Lenihan: No more pay cuts for public sector

_Kaiser_

From Breaking News:

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has reassured public sector unions that the Government is still committed to the Croke Park agreement, it was reported today.

The deal, which was negotiated six months ago, sets out targets on public service pensions and reform.

The Government has promised there will be no further pay cuts or changes in existing pension arrangements over the four-year life of the deal, which runs to 2014.

Neither will there be any compulsory redundancies.

In return the unions have agreed to co-operate with a wide-ranging programme of work reforms.

The deepening crisis in the public finances has however led to increased speculation in recent weeks that the Government could walk away from the deal.

Newspaper reports this morning however detail a meeting between Minister Lenihan and IMPACT General Secretary Shay Cody on Monday night to discuss media speculation on the issue. The minister is reported to have reassured Mr Cody and other union chiefs that his department had nothing to do with reports that the deal was under threat.

Meanwhile Mr Cody this morning said management in the public sector has to live up to their side of the deal on the Croke Park agreement, in order for it to work.

Mr Cody said commitment has been shown by both sides to the deal.

Sooo.. where's the savings to come from? Social welfare cuts and tax hikes for all then it seems.

As a former PS (and private sector) worker I have to say I'm disgusted as, while there are a lot of hardworking - generally younger - people in the PS who don't get the recognition or reward they deserve (no permanent contracts, no 100% paid for pension etc), there's an awful lot of deadwood that needs to be cleaned out too.

murphaph

I fail to see how any significant savings can come from PS reforms (which should have happened a decade ago) in which none of the accrued efficiency will be realised through redundancies.

Can some PS staff here please explain to me what sort of reform they can deliver that will save mulitple billions, without making anyone redundant (or reducing pay for that matter)?

Cavehill Red

Okay, so if the public sector aren't going to face pay cuts, presumably he intends to sack about a quarter of them?

jmayo

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

From Breaking News:



Sooo.. where's the savings to come from? Social welfare cuts and tax hikes for all then it seems.

As a former PS (and private sector) worker I have to say I'm disgusted as, while there are a lot of hardworking - generally younger - people in the PS who don't get the recognition or reward they deserve (no permanent contracts, no 100% paid for pension etc), there's an awful lot of deadwood that needs to be cleaned out too.

Would the reforms that the unions have kindly agreed to cooperate on be the same reforms that they agreed to do for benchmarking ?

Anyone that believes that public sector wages, pensions and numbers will not be cut over the next 4 years is deluded.
It just has to happen.
You can raise taxes both direct and indirect, cut social welfare, but one of the elephants in the room is the public sector wage and pension bill.

IMHO this is ff electioneering ?
After all they know they will probably face the electorate in 2011 so why pee off the public sector anymore.
Then the real hard decisions will have to made by FG/Lab.

All we hear from the leihan cheerleaders is that lenihan is different to the rest of ff.
lenihan makes the hard decisions.
Who are his supporters kidding. :rolleyes:

Cavehill Red

jmayo wrote: »

Would the reforms that the unions have kindly agreed to cooperate on be the same reforms that they agreed to do for benchmarking ?

On which topic, when does benchmarking start working in reverse? After all, private sector wages have been falling for nearly three years now.

Rabidlamb

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Okay, so if the public sector aren't going to face pay cuts, presumably he intends to sack about a quarter of them?

Nope, "No compulsory redundancies".
Tax is is so.

Cookie_Monster

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Nope, "No compulsory redundancies".
Tax is is so.

can still fire a load of them for not meeting targets and standards and such. no redundancy there.

a lot of contract will simply not be renewed for short termers too I imagine

jmayo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

On which topic, when does benchmarking start working in reverse? After all, private sector wages have been falling for nearly three years now.

Don't you know it works like the upward only commerical rent reviews.
It only goes one way.

jmayo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

can still fire a load of them for not meeting targets and standards and such. no redundancy there.

a lot of contract will simply not be renewed for short termers too I imagine

Yeah get rid of the contract staff just like in the HSE.
Except where does that hit, but the actual front line services that the public need.
Meanwhile the cushy unneccessary wasteful admin and management staff sail on immune from the cuts.

channelsurfer2

seems like the Sindo and Ivan Yates... Jim Power et al were beavering away trying to set the goverment agenda and get rid of the deal without even giving it a chance.... as a PS worker (low ranking) its hard to implement a deal when there has not even been a word about it from management or an action plan as to how to implement it. I have to say as I am about 8 years in the CS and came from the Private sector I am still shocked at the reactive nature of it and the very much defend your own back and ignore the public attitude of a lot of the Senior Personnel.

If they had to work in a Private Multi national and have firm defined targets they wouldnt last a wet week. it takes months for even the smallest idea to get a hearing or see the light... so expecting something to change overnight while realistic in the private sector is not in the PS. Give it until next year and yes if no progress then tear it up.. it will be hard on the employees who tried but didnt get any where because of lack of progress in implementation.

Either that or get rid of the 10 to 20% deadwood that have never had to work in the real world and think they have a right to do as they like..

anyway thats my two cents....

Cavehill Red

jmayo wrote: »

Don't you know it works like the upward only commerical rent reviews.
It only goes one way.

Isn't it irksome to see one sector of society entirely and unfairly insulated from this recession at the direct cost of everyone else?

gurramok

Maybe there will big a big push on Voluntary redundancies?

jessiejam

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Isn't it irksome to see one sector of society entirely and unfairly insulated from this recession at the direct cost of everyone else?

May I remind you that ALL PS workers have taken an average of a 14% pay cut and a pension levy was implemented in Jan 09. So NO they are not insulated from the recession at all. Nor are their partners who very well may have lost their job and the PS worker is the bread winner.

Cavehill Red

jessiejam wrote: »

May I remind you that ALL PS workers have taken an average of a 14% pay cut and a pension levy was implemented in Jan 09.

Wanna remind me of the private sector average wage cut? How about a comparison of redundancies? Oh yeah, doesn't exist in the public sector no matter how incompetent.

jessiejam wrote: »

Nor are their partners who very well may have lost their job...

You mean private sector workers, who aren't protected from the recession?

_Kaiser_

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

a lot of contract will simply not be renewed for short termers too I imagine

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah get rid of the contract staff just like in the HSE.
Except where does that hit, but the actual front line services that the public need.
Meanwhile the cushy unneccessary wasteful admin and management staff sail on immune from the cuts.

I have to agree wholeheartedly here as that's exactly what happened to me.

As I've said here before, I worked in the PS for the last few years (having come from the private sector before that) and my contract wasn't renewed because of the recruitment embargo, despite my having worked damned hard in my time there and saved the organisation significant amounts time and money through changes in practises that I initiated from my experience in the private sector.

Alongside me to go were front-line clerical and admin staff - generally in their late 20s to mid 30s - who like me had come from the private sector with qualifications and a work ethic, but who didn't get permanent contracts.

I'm not saying that everyone else in the organisation was a lazy waster by any means, but there was/is a lot of staff who have simply been there too long in an environment where there is no real accountability, performance management, annual reviews etc. These then drag down the rest of their departments as others are forced to take up the slack.

But.. by shedding people like myself the government can say "hey look, we've cut the numbers in the PS and the wage bill" but that only (temporarily) hides the deterioration in services it causes.

My own department no longer exists and has been outsourced - which will cost a hell of a lot more for less (services) than they paid for me.

So much for "saving money" eh?

boris232

I am a cs worker myself and while I agree that reform is ultimately necessary, don't tar us all with the same brush. There are some areas very efficient and some bloody terrible. I agree with the previous poster with regards to there being a lot of deadwood around. (This is due to there being a lack of take-up of PS/CS jobs during the good times.)

Regardless I think that there is a distinct possibility of a cut on the way. I remember Mr. Lenihan on the "Sunday Supplement" clearly stating that there would be no more pay cuts and doing a complete reverse in the budget two months later.

At the end of it all the public service is overstaffed in some areas, not enough in the right places, b***** org's ,quangos and jobs for the boys etc. Don't forget this was all created by politicans for PR purposes during the good times and suddenly they (the politicans) blame the PS during the bad.

rumour

jmayo wrote: »

IMHO this is ff electioneering ?
After all they know they will probably face the electorate in 2011 so why pee off the public sector anymore.
Then the real hard decisions will have to made by FG/Lab.

All we hear from the leihan cheerleaders is that lenihan is different to the rest of ff.
lenihan makes the hard decisions.
Who are his supporters kidding. :rolleyes:

I think your right. They are gambling again. They guess they can spin this out...meanwhile Moody's, S&P and the dog in the street can add this up.

1. Croke park deal...no reduced pay bill
2. Efficiencies promised under the deal:
   1. first dead line missed (report with action plan due from PS bodies last week on savings)
   2. Interpretation, they haven't even started yet.
3. Current account spending has actually risen this year despite media campaign to impress everyone with our austerity measures
4. Ecomony shrinking or stagnant
5. Major earnings from multi-nationals, domestic economy in tatters
6. How is deficit reduced?
   1. cutting expenditure...not likely in above scenario
   2. tax....cripple the domestic economy make it less attractive for multinationals
   3. Conclusion cannot happen.
7. General conclusion 'don't lend them money' you haven't a hope of recovering it. Result Ireland relegated to junk status.

Meanwhile back in never never land (dail eireann). Budget will come in November/December for four years, it'll be defeated but by opposition rather than sense.
FF are relying on FG in turmoil and labour shooting themselves in the foot having never identified what they will do. Calling an early election will potentially catch them off guard. All they need is the Irish Times and PS on board.
February new government however bonds have been reduced to junk, go to ECB for handout.

I'm beginning to belive the politics are irrelevant now...we're headed straight for the ECB.....they can have the problem of imposing cuts and for this we will sacrifice our low corporation tax to keep the PS going, this will sit well with Brussels they really don't like private industry and it should be paying more tax in Germany or France and not in some western province.

It'll take some time to dig ourselves out of this.

_Kaiser_

rumour wrote: »

Meanwhile back in never never land (dail eireann). Budget will come in November/December for four years, it'll be defeated but by opposition rather than sense.
FF are relying on FG in turmoil and labour shooting themselves in the foot having never identified what they will do. Calling an early election will potentially catch them off guard. All they need is the Irish Times and PS on board.
February new government

Maybe, maybe not...

Despite all the snappy soundbites and opinion polls, I don't believe that FG/LAB want to be in power to preside over the demise of the Irish economy (/state?).

You have to remember that FF didn't so much win the last election, as the "opposition" (and I use the term loosely as in my opinion we don't really have one) threw it away.

Therefore FG/LAB may well sit back and let FF throw the country to the wolves - if only so they can't be blamed for it (politicians looking after themselves.. it's what they do best in this country!)

GoldenTickets

I'm pretty happy with this. It's nice to see the Government honouring a deal for a change. My increment might actually make a difference to my take home pay this year since it won't be absorbed by another levy. Tax will probably eat a bit of it up though. Still, hopefully I'll get to keep some of it

jimmycrackcorm

GoldenTickets wrote: »

I'm pretty happy with this. It's nice to see the Government honouring a deal for a change. My increment might actually make a difference to my take home pay this year since it won't be absorbed by another levy. Tax will probably eat a bit of it up though. Still, hopefully I'll get to keep some of it

This is yet another example where so much of the anti-ps anger comes from. Automatic increments for no other reason than simply the length of time sitting in a chair.

changes

Voluntary redundancy and voluntary reductions in working hours will be where some savings could be made.

There are alot of middle aged staff in admin and management with the house paid for, spouse still in employment etc and are fairly comfortable who would take up these offers imo.

Also, a 3rd rate of tax on any income in excess of 50K would be a great way to make some extra revenue and would hit all higher earners public and private.

_Kaiser_

GoldenTickets wrote: »

I'm pretty happy with this. It's nice to see the Government honouring a deal for a change. My increment might actually make a difference to my take home pay this year since it won't be absorbed by another levy. Tax will probably eat a bit of it up though. Still, hopefully I'll get to keep some of it

No offense, but it's that "I'm alright Jack!" attitude that has the country the way it is.

Now obviously I don't know you, what you do, or how hard you work, but no one (public OR private sector!) is automatically "entitled" to a salary increase in my opinion - and I say that having worked for both myself.

Salary increases and rewards should be based on hard work and achievement, not just because you've stuck with the place another year. It's that structure that has led to the deadwood in the public sector. After all, if there's no real accountability or review process and you're guaranteed your payrise at the end of the year anyway, then why bother pushing yourself for it?

Qualitymark

Er... TDs' wages are benchmarked against the civil service salaries, yes?

Gumbo

GoldenTickets wrote: »

I'm pretty happy with this. It's nice to see the Government honouring a deal for a change. My increment might actually make a difference to my take home pay this year since it won't be absorbed by another levy. Tax will probably eat a bit of it up though. Still, hopefully I'll get to keep some of it

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This is yet another example where so much of the anti-ps anger comes from. Automatic increments for no other reason than simply the length of time sitting in a chair.

any chance GoldenTickets is just stirring it? or dare i say trolling?
i havenet received an increment since i started in the PS over 2 years ago.

it was my understanding that increments were stopped everywhere in the PS?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Salary increases and rewards should be based on hard work and achievement, not just because you've stuck with the place another year. It's that structure that has led to the deadwood in the public sector. After all, if there's no real accountability or review process and you're guaranteed your payrise at the end of the year anyway, then why bother pushing yourself for it?

totally agree with this, im a PS worker also.
i word hard, imo but of course i'd say that.

i came from the private sector too and implemented little changes that just make the office run better, little things like like better storage of projects, file syatems etc
and 99% of times i push the boat out and i do more than is asked of me.

i would like a yearly review in order to get an increment, inleast that way i can promote myself and show off the work ive completed etc and the people doing nothing would be found out.

when i joined i thought that PMDS would sort this, but it didnt realy tbh, but hopefully it can be turned around for the CPA this year.

BostonB

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This is yet another example where so much of the anti-ps anger comes from. Automatic increments for no other reason than simply the length of time sitting in a chair.

While obviously theres people getting automatic increments who don't deserve it. That aside, even in the private sector its not unusual to reward employees via a raise for long service, for loyalty as it were. Theres a cost to having to change employees and losing their experience. Perhaps people are not used to seeing it much lately as during the boom, people jumped from job to job rapidly at the whiff of money.

BostonB

Maybe its unusual, where I am in the PS people do get a mini review before their increment, and people have been told no increment due to poor performance or other problems. Its mainly because someone not pulling their weight means others have to carry their load. Especially when staff numbers are reducing, through retirements, and people leaving for other reasons.

_Kaiser_

kceire wrote: »

totally agree with this, im a PS worker also.
i word hard, imo but of course i'd say that.

i came from the private sector too and implemented little changes that just make the office run better, little things like like better storage of projects, file syatems etc
and 99% of times i push the boat out and i do more than is asked of me.

i would like a yearly review in order to get an increment, inleast that way i can promote myself and show off the work ive completed etc and the people doing nothing would be found out.

when i joined i thought that PMDS would sort this, but it didnt realy tbh, but hopefully it can be turned around for the CPA this year.

Like yourself I came from the private sector and used my experience to implement process changes (I ran my own IT department) that saved the organisation significant amounts of time and money.

I also worked extra hours after 5pm in the evenings and the occasional weekend to complete projects - not because I was required to or to say "hey look at me, aren't I great!" but because it was my job to get things done and I'd be the one getting the calls if it didn't work!

In the years I was there I had one review (whereas it was an annual event in my previous jobs AND you had to set yourself targets as well for training/qualifications etc), and what got to me (ironically) is the opposite - no matter how hard I worked, I never got anything more than anyone else, even if all they did was sit at the desk all day gossiping and drinking coffee.

_Kaiser_

BostonB wrote: »

While obviously theres people getting automatic increments who don't deserve it. That aside, even in the private sector its not unusual to reward employees via a raise for long service, for loyalty as it were.

Yes but that's for long service - if I recall right, in the first multinational I worked for it was after 10 years, and you were still subject to annual reviews and targets in the interim.

There's a difference between that and a annual increment based on nothing else than time served.

jmayo

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not...

Despite all the snappy soundbites and opinion polls, I don't believe that FG/LAB want to be in power to preside over the demise of the Irish economy (/state?).

You have to remember that FF didn't so much win the last election, as the "opposition" (and I use the term loosely as in my opinion we don't really have one) threw it away.

Therefore FG/LAB may well sit back and let FF throw the country to the wolves - if only so they can't be blamed for it (politicians looking after themselves.. it's what they do best in this country!)

I actually think there is one opposition politican who really does want to get into government.

GoldenTickets wrote: »

I'm pretty happy with this. It's nice to see the Government honouring a deal for a change. My increment might actually make a difference to my take home pay this year since it won't be absorbed by another levy. Tax will probably eat a bit of it up though. Still, hopefully I'll get to keep some of it

Please tell me you are joking ? :eek:

BostonB wrote: »

While obviously theres people getting automatic increments who don't deserve it. That aside, even in the private sector its not unusual to reward employees via a raise for long service, for loyalty as it were. Theres a cost to having to change employees and losing their experience. Perhaps people are not used to seeing it much lately as during the boom, people jumped from job to job rapidly at the whiff of money.

No in a private sector company you will find people don't get get service increments, inflationary increments, raises if revenues are down.
The company can't afford it and they are not going to borrow more to pay people for their long term service.
And if the workers don't like then they can shag off to be replaced by someone new who will probably work for less.

Sales can get bonuses/commision payments for bringing in extra revenue, but that would be about it as regards bonuses.

Spudmonkey

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not...

Despite all the snappy soundbites and opinion polls, I don't believe that FG/LAB want to be in power to preside over the demise of the Irish economy (/state?).

You have to remember that FF didn't so much win the last election, as the "opposition" (and I use the term loosely as in my opinion we don't really have one) threw it away.

Therefore FG/LAB may well sit back and let FF throw the country to the wolves - if only so they can't be blamed for it (politicians looking after themselves.. it's what they do best in this country!)

Is there another reason in that case why FG/Lab are constantly harping on about why they would like to get into power and have a general election before the next budget??

_Kaiser_

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Is there another reason in that case why FG/Lab are constantly harping on about why they would like to get into power and have a general election before the next budget??

Spin.. because they can't exactly say "hey we don't want to deal with the mess either!" They know FF will try to hang on until they and their "friends" get their money out of the banks using our money, and then they (FG/LAB etc) will be left to carry the can anyway.

If the opposition was serious and committed to deposing the current government they certainly wouldn't be entering into "pairing" agreements to maintain the status quo at voting times so as to facilitate the latest junket - something that amazed me when I read it! They'd surely be using the opportunity to bring further pressure on the government.

rumour

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Like yourself I came from the private sector and used my experience to implement process changes (I ran my own IT department) that saved the organisation significant amounts of time and money.

I also worked extra hours after 5pm in the evenings and the occasional weekend to complete projects - not because I was required to or to say "hey look at me, aren't I great!" but because it was my job to get things done and I'd be the one getting the calls if it didn't work!

In the years I was there I had one review (whereas it was an annual event in my previous jobs AND you had to set yourself targets as well for training/qualifications etc), and what got to me (ironically) is the opposite - no matter how hard I worked, I never got anything more than anyone else, even if all they did was sit at the desk all day gossiping and drinking coffee.

I'll admit I've never worked in the public sector but have worked alongside and with many of them for years. The majority I have to say are professional, but I've always noticed a lack of urgency and a general lack of motivation. I've watched over the years intelligent motivated people wilt until they either accept the modis operendi or leave. So what you say rings true to me, you are excuse me for being presumptious on the verge of loosing all motivation.

I'm a proponent of cutting the PS wage bill for pure accounting reasons money in = money out. So for the record I don't believe a country can exist without public services. But services is what they are and servants is what we should get. Then how do we pay for this?

As a small country we need the best and the brightest at the helm in the country (our current circumstances are more than adequate proof) and in order to do so they should be well renumerated, applying a european average is good a benchmark but does not serve our long term strategic interests.

The change I would like to see is accountability and a loss of job security to put it on a par with the private sector. Effectively if your crap you can be fired. If we employ good people they will rise, confident intelligent people generally always do. Those who oppose this are usually lazy and too comfortable. They will prey on the fears of others. For example loss of job security means you'll be in a sweat shop next week. I don't think so, not unless your useless.

If we could have this one change quickly we could rid out the useless people in the public service and maintain all our services and pay scales but with a reduced wage bill. This is a frightful thought for many but its better than sinking to the lowest common denominator and de-motivating everyone in the public service.

_Kaiser_

rumour wrote: »

I'll admit I've never worked in the public sector but have worked alongside and with many of them for years. The majority I have to say are professional, but I've always noticed a lack of urgency and a general lack of motivation. I've watched over the years intelligent motivated people wilt until they either accept the modis operendi or leave. So what you say rings true to me, you are excuse me for being presumptious on the verge of loosing all motivation.

Worse than that.. I lost my job as I wasn't on a permanent contract. The work I was doing will be now outsourced at substantially higher cost for less return.

I agree with the rest of your post though, it wouldn't take much to implement a proper annual performance review/management process (the structure is in theory already there and from what BostonB says above, is being used in some parts of the PS) and let people earn their wages and payrises as is the case everywhere else.

If you work hard and bring value to the organisation then you deserve to be rewarded financially and recognised with permanent contracts - still subject to the same ongoing review process of course - if you don't perform... well, there's the door!

Of course, given that the people responsible for making these changes are the same ones who are benefitting from the current setup, I won't hold my breath for change!

SirPeter

rumour wrote: »

I'll admit I've never worked in the public sector but have worked alongside and with many of them for years. The majority I have to say are professional, but I've always noticed a lack of urgency and a general lack of motivation. I've watched over the years intelligent motivated people wilt until they either accept the modis operendi or leave. .

While I am not a knocker of the public service, my experience of the service they offer is one of enormous waste.

From CIE leaving their locomotive engines running all night wasting fuel, to theatre lists in hospitals being cancelled at the last minute, but the salaries of all those like the surgeons, nurses, porters and all others who are needed to support theatre are still paid, regardless.

Try approaching a hospital to supply them with any sort of product, lets say an entrance mat. It will take 6 months and more meetings than I've had in my whole lifetime to get a decision made on whether to buy a relatively minor product. All the people in those meeting are being paid by the public purse, and the cost of making a decision to buy a mat or not probably costs thousands of euro.

Compare that to approaching, say, IBM or Intel or Supervalu, and see the difference.

I think the time for Lenihan to make these decisions is fast running out, and our politicians are simply not able to make the decisions that we all know we need to make. IN two years, taking into account the 30 billion Lenihan is borrowing to shore up the banks, Ireland will have to borrow €70 billion just to keep the lights on.

The interest on €70 billion is in the region of €3.5 billion per annum extra Ireland needs to find EVERY YEAR, and thats before any capital is paid off.

That's a situation which is not sustainable, and sooner or later Ireland will have to get someone else to make the sort of decisions which our politicians are unable to make.

There is no other way out of this, and tinkering about the edges, which seems to be Lenihans policy, will sooner or later be his, and Irelands, undoing.

BostonB

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Yes but that's for long service - if I recall right, in the first multinational I worked for it was after 10 years, and you were still subject to annual reviews and targets in the interim.

There's a difference between that and a annual increment based on nothing else than time served.

Call it what you like, I shouldn't have used the term, long service. Increments, raises whatever. Well I've got annual increments/raises when I worked in the private sector.

jmayo wrote: »

....No in a private sector company you will find people don't get get service increments, inflationary increments, raises if revenues are down.
The company can't afford it and they are not going to borrow more to pay people for their long term service.
And if the workers don't like then they can shag off to be replaced by someone new who will probably work for less.

Sales can get bonuses/commision payments for bringing in extra revenue, but that would be about it as regards bonuses.

Not everyone works in sales. You can get bonus'es for lots of things, finishing things on time, working late to get things done, doing things particularly well, gaining new skills. It could be stock options, cash, you might get more annual leave, other perks etc.

Where I am in the PS, there is a block at the moment on increments, no overtime, and you can't be promoted to a new grade, if it involves a salary increase. So lateral moves only. Salary is decreased though the levies, and there less staff to do the same (if not more) work. As contractors are gone, no one who leaves, or retires is replaced.

I'm not complaining about it. Just pointing out theres big variations in how places work everywhere. Be they Public or Private.

seamus

Rumblings at the moment are that even though Lenihan will say that he's "committed" to the Croke Park deal, the unions look likely to fail to produce any kind of reform plan on time (unions in "inefficient" shocker!) and the Government will rip up the agreement on the basis that the unions didn't keep their side of it.

BostonB

rumour wrote: »

I'll admit I've never worked in the public sector but have worked alongside and with many of them for years. The majority I have to say are professional, but I've always noticed a lack of urgency and a general lack of motivation. I've watched over the years intelligent motivated people wilt until they either accept the modis operendi or leave. ...

True.

Working for profit lights a fire like no other. (for many but not all)

joolsthedog

The Public Service has a permormance management system for job & performance appraisals. It is completely useless because unlike the Private sector - nobody in Public service management has the guts to fire a poor/lazy subordinate. Get rid of the deadwood and make room for somebody in the dole queue who is qualified, capable and interested in doing a good job

ParkRunner

rumour wrote: »

The change I would like to see is accountability and a loss of job security to put it on a par with the private sector. Effectively if your crap you can be fired. If we employ good people they will rise, confident intelligent people generally always do. Those who oppose this are usually lazy and too comfortable. They will prey on the fears of others. For example loss of job security means you'll be in a sweat shop next week. I don't think so, not unless your useless.

If we could have this one change quickly we could rid out the useless people in the public service and maintain all our services and pay scales but with a reduced wage bill. This is a frightful thought for many but its better than sinking to the lowest common denominator and de-motivating everyone in the public service.

I think the vast majority of public sector workers (myself included) would be more than happy to have less job security in order to improve the quality of staff. I think it is starting to happen though with excessive sick leave not being tolerated and disciplinary proceedings being commenced and increments increasingly being refused for poor performance. Those who turn up week in week out and perform well likewise shouldn't have to face a daily bashing in the media. Even today it was impossible to ignore the horror that public servants won't be cut again, even though all the tax increasing measures will affect evey public sector worker too.

A voluntary redundancy programme with management carefully selecting who is let go may be the way to go. Public servants (or the unions) are not in any way shirking the issue as far as I can see. Bring on the reforms if it means the service to the public improves and working conditions aren't reduced to a level where the best and brightest look elsewhere for work.

Ardent

I think it's quite shocking that Lenihan has come out and said there will no further cuts in the public sector. Given what's going on with the bank bailouts, bond markets and the national deficit, it's an absolutely disgraceful decision. Fianna Fail are more concerned with saving their political lives than the f*cking country.

We cannot continue to borrow money at current levels, our expenditure is off the chart and needs to be addressed. Simple as. Raising taxes across the board will only drive down economic activity further and will not solve our problems.

I swear to god, it's like watching a bunch of kids spend everything today with no consideration for tomorrow. Who votes these people in??

channelsurfer2

seamus wrote: »

Rumblings at the moment are that even though Lenihan will say that he's "committed" to the Croke Park deal, the unions look likely to fail to produce any kind of reform plan on time (unions in "inefficient" shocker!) and the Government will rip up the agreement on the basis that the unions didn't keep their side of it.

errrr. its not up to the unions to produce a reform plan... its up to the senior Secretary Generals of each department to come up with a plan and make the unions agree to it... its totally different to asking the unions to come up with a plan. if has been said a lot of Departments failed to come up or submit their plans to the Department of finance last week then how can the unions be expected to implement something they have not been given????

Citizen_Cutback

SirPeter wrote: »

While I am not a knocker of the public service, my experience of the service they offer is one of enormous waste.

From CIE leaving their locomotive engines running all night wasting fuel, to...

A point of information:

A diesel locomotive is basically an electric DC generator which is used to drive electric DC motors which turn the wheels. Turning off a diesel locomotive is somewhat like turning off a power station, it is kinda hard to turn on again... Anyway when the train is parked there is no load on the engine and it requires little fuel.

marco_polo

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I have to agree wholeheartedly here as that's exactly what happened to me.

As I've said here before, I worked in the PS for the last few years (having come from the private sector before that) and my contract wasn't renewed because of the recruitment embargo, despite my having worked damned hard in my time there and saved the organisation significant amounts time and money through changes in practises that I initiated from my experience in the private sector.

Alongside me to go were front-line clerical and admin staff - generally in their late 20s to mid 30s - who like me had come from the private sector with qualifications and a work ethic, but who didn't get permanent contracts.

I'm not saying that everyone else in the organisation was a lazy waster by any means, but there was/is a lot of staff who have simply been there too long in an environment where there is no real accountability, performance management, annual reviews etc. These then drag down the rest of their departments as others are forced to take up the slack.

But.. by shedding people like myself the government can say "hey look, we've cut the numbers in the PS and the wage bill" but that only (temporarily) hides the deterioration in services it causes.

My own department no longer exists and has been outsourced - which will cost a hell of a lot more for less (services) than they paid for me.

So much for "saving money" eh?

^^^

This is exactly why I have no great expectations on the issue of Public Service reform.

Any redundancies will only effect non permanent staff regardless of how hardworking or useful they are in their Role. While all permanent staff will remain untouchable regardless of ability or performance levels.

Similar story all through the HSE as well, loads of frontline non permanent staff either let go or not replaced, leading to ward closures, service cutbacks etc, while the hugely overstaffed layers of administrative and middle management, nearly all permanant, will remain in place virtually intact.

Why the majority of hardworking Public Servants tolerate/hide/put up with the dead wood I will never know.

seamus

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

errrr. its not up to the unions to produce a reform plan... its up to the senior Secretary Generals of each department to come up with a plan and make the unions agree to it... its totally different to asking the unions to come up with a plan. if has been said a lot of Departments failed to come up or submit their plans to the Department of finance last week then how can the unions be expected to implement something they have not been given????

Apologies, I don't know anything about the complicated bureacracies which the PS has managed to create. The secretary generals of each department would be members of the unions surely? Even if the unions weren't specifically tasked with coming up with reform plans, would it not have been in their own interest to ensure that such plans were given top priority and produced 3 months ago?

Also, from what I recall, these cost savings, or at least a plan for such were to be delivered by the public sector (not the government) before the next budget. If they're not delivered, the agreement is dead. It's the unions' responsibility to put pressure on the relevant people to produce these plans.

Gumbo

seamus wrote: »

Apologies, I don't know anything about the complicated bureacracies which the PS has managed to create. The secretary generals of each department would be members of the unions surely? Even if the unions weren't specifically tasked with coming up with reform plans, would it not have been in their own interest to ensure that such plans were given top priority and produced 3 months ago?

with all due respect, why comment on something you dont understand or know anything about, by your own admission?

i wouldnt even know where to start in relation to the reform policy or reform plans as i dont fully understand it. Although i can say, there are parts of the PS already reforming and redeploying staff in accordance with the CPA, my own Dept included.

jmayo

BostonB wrote: »

...
Not everyone works in sales. You can get bonus'es for lots of things, finishing things on time, working late to get things done, doing things particularly well, gaining new skills. It could be stock options, cash, you might get more annual leave, other perks etc.
...

You are not getting what I am saying.
If a company ORGANISATION is losing money and in serious trouble, then bonuses and extra payments go out the window.
It doesn't matter if someone gets new training (giving them the training would be seen as the bonus in itself) or works late to finish project, if there isn't the money then they ain't going to be getting extra payments.
It is normally expected workers put in the extra work to get the keep company afloat and hopefully get it back on firm ground.
Extra leave is just that you get time off in lieu.
Trust me I have been there.

Yes it may well result in some benefit down the road where people's efforts are remembered, but not in short term while company is fighting for existence.
Commissions will probably still be paid to sales staff who are bucking the trend and bringing in money, but that would probably be it as regards extra payments out side basic salary.

RobbieTheRobber

seamus wrote: »

Apologies, I don't know anything about the complicated bureacracies which the PS has managed to create. The secretary generals of each department would be members of the unions surely? Even if the unions weren't specifically tasked with coming up with reform plans, would it not have been in their own interest to ensure that such plans were given top priority and produced 3 months ago?

Also, from what I recall, these cost savings, or at least a plan for such were to be delivered by the public sector (not the government) before the next budget. If they're not delivered, the agreement is dead. It's the unions' responsibility to put pressure on the relevant people to produce these plans.

I believe its a department of Finance lead iniative about the transformation so i believe the pressure should come from the most senior person in that department ie the Minister for Finance a sitting member of the the dail a serving TD and also a sitting member of the cabinet. So I would believe pressue should come from the government and not the unions.

I also have a feeling that if the media were to get a story about pressure being exerted by the unions in regard to the croke park agreement yourself and many of the other boards posters would begin complaining about how the unions really run the country!

Bla bla bla rabble rabble, kill the public servants and so on and so on..........

RobbieTheRobber

jmayo wrote: »

You are not getting what I am saying.
If a company is losing money and in serious trouble, then bonuses and extra payments go out the window.
It doesn't matter if someone gets new training (giving them the training would be seen as the bonus in itself) or works late to finish project, if there isn't the money then they ain't going to be getting extra payments.
It is normally expected workers put in the extra work to get the keep company afloat and hopefully get it back on firm ground.
Extra leave is just that you get time off in lieu.
Trust me I have been there.

Yes it may well result in some benefit down the road where people's efforts are remembered, but not in short term while company is fighting for existence.
Commissions will probably still be paid to sales staff who are bucking the trend and bringing in money, but that would probably be it as regards extra payments out side basic salary.

Let me clarify something for you, the Irish Government is not a company!

murphaph

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Let me clarify something for you, the Irish Government is not a company!

The books still have to balance though!

RobbieTheRobber

murphaph wrote: »

The books still have to balance though!

So your are sugggesting that the government save costs by using many of the methods a large multi national company would to cut costs?

If you are, can you outline some fo these so we can agree or refute them!

Spudmonkey

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So your are sugggesting that the government save costs by using many of the methods a large multi national company would to cut costs?

If you are, can you outline some fo these so we can agree or refute them!

A companies primary interests are for its shareholders so this is apples and oranges. A much more realistic comparison is between this and a normal household's budget.

Do you believe that a household can continually borrow money in order to pay day to day expenses? It is not out to make a profit, but it cannot run at a loss.