30,000 Public Sector Redundancies suggested

Sizzler

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0923/pay.html

wrote:

The managing director of the Irish subsidiary of State Street Corporation has called for 30,000 redundancies in the public sector.

Addressing a conference in Dublin on the Croke Park Agreement, William Slattery said these redundancies were necessary to save money and increase efficiency in the public sector.

He said they should be achieved by a cost-effective voluntary programme.


Mr Slattery also said that any cost savings made under the Croke Park Agreement should not be put towards reversing public sector pay cuts, but should instead be used to reduce the country's deficit.

He said the 30,000 redundancies represented about 10% of the entire public service and would save €2bn for the Exchequer.

State Street is a financial services provider that employs 2,500 people in Ireland.

Minister of State for Public Service Transformation Dara Calleary told the conference that any public money found to have been misspent by the trade unions should be reimbursed.

Mr Calleary said he would not comment specifically on the €2.35m SIPTU training fund that had been spent on 31 trips around the world.

However, he did say that frivolous expenditure or expenditure that could not be justified should not be allowed.

The Croke Park Agreement guarantees there will be no compulsory redundancies or further pay cuts over the next four years in exchange for extensive reform of the public service.

It provides for the reimbursement of pay cuts to public servants from the savings made from those reforms.

Mr Calleary rejected suggestions that progress has been slow to date.

He said that the implementation body charged with overseeing the reforms had met four times since it was set up in June, while every department must submit its proposed changes by next week.

The Minister said no pay cuts would be reimbursed until savings had been made from reforms.

General Secretary of the IMPACT Trade Union Shay Cody said it was imperative that management put forward substantial and meaningful proposals on the implementation of the Croke Park deal.

Speaking on Morning Ireland, Mr Cody said morale among public servants had taken a battering.

He said the great danger was inertia setting-in, with pressure then mounting on public service workers about their pay rates in the future.

I presume Mr.Slattery was refering to the top heavy admin staff the public sector seems to be laden with as opposed to the likes of guards, doctors, teachers, nurses etc.

Discuss?

The latter comments from the IMPACT guy about pressure & inertia setting in on PS workers about their pay rates in the future is the biggest load of bollix I have read in a while and thats saying something considering it was spouted by a trade unionist!

liammur

Sizzler wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0923/pay.html



I presume Mr.Slattery was refering to the top heavy admin staff the public sector seems to be laden with as opposed to the likes of guards, doctors, teachers, nurses etc.

Discuss?

The latter comments from the IMPACT guy about pressure & inertia setting in on PS workers about their pay rates in the future is the biggest load of bollix I have read in a while and thats saying something considering it was spouted by a trade unionist!

Well I would hope it is the likes of admin etc.
But areas like schools can be looked at too. I fail to see why in a small school a primary school principal doesn't teach.

bamboozle

i'm sure he would be talking about the bloated middle management in the HSE and many other areas not to mention the people working in all the pointless quangos who are duplicating the work of each other.

whatever about redundancies being required its equally important that greater efficiencies are targeted and met within all areas of the public service, all the bullsh1t where retired public servants are brought back in on contracts or retired teachers are doing substitute work needs to end now. Not to mention the 40 million plus the state is spending on hiring prefabs to act ac classrooms each year...

if we abolish the seanad that's 60 jobs gone for starters...cut TD numbers from 166 to 100 that's 126 jobs...only 29874 to go!

liammur

bamboozle wrote: »

i'm sure he would be talking about the bloated middle management in the HSE and many other areas not to mention the people working in all the pointless quangos who are duplicating the work of each other.

whatever about redundancies being required its equally important that greater efficiencies are targeted and met within all areas of the public service, all the bullsh1t where retired public servants are brought back in on contracts or retired teachers are doing substitute work needs to end now.

Very true, and pensions should be looked at. They should be capped. How many pensions is b ahern claiming?

bamboozle

liammur wrote: »

Very true, and pensions should be looked at. They should be capped. How many pensions is b ahern claiming?

oh yeah another thing, all elected members of Dail Eireann should be made forgoe their salary until they produce a Tax Clearance Cert from Revenue, that would have saved the state Bertie's salary since 2002...

he still hasnt provided one despite this being a prerequisite to being a member of the dail...he must be waiting for the bookies to confirm all the bets he's won

liammur

bamboozle wrote: »

oh yeah another thing, all elected members of Dail Eireann should be made forgoe their salary until they produce a Tax Clearance Cert from Revenue, that would have saved the state Bertie's salary since 2002...

he still hasnt provided one despite this being a prerequisite to being a member of the dail...he must be waiting for the bookies to confirm all the bets he's won

What a disgrace. And he plans to run for president!

rightwingdub

30,000 is that all that was suggested from state street, I was thinking that at least 90,000 public sector redundancies are needed as well as massive outsourcing and privatisation of semi state companies.

ardmacha

It is all very fine to call for redundancies. But the people you want rid of (E.G. mid level managers in the HSE) would get a significant redundancy payment so you wouldn't save anything in the first year. Getting rid of younger lower end people would be cheaper in terms of redundancy payments but would affect services and would not save much either as dole payments to this group would be significant proportion of their take home salary.

Privatisation of the ESB or the like might raise a few Euro relatively quickly.

liammur

rightwingdub wrote: »

30,000 is that all that was suggested from state street, I was thinking that at least 90,000 public sector redundancies are needed as well as massive outsourcing and privatisation of semi state companies.

Knee jerk reaction. We need to be calmer in our analysis.

thebaldsoprano

ardmacha wrote: »

It is all very fine to call for redundancies. But the people you want rid of (E.G. mid level managers in the HSE) would get a significant redundancy payment so you wouldn't save anything in the first year. Getting rid of younger lower end people would be cheaper in terms of redundancy payments but would affect services and would not save much either as dole payments to this group would be significant proportion of their take home salary.

One thing that can happen in this type of situation is that the unions insist that all redundancies are voluntary. Then what happens is that younger, more qualified people take redundancy because they'll have a reasonable chance of getting work elsewhere, while the mid level HSE manager who isn't offering value to taxpayers keeps their job. Such a scheme would need to be well implemented without the Government caving, yet again, to the PS unions.

RichardAnd

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

One thing that can happen in this type of situation is that the unions insist that all redundancies are voluntary. Then what happens is that younger, more qualified people take redundancy because they'll have a reasonable chance of getting work elsewhere, while the mid level HSE manager who isn't offering value to taxpayers keeps their job. Such a scheme would need to be well implemented without the Government caving, yet again, to the PS unions.

Not only would it be the younger PS workers with qualifications, voluntary redundancy would also appeal to those close to retirement. Imagine a manager of 38 years service with a wage package of 70k a year getting 8 weeks pay per year of service. Now multiply that by a few thousand and you'll find we won't be saving much at all.

I second that if this happens, it needs to be done very carefully. We want the dead wood loosing their jobs, not the single mothers on 25k a year.

thebaldsoprano

RichardAnd wrote: »

Not only would it be the younger PS workers with qualifications, voluntary redundancy would also appeal to those close to retirement. Imagine a manager of 38 years service with a wage package of 70k a year getting 8 weeks pay per year of service. Now multiply that by a few thousand and you'll find we won't be saving much at all.

I second that if this happens, it needs to be done very carefully. We want the dead wood loosing their jobs, not the single mothers on 25k a year.

AFAIK these type of schemes tend to use different calculations for people within 5-10 years of retirement, although given the Government's actions to date I wouldn't be surprised if they offered 8 weeks per year to someone with six month's service left!

Tipp Man

Why not select the people who are crap at their jobs and she "you're fired" to them (ok give them some redundancy if we have to)

RichardAnd

Tipp Man wrote: »

Why not select the people who are crap at their jobs and she "you're fired" to them (ok give them some redundancy if we have to)

Because of the unions.

But putting that aside, it's not as simple as it sounds to find the crap PS workers. To really weed out the wood worms, a detailed audit of every department would need to be carried out by an external body, preferably one from outside the state. This would take time, cost a huge amount of money and in the end, it's extremely difficult to simply sack people without a serious legal mess resulting.

No, true public sector reform would take decades. for now, we're stuck with the monster we allowed to grow during the boom.

mikemac

Ah, Mr. Slattery of State Street
Redundancies and hiring freeze in December 2008 and then a few months later announced a hiring initiative on hiring unqualified staff

Who cried cheap labour?

http://news.efinancialcareers.ie/News_ITEM/newsItemId-17824

I remember that article.
A man fond of getting himself in the headlines.

Sikie

This all spinning our wheels. We couldn't identify 30,000 to release.
Similarly we have no chance of finding efficiencies in the time scale the country needs them.

Next budget we should have a special national recovery levy imposed on Public Service this is the sort of stuff that can be done quickly
Croke Park agreement is still holds true no pay cuts to gross pay


But the Private sector needs to put up the fallout strikes etc
if they are not prepared to pay to maintain the Public Service with the pay and conditions they accumulated during the boom.
.

Sizzler

The real tragedy here is that we needed a f**king "agreement" to ensure the public service is EFFICIENT....seriously...WTF,you coudnt make it up ! Whos paying the poxy wages here, the govt or the unions? Its quite obvious who has the balance of power :rolleyes:

Sizzler

bamboozle wrote: »

oh yeah another thing, all elected members of Dail Eireann should be made forgoe their salary until they produce a Tax Clearance Cert from Revenue, that would have saved the state Bertie's salary since 2002...

he still hasnt provided one despite this being a prerequisite to being a member of the dail...he must be waiting for the bookies to confirm all the bets he's won

Please tell me this is a joke :eek:

muddled1

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/hse-chief-calls-for-voluntary-redundancy-scheme-132063.html

Hopefully it will happen sooner, rather than later.

Redeployment isn't alway's viable, especially for those in rural areas.

changes

Sikie wrote: »

Next budget we should have a special national recovery levy imposed on Public Service this is the sort of stuff that can be done quickly
Croke Park agreement is still holds true no pay cuts to gross pay

What? On top of the pension levy, income levy and paycut. Get real.

If anyone should be paying a national recovery levy its the people involved in property/banks over the last 15 years.

This budget should be about hitting everyone fairly and not singling out public servants.

Japer

Sikie wrote: »

This all spinning our wheels. We couldn't identify 30,000 to release.

Get the IMF / EU in and they will , quick enough. They will ask why we need so many public servants for a country of only 4 million people. While they are cutting 20% of the numbers in the public service, so the ratio is comparable to other countries, they will also cast a cold continental eye over the wages + pensions of those in the public service, and ask why they are the highest in Europe.

Gumbo

Japer wrote: »

Get the IMF / EU in and they will , quick enough. They will ask why we need so many public servants for a country of only 4 million people. While they are cutting 20% of the numbers in the public service, so the ratio is comparable to other countries, they will also cast a cold continental eye over the wages + pensions of those in the public service, and ask why they are the highest in Europe.

i would have no problem foregoing my PS pension if they allowed us to keep my Pension contributions and pension levy.

my levy is alot more than my contribution (not exact, payslip in work at the moment) and based on my projected salary scale, assuming i can even move up the ladder because of the embargo (no promotions etc i'll be on Grade 1 for a very very long time imo), i will be just as well off using my PRSA from my Private sector employment (which hasnt lost much money btw) and my state pension.

i met with an AVC company last week, and if i retire at 65 i need to contribute 60e per fortnight from now to 65 in order to have enough in my pot to cover me for the 3 years which i will not receive the state pension (68).

Edit -

Redundancies are being whispered throught my department at the moment, we already have reduced our current staff numbers from 6,500 to 5,500 since the terminating of contracts and the early retirement scheme, but seemly they want 500 more.

theres 2 people in my department, only 2 and the other guy is 51 years of age and being a PS guy all his life, we have been covering the work of others that have left, our work load is very very high and if he goes i don know how it will be done by me alone as im only a PS newbie

now im not complaining, i do my work, i get paid, i know alot of people that dont get paid every week but they are also people that didnt go to college and went straight to the trade earning 1k per week on site while i struggled with 18k salary while getting my degree.

again im not complaining, my mortgage is being paid so im lucky, but im on the bread line at the moment tbh and since my partner lost her job i dont know how we'll fair out if the budget takes even more......

anyway, just because there are some PS staff creaming it, its the higher managemnt type positions with their bonus scheme etc and allowances (i dont get petrol money or mileage allowance, i can get bus fare or luas paid for if i need it to be fair though), my point is there are normal people working within the PS/CS (im CS) that are not creaming it and not on any "gravy train"

Japer

kceire wrote: »

i would have no problem foregoing my PS pension if they allowed us to keep my Pension contributions and pension levy.

keep your future pension contributions so.....or else give the same pension rights to anyone ( from the private sector ) who is willing to pay the same pension contributions + get a public service size pension in return.

Most people who could afford to make pension contributions / provide for their retirement by investing in shares, property etc in the private sector have seen their pension decimated.

In contrast, there are people in the public sector with pension pots worth millions who have over their 30 to 40 years service very little to same pension. Public service pensioners do not need pensions of 50k and 100k and 150k, as they have their mortgages paid off, kids reared etc.

Gumbo

Japer wrote: »

keep your future pension contributions so.....or else give the same pension rights to anyone ( from the private sector ) who is willing to pay the same pension contributions + get a public service size pension in return.

Most people who could afford to make pension contributions / provide for their retirement by investing in shares, property etc in the private sector have seen their pension decimated.

In contrast, there are people in the public sector with pension pots worth millions who have over their 30 to 40 years service very little to same pension. Public service pensioners do not need pensions of 50k and 100k and 150k, as they have their mortgages paid off, kids reared etc.

some do, some wont.
my mortgage wont be paid off till im 62, bloody 62, and thats for a mid terraced 3 bedroom house in Finglas, so you cant say i over stretched on the property ladder tbh.
i bought during the boom, thats my fault i suppose, but i'd no choice at the time, rent was the same.

i agree, there should be a state pension and also an AVC as such to allow private sector employees to top up their pension pots.

what i dont agree with, is the constant saying that private sector employees pensions are decimated.

from 2002-2009 i paid into a private sector PRSA with AIB. my total contributions were €6,898.91 and the current value as of today is €6,731.64.

now im not afraid to use real figures, ive taken that from my Ark Life statement and i can monitor it using AIB Online. ive no facility to edit it, it was all managed by AIB for me and is only a very small sum as i was only starting my pension fund. the people that lost loads imo are the people that gambled imo.

changes

kceire wrote: »

anyway, just because there are some PS staff creaming it, its the higher managemnt type positions with their bonus scheme etc and allowances (i dont get petrol money or mileage allowance, i can get bus fare or luas paid for if i need it to be fair though), my point is there are normal people working within the PS/CS (im CS) that are not creaming it and not on any "gravy train"

Those high paid PS could be dealt (along with private sector higher earners) with by a 3rd rate of tax on all income in excess of 50K.

caseyann

I dont see why they need to make people redundant.
Why not cut high wages on everyone including fat politicians.

dvpower

kceire wrote: »

i would have no problem foregoing my PS pension if they allowed us to keep my Pension contributions and pension levy.

I think you need to do the sums again. Even with the normal contributions and the levy, the PS pension is still great value for money, especially so if you intend to stay in the service till retirement.

If it was possible to buy a defined benefits pension, it would cost a lot more than PS workers currently pay.

Gumbo

dvpower wrote: »

I think you need to do the sums again. Even with the normal contributions and the levy, the PS pension is still great value for money, especially so if you intend to stay in the service till retirement.

If it was possible to buy a defined benefits pension, it would cost a lot more than PS workers currently pay.

i wouldnt reach full service at 65 tbh, i will only have 36 years sercice if i do stay till 65 and finish my career there.

no need to do my sums again in my case, i know to buy a DB pension is very very expensive, and in that regards the pension is good, but in my case my PRSA would of more than make my pension pot similar to my PS pension if i stay there.

also if i leave before 65 aswell, and the same for anybody on the early retirement scheme, you have to pay a get out fee as such. for example i looked into the forms on retiring at 60 and i would have to give up 15% of the lump sum and 26% of my pension entitlement.

so if i stay till 65 i get 36/40ths of 50% of my final salary.
and 135% lump sum according to my contract.

ps - ive stopped paying my PRSA currently as i cant pay into both.

as i said im not on here moaning or anything, but there are "normal" salary figures within the Ps/CS too.

cyclopath2001

muddled1 wrote: »

Redeployment isn't alway's viable, especially for those in rural areas.

They didn't think of that when they dreamed up 'decentralisation'.

dan_d

caseyann wrote: »

I dont see why they need to make people redundant.
Why not cut high wages on everyone including fat politicians.

Definitely.For a start.

meditraitor

caseyann wrote: »

I dont see why they need to make people redundant.
Why not cut high wages on everyone including fat politicians.

This is probably the best option, something like

0% deduction for those p/s worker earning below 28k
7% deduction for 28K to 40K bracket
10% for 40K to 70k bracket
15% for those over 70K
20% for those above 150K

Probably cut about 10% of the total pay bill but keep them all in employment.....

caseyann

meditraitor wrote: »

This is probably the best option, something like

0% deduction for those p/s worker earning below 28k
7% deduction for 28K to 40K bracket
10% for 40K to 70k bracket
15% for those over 70K
20% for those above 150K

Probably cut about 10% of the total pay bill but keep them all in employment.....

It seems to me they are literally cutting people off at the knees in order to save the rich and their own wage packets.And the lower income bracket is getting whacked.
If it was the mafia you would call Cowen the god father and lenihan the lieutenant the rest the hit men.

Totally agree with you cutting them puts them in the unemployed

cyclopath2001

meditraitor wrote: »

This is probably the best option, something like

0% deduction for those p/s worker earning below 28k
7% deduction for 28K to 40K bracket
..

So, if you earn 27,999.99- no pay cut, but if you earn one cent more than that, you get your pay cut by 1,960?

Spudmonkey

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

So, if you earn 27,999.99- no pay cut, but if you earn one cent more than that, you get your pay cut by 1,960?

I assume he means 7% on anything over the 28k. The same as its calculated at the moment.

It doesn't make sense someone on more ending up with less.

Brussels Sprout

caseyann wrote: »

I dont see why they need to make people redundant.
Why not cut high wages on everyone including fat politicians.

And on the thin ones too!

caseyann

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

And on the thin ones too!

How many of them have you seen? :eek: Thats like looking for the dodo

Head The Wall

meditraitor wrote: »

This is probably the best option, something like

0% deduction for those p/s worker earning below 28k
7% deduction for 28K to 40K bracket
10% for 40K to 70k bracket
15% for those over 70K
20% for those above 150K

Probably cut about 10% of the total pay bill but keep them all in employment.....

All the reports have shown the greatest pay disparity between PS and private sector workers is at the lower end of the scale. Just because they are classed as a lower paid pencil pusher that doesn't mean they are lower paid compared to their private sector counterparts.

doc_17

Yeah pay cuts are needed but if pay is cut so should social welfare. It's too high

meditraitor

doc_17 wrote: »

Yeah pay cuts are needed but if pay is cut so should social welfare. It's too high

Cuts of 10% in both Public Service/civil service pay and social welfare payments would certainly go a long way towards balancing the books.....

It would be a hard pill to swallow though and might push some people over the edge,

Gumbo

Head The Wall wrote: »

All the reports have shown the greatest pay disparity between PS and private sector workers is at the lower end of the scale. Just because they are classed as a lower paid pencil pusher that doesn't mean they are lower paid compared to their private sector counterparts.

depends on the job i suppose, my friend recently started with a office stationory (sp) place in Santry last month and she walked in off the street on 26k. Mainly telesales and dealing with existing clients taking orders etc.

My other half has worked in office since she left school and has all the relevant office qualifications (ECDL etc), Insurance Certs QF1's and QF2 IIRC and she was only earning 29,200 in the height of the boom before she was let go so there are still decent paying private sector jobs out there i suppose is the point im trying to make.

sellerbarry

Tipp Man wrote: »

Why not select the people who are crap at their jobs and she "you're fired" to them (ok give them some redundancy if we have to)

Or just let Michael O' Leary take over the show.;)

dunsandin

I'd imagine the title of this thread should be "30,000 PS redundancies Kited, public reaction required for quantification".

johnboy_123

Tipp Man wrote: »

Why not select the people who are crap at their jobs and she "you're fired" to them (ok give them some redundancy if we have to)

I second that the P.S needs to get heavy handed and start with the 3 warning rule..Ie if they are 5 mins late verbal warning if they are caught on facebook during work 2nd verbal warning...If they are caught not bottering their hole answering the phone Written warning...If they are caught taking a sickie without being sick ...Cya later I reakon we would have 50% reduction in the public sector by xmas

johnboy_123

changes wrote: »

What? On top of the pension levy, income levy and paycut. Get real.

If anyone should be paying a national recovery levy its the people involved in property/banks over the last 15 years.

This budget should be about hitting everyone fairly and not singling out public servants.

Listen f()ck right off with your pension levy sh1te income levy and paycut is for everyone and the pension levy is a levy on a defined benfet that we here in the private sector cannot afford...I would gladly take a 7%pension levy if I could get the figure you guys will get at 65....So you get real your wages are now costing 70% of our spend which we are borrowing 20billion a year to cover so in 3 years time which is when the croker aggrement in over your wages will have outstripped what we are paying for the banks by 10 billiion...So who needs to get real eh?????

johnboy_123

kceire wrote: »

i wouldnt reach full service at 65 tbh, i will only have 36 years sercice if i do stay till 65 and finish my career there.

no need to do my sums again in my case, i know to buy a DB pension is very very expensive, and in that regards the pension is good, but in my case my PRSA would of more than make my pension pot similar to my PS pension if i stay there.

also if i leave before 65 aswell, and the same for anybody on the early retirement scheme, you have to pay a get out fee as such. for example i looked into the forms on retiring at 60 and i would have to give up 15% of the lump sum and 26% of my pension entitlement.

so if i stay till 65 i get 36/40ths of 50% of my final salary.
and 135% lump sum according to my contract.

ps - ive stopped paying my PRSA currently as i cant pay into both.

as i said im not on here moaning or anything, but there are "normal" salary figures within the Ps/CS too.

Retireing at 60 see this is exactly the type of P.S sense of entitlement that outrages me...very few in the private sector could even dream of retiring at 60 yet you as a person who is not apparently on great wage in the public sector can actually look at this a a viable option so anyone earnig above is getting more into their pension and probably looking at retiring at 50...UNREAL

galway2007

Let them go
But take the HSE for example
There are 250000 more people on the dole so they will be on the public health system
Staff number is being cut
Staff wages have be cut so moral at an all-time low
A management that doe not even know how to reform or manage
So my advice is next time you get sick call the Undertaker

ixoy

Would it not be possible to also increase the mandatory working week to cover up any numbers lost? For example, civil servants I know work 6.5 hour days once the (paid) tea breaks are factored in. You increase that to 7.5 hours, that's a potential 7% increase in man hours available to you.

As an aside, public sector proponents should be pushing for an increase in private sector wages as that will mean a greater tax take in to support the government bills

femur61

I really still can't get my head around "Job for Life". Is this the same in all countries?

RobbieTheRobber

femur61 wrote: »

I really still can't get my head around "Job for Life". Is this the same in all countries?

What do you mean job for life?

Are you telling me that a public servant who commits an act that would be a sackable offence in an other employment cant be sacked?

dvpower

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What do you mean job for life?

Are you telling me that a public servant who commits an act that would be a sackable offence in an other employment cant be sacked?

I think it means that a public servant can't be sacked unless they commit a sackable offence.

RobbieTheRobber

dvpower wrote: »

I think it means that a public servant can't be sacked unless they commit a sackable offence.

Damn those stupid labour laws and them applying to public servants, that was a massive oversight on the governments part wasnt it.

They should introduce slavery laws to deal with those pesky public servants!