff and on top of this there are thousands and thousands of contract staff?? Is this really the case or does the 350-360 include these contract staff??


    I can only speak of my own place of work but there headcount would include all permanent and contract staff. The necessary reductions in headcount are being achieved via early retirements and non renewal of contracts.


    And in your experience just as a matter of interest, who is working harder? temporary or permanent?


    Interesting question! I can honestly say that there are hard workers in both. But there are a few prize slackers as well, again in both but people on contracts are less obvious about it :D



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    deise blue wrote: »
    Would you care to name the "Robin Hoods" and enumerate their salaries ?

    Mr McLoone=€171,313
    Mr Carr= €172,000
    Blair Horan=€120,000
    David Begg=€137,400
    Jack O'Connor=€124,895
    John White=€144,000
    Peter MacMenamin=€131,748 <--> €150,712

    Source:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1024/1224257392087.html

    I am sure they wind up with plenty of expenses and pension contributions as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    413,000 Public sector employees at last count


    Seriously?? WTF that means that about 21-22% of the workforce in this country is public sector, and we don't even have an army. This country has really lost the run of itself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 666 ✭✭✭deise blue


    Mr McLoone=€171,313
    Mr Carr= €172,000
    Blair Horan=€120,000
    David Begg=€137,400
    Jack O'Connor=€124,895
    John White=€144,000
    Peter MacMenamin=€131,748 <--> €150,712

    Source:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1024/1224257392087.html

    I am sure they wind up with plenty of expenses and pension contributions as well.

    Kindly now point out those who are receiving the 200k the figure that you initially posted .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Seriously?? WTF that means that about 21-22% of the workforce in this country is public sector, and we don't even have an army. This country has really lost the run of itself.

    We do have an army. How many people do you think are needed? This proprtion is typical for European countries. One quarter of the population is in education, many of the rest are in poor health, pretty much all of these people would like to be protected from criminals and to drink public water supplies etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    deise blue wrote: »
    Kindly now point out those who are receiving the 200k the figure that you initially posted .

    Kindly stick to the point I was making that these people act like Robin Hoods, fighting for the common man whose hard done by when the reality is these people are on extortionate salaries. 7 of them wouldn't even reveal their salaries ffs.

    You can be pedantic all you want but it doesn't refute my point. It's the equivalent of trying to point out typos.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    deise blue wrote: »
    Kindly now point out those who are receiving the 200k the figure that you initially posted .
    Well we had one member of the Seanad recently claiming €80K for travelling expenses alone, so I could easily see them topping €200K with the addition of a few discreet bonuses. I know the PS might not see that as "pay", but it all goes into the bank account together.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 666 ✭✭✭deise blue


    Kindly stick to the point I was making that these people act like Robin Hoods, fighting for the common man whose hard done by when the reality is these people are on extortionate salaries. 7 of them wouldn't even reveal their salaries ffs.

    You can be pedantic all you want but it doesn't refute my point. It's the equivalent of trying to point out typos.

    It's not a matter of being pedantic , it's a matter of fact.

    You said that these people who you describe as " Robin Hoods" were on salaries of 200k and yet the figures you posted show that none of of the them earn that much , the nearest is the retired Mr. McLoone who earned 28k less than 200k , indeed Jack O'Connor earned 75k less than your illusionary figure.

    When you think of it you'd get 24 Jack O'Connors for Brian Goggins final annual salary as CEO of Bank of Ireland !

    I do of course realise that it is extremely tempting to post inflated figures to prove a point but let's try and stick to facts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    When you think of it you'd get 24 Jack O'Connors for Brian Goggins final annual salary as CEO of Bank of Ireland !

    And Mr O'Connor has done a better job for those who pay him than Mr Goggins did for his shareholders.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    ardmacha wrote: »
    And Mr O'Connor has done a better job for those who pay him than Mr Goggins did for his shareholders.

    And both have contributed massively to bringing this country to its knees


Advertisement