1bn to be cut from Health

femur61

Did I hear right, did Mary Harney say 70% of money to heatlth is spent on wages!

Pete_Cavan

I heard that on the news as well, but thats not the bit I found incredible. The assertion from the union reps that the savings could be made elsewhere and that wages should not be touched is what really makes me worry for the future of this country.

Tora Bora

femur61 wrote: »

Did I hear right, did Mary Harney say 70% of money to heatlth is spent on wages!

Not alone that, but Mary Barmy, stoicly said that pay could not be reduced because of the Coke Park, agreement.

bad2dabone

I recall reading that 44% of the total health spend is on Admin. Thats about 6 billion. on admin. sick.

mrgaa1

Its quite staggering that 70% of the health spend is on wages and that it can't be touched. Where are we going? What mentality have we got?
What people have to remember is if the IMF come in changes will be arbitrarily made with absolute no discussion.
I quite simply ask that all those in the cabinet (bar the ladies unless.....) that they simply check that they have a pair of b*lls and that the next action they take is to say "here is what is going to happen..." as opposed "we might", "we're discussing". Its time for REAL leadership, real men, to stand up and tell all public workers that the unions are now barred, that pay cuts of 10-40% are on their way, that 30-40% is coming of the dole money and it starting next Monday. Not March 1st 2011 but next week. Instant savings MUST be made.
Please, please remove the unions - they are not working in the interest of the country.

feicim

femur61 wrote: »

Did I hear right, did Mary Harney say 70% of money to heatlth is spent on wages!

Thats the same percentage of the education budget that is spent on wages 70-75%. Funnily enough this "can't" be touched either.

cyclopath2001

femur61 wrote: »

Did I hear right, did Mary Harney say 70% of money to heatlth is spent on wages!

Why so surprised? Robot doctors and nurses have yet to be invented.

20Cent

feicim wrote: »

Thats the same percentage of the education budget that is spent on wages 70-75%. Funnily enough this "can't" be touched either.

Health and education are people heavy organisations. Wages have already been cut in both. Wages can be touched again probably will be. Saying they can't is just harness ff spin.

Head The Wall

Anyone know the ratios of budget spent on pay in other countries? or do people believe that 70 percent is normal and that we are just really unlucky to have a really crap services.

blue_steel

Can the public service bashers please take your heads out of your arses and realise that Fat Mary said this for a very specific reason. To deflect attention from her and her cronies. So that people like you would once again blame ordinary workers instead of her. She is getting a 3 million euro ministers pension from tax payers. Take it out on her, not the people who will be looking after you the next time you get sick.

meditraitor

blue_steel wrote: »

Take it out on her, not the people who will be looking after you the next time you get sick.

The same people that will strike when they are asked to take part in the fiscal recovery by taking a hit like the rest of us?

The same people with one of the highest absenteism in the economy (paid I might add)

The same people who are paid higher than their compatriots in the UK,Germany and france.


Nah, blame fat mary......... Frontline HSE staff have been using FF tactics for years... everyone else but us...

ardmacha

Anyone know the ratios of budget spent on pay in other countries? or do people believe that 70 percent is normal and that we are just really unlucky to have a really crap services.

In relation to education we have a decent service but crap buildings etc because spending per student is lower than other countries thereby increasing the proportion spent on wages.

In relation to health we have a crap service because it has little organisation and the people are not deployed to best effect.

WalterMitty

When you hear people moan about people dying/suffering due to less resources in Health services just remember that the reason there will be less resources as pay wont be cut, despite health workers here being amongst highest paid in world. Ah theres no money for a piece of medical equipment but sure our consultants and nurses are the best paid in europe . People should join the dots and realise that whilst we pay public servants amongst highest pay levels in europe we cant deploy resources into non labour aspects of public services.

CamperMan

I think the amount is €14 billion spent on HSE staff, an this is protected by some crap called the croke park deal...., managers managing managers.. :mad:. jobs for the boys!!

Amhran Nua

bad2dabone wrote: »

I recall reading that 44% of the total health spend is on Admin. Thats about 6 billion. on admin. sick.

You could probably cut that down to €500 million if you introduced an electronic patient record system like Singapore. Of course then you'd need to work out what to do with all the admins.

20Cent

WalterMitty wrote: »

When you hear people moan about people dying/suffering due to less resources in Health services just remember that the reason there will be less resources as pay wont be cut, despite health workers here being amongst highest paid in world. Ah theres no money for a piece of medical equipment but sure our consultants and nurses are the best paid in europe . People should join the dots and realise that whilst we pay public servants amongst highest pay levels in europe we cant deploy resources into non labour aspects of public services.

That you Mary?

Lemming

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You could probably cut that down to €500 million if you introduced an electronic patient record system like Singapore. Of course then you'd need to work out what to do with all the admins.

Of the IT work I've been unfortunate enough to work on that also required involvement with the HSE, they were appallingly slow to get any sort of answer out of, never mind a succinct answer. Even simple answers of 'yes' and 'no' took absolutely months to get out of them. Anything technical? Kill yourself now. Even if the work you were doing was at their behest, they were brutal to work with.

There is appalling wastage both in use of employees and systems/processes within the HSE itself and it is a very, very good place to start in both slashing away fat (be it personnel, systems, or processes), and gaining startling level of efficiencies out of.

A lot of both my own experiences, and that of a family member (working for another gov. dept and who has zero tolerance for bullsh*t or time wasting in his job), there is a culture of passing the buck within the HSE; and this comes, chiefly imo, from the fact there are so many managers in there who simply do nothing and have no actual functioning jobs as they were never redeployed or made redundant when the health boards were amalgamated into the HSE. There are other HSE staff as well I'm sure, but definitely a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians.

Address the issue of leadership and create a clear chain of authority, and you put decisions in people's hands and theirs alone which in turn will breed efficiencies for the HSE, if people are also held accountable for their decisions (or more importantly; lack of decisions & time-wasting). That's before you go spending money replacing systems or tearing up working processes (that ironically, clearly don't work very well).

That's a starting point. You've still got the wastage in hospitals to deal with, and the vested interest groups whose power simply has to be broken, along with the shockingly poor drug price agreements negotiated for the state.

All the above is without going near front-line services until you need to. But what will happen is that all the managers will get their say in and it'll be rank & file + services that get it in the neck first.

QuiteInterestin

They mightn't be able to cut staff wages but I doubt theres anything to stop them cutting numbers by non renewal of temporary contracts. There are about 10,000+ temporary staff in the HSE and I doubt they will be protected by the Croke Park agreement. Unfortunatly these temporary staff tend to be younger and aren't fairly represented by their unions. In my opinion, the unions seem to be more interested in keeping their older, long standing members happy then thinking of the professions as a whole, they seem happier for numbers of staff to fall then for any of their more established members to take a pay cut or have a change in working conditions.

As an aside, the Croke Park Agreement was officially ratified 4 mths ago, what progress (if any) has been made in the reform of the public service that was promised in return for the guarentee of no pay cuts?

Amhran Nua

Lemming wrote: »

A lot of both my own experiences, and that of a family member (working for another gov. dept and who has zero tolerance for bullsh*t or time wasting in his job), there is a culture of passing the buck within the HSE; and this comes, chiefly imo, from the fact there are so many managers in there who simply do nothing and have no actual functioning jobs as they were never redeployed or made redundant when the health boards were amalgamated into the HSE. There are other HSE staff as well I'm sure, but definitely a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians.

Purely anecdotally I'd echo that, a friend's wife works for the HSE and she's mentioned a couple of times that her entire department could go missing and nobody would ever notice. NASA in the US had a similar experience, upon a recent change of administration, lots of sections of the organisation were let go, and a month later nobody could remember what they actually did.

There is of course a relatively easy and cost free way to deal with it, but it always starts a massive argument every time its mentioned.

Lemming

QuiteInterestin wrote: »

They mightn't be able to cut staff wages but I doubt theres anything to stop them cutting numbers by non renewal of temporary contracts. There are about 10,000+ temporary staff in the HSE and I doubt they will be protected by the Croke Park agreement. Unfortunatly these temporary staff tend to be younger and aren't fairly represented by their unions. In my opinion, the unions seem to be more interested in keeping their older, long standing members happy then thinking of the professions as a whole, they seem happier for numbers of staff to fall then for any of their more established members to take a pay cut or have a change in working conditions.

Those on contracts are quite likely to be front-line/services staff.

As an aside, the Croke Park Agreement was officially ratified 4 mths ago, what progress (if any) has been made in the reform of the public service that was promised in return for the guarentee of no pay cuts?

Heh. This would be the same reforms that were promised if benchmarking rewards were given way back in the early 2000s? Unsurprisingly, they still haven't materialised.

Lemming

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Purely anecdotally I'd echo that, a friend's wife works for the HSE and she's mentioned a couple of times that her entire department could go missing and nobody would ever notice. NASA in the US had a similar experience, upon a recent change of administration, lots of sections of the organisation were let go, and a month later nobody could remember what they actually did.

Interesting story about NASA. When I visited the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida on holiday in 2007, it was mentioned that NASA now consists of 11,000 staff. Some 2,000 are permanent employees, the rest are contractors working for other firms, so come and go as projects wind up or start, or new expertise or manpower is required for problem 'x'

ardmacha

a friend's wife works for the HSE and she's mentioned a couple of times that her entire department could go missing and nobody would ever notice.

As health is in fairly constant demand, this is a serious inditement of the HSE. It is not quite like NASA where there are signficant variations in work required, people get sick all of the time.

This would be the same reforms that were promised if benchmarking rewards were given way back in the early 2000s? Unsurprisingly, they still haven't materialised

.

Would you like to give one concrete example of a reform proposed as part of benchmarking where there was a definite attempt to achieve this and it wasn't delivered.

Flimbos

Incredible that Mary Harney can come on the news and nonchalantly throw out a figure like €1 Billion, and then cite the Croke Park agreement and say no to pay cuts.

Many departments in the HSE are top heavy with admin/ middle management on high wages, many of these positions are far from essential and could be made redundant if the minister had the courage, decency and common sense to make the "hard decisions".

But she doesn't, and inevitably, again, essential services will be cut and people will suffer.

Jesus Wept

It's hard simply to find budget figures.
What's the total spend on healthcare?

Anyone know where the easiest place is to locate budget figures?

femur61

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Purely anecdotally I'd echo that, a friend's wife works for the HSE and she's mentioned a couple of times that her entire department could go missing and nobody would ever notice. .

You must be from the same part of the country I'm from because coincidently my in laws said the same thing.

I do find it utterly amazing that there are 16% employed in the PS and the part of the countries finances (or lack of finance) is held ransom by their unions.

We spent 800 years fighting for our independence only to be manipulated and taken advantage by a group , not just unions, bankers, TD's and literallly anone in power in this country. Initially we never questioned the church and now we have let other people run our country into the country.

God we are so gullible.

Lemming

ardmacha wrote: »

Would you like to give one concrete example of a reform proposed as part of benchmarking where there was a definite attempt to achieve this and it wasn't delivered.

That you feel the need to ask me for proof of a reform that had a definite attempt to achieve which wasn't met only underscores the sheer cynicism in your question. I'm sorry; you mean to say that reforms were promised with no intention of delivering whilst demanding pay increases in exchange?

These reforms were promised in exchange for benchmarking, and that end of the deal was simply not delivered over the intervening years.

I have no problem with someone negotiating from a tenable position, but the above is not tenable as there is no position from which to negotiate. Which is moot anyway since the fiscal position of the PS isn't tenable as it stands right now and something somewhere has to give unfortunately.

senordingdong

Lemming wrote: »

Of the IT work I've been unfortunate enough to work on that also required involvement with the HSE, they were appallingly slow to get any sort of answer out of, never mind a succinct answer. Even simple answers of 'yes' and 'no' took absolutely months to get out of them. Anything technical? Kill yourself now. Even if the work you were doing was at their behest, they were brutal to work with.

There is appalling wastage both in use of employees and systems/processes within the HSE itself and it is a very, very good place to start in both slashing away fat (be it personnel, systems, or processes), and gaining startling level of efficiencies out of.

A lot of both my own experiences, and that of a family member (working for another gov. dept and who has zero tolerance for bullsh*t or time wasting in his job), there is a culture of passing the buck within the HSE; and this comes, chiefly imo, from the fact there are so many managers in there who simply do nothing and have no actual functioning jobs as they were never redeployed or made redundant when the health boards were amalgamated into the HSE. There are other HSE staff as well I'm sure, but definitely a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians.

Address the issue of leadership and create a clear chain of authority, and you put decisions in people's hands and theirs alone which in turn will breed efficiencies for the HSE, if people are also held accountable for their decisions (or more importantly; lack of decisions & time-wasting). That's before you go spending money replacing systems or tearing up working processes (that ironically, clearly don't work very well).

That's a starting point. You've still got the wastage in hospitals to deal with, and the vested interest groups whose power simply has to be broken, along with the shockingly poor drug price agreements negotiated for the state.

All the above is without going near front-line services until you need to. But what will happen is that all the managers will get their say in and it'll be rank & file + services that get it in the neck first.

In fairness, considering who they answer to ( the same person who created the HSE), it's hardly a surprise that they behave this way.

jimmycrackcorm

senordingdong wrote: »

In fairness, considering who they answer to ( the same person who created the HSE), it's hardly a surprise that they behave this way.

Who they answer to is the union chiefs as they are the ones calling the shots. How far do you think Harney would get if she announced a cull on staff and wages

Lemming

senordingdong wrote: »

In fairness, considering who they answer to ( the same person who created the HSE), it's hardly a surprise that they behave this way.

No fairness to it. Nor sense or love of sanity. Funnily enough I could tell you stories (all heard from those who experienced it directly) of internal government dealings where members of the HSE simply didn't want to be the one to stand behind a decision in case political masters asked "why?"

It's not so much those who created the HSE and more a simple case of nobody wants to be the one to stand up and say "I took x,y,z decisions based on a,b,c". It's poor management and/ or lack of clear authority on who is in charge of what internally. There's only so much blame that can be laid at the feet of those who created the HSE, as how long does it take for those high up the food chain within the HSE to take stock and think "this is madness! change this, that, and the other"?

We all blame politicians because they're the mouth piece, but it's other senior civil servants who do the actual work and iron out the details, or supposedly so in the case of the HSE because clearly they didn't.

gurramok

ardmacha wrote: »

In relation to education we have a decent service but crap buildings etc because spending per student is lower than other countries thereby increasing the proportion spent on wages.

In relation to health we have a crap service because it has little organisation and the people are not deployed to best effect.

Ah the old GDP argument again without mentioning that its heavily distorted by MNC's. Try GNP for this country instead and see what the spending is.

jmayo

All that is going to happen is contract staff will be cut, temporary staff will be cut, the ones that leave or retire will not be replaced.
And where will this hit most ?
The front line where contract nurses, temps will be cut, nurses and junior doctors that leave to travel and gain experience abroad will not be replaced.

Meanwhile the Program Managers (another new management level added in some hospitals), the large purchasing, accounts, admin departments will not really suffer as they are probably well overstaffed due to growth since bertie entered in 1997.

People in these departments are not going to be going overseas for experience, although they may be going overseas supposedly training as part of a junket, but that is a whole other story.

New desperately needed hospitals such as National Rehab will not be built.
New equipment will not be purchased.
Again this affects the care patients receive.

And not forgetting our overpaid front line staff; doctors, consultants and indeed nurses will not allow their salaries be touched.

The only way the health system can be rescued is if the unions and professional representative bodies are destroyed.
And that goes for the unions representing the porters, the unions representing junior managers, the representative body for senior managers and the consultants organisation.

20Cent

jmayo wrote: »

The only way the health system can be rescued is if the unions and professional representative bodies are destroyed.
And that goes for the unions representing the porters, the unions representing junior managers, the representative body for senior managers and the consultants organisation.

They don't need to be destroyed. The Gov just need the backbone to stand up to them. Getting rid of unions sounds like a slippery slope.

jmayo

20Cent wrote: »

They don't need to be destroyed. The Gov just need the backbone to stand up to them. Getting rid of unions sounds like a slippery slope.

Standing upto them once just means they regroup and fight the next change.
Getting anything done in some union riddled organisations is just much too slow, costly and cumbersome.
The unions see these organisations just existing for their benefit (and the members benefit) rather than for the benefit of the customers (usually general public) and indeed the shareholders (often the taxpayers and citizens of the state).

I hold unions today bear no semblance to those that fought in the late 19th or early 20th century for workers rights.
Today our unions exist to allow some be pampered and protected.
They protect the lazy, the inept, and whether some will it admit or not they harm the prospects of the honest hardworkers.

Amhran Nua

jmayo wrote: »

The only way the health system can be rescued is if the unions and professional representative bodies are destroyed.

Privatisation would do that quite neatly, or at least balkanise them so they can't hold the health of our children to ransom as a nation. As it turns out, based on the Singaporean experience of electronic patient records versus administration staff, you could cut admin costs down from around €6 billion to €120 million, if you just draw a line between the two, which you probably can't. Half a billion is probably an accurate estimate. Still, you've managed to save a whopping ~25% of the deficit right there.

Has anyone got any inspirations about what to do with the admin staff afterwards though? Or is it just a case of they'd cost us less on the dole than in their positions?

20Cent

jmayo wrote: »

Standing upto them once just means they regroup and fight the next change.
Getting anything done in some union riddled organisations is just much too slow, costly and cumbersome.
The unions see these organisations just existing for their benefit (and the members benefit) rather than for the benefit of the customers (usually general public) and indeed the shareholders (often the taxpayers and citizens of the state).

I hold unions today bear no semblance to those that fought in the late 19th or early 20th century for workers rights.
Today our unions exist to allow some be pampered and protected.
They protect the lazy, the inept, and whether some will it admit or not they harm the prospects of the honest hardworkers.

Of course Unions are for the benefit of their members, why wouldn't they be?
Its not a unions job to run the economy.
I think you are giving them way too much credit. They have been pathetic in response to the cuts so far, 1 day of strike and some very low level work to rule type stuff.

What are you suggesting? a ban on Unions?

galway2007

WalterMitty wrote: »

When you hear people moan about people dying/suffering due to less resources in Health services just remember that the reason there will be less resources as pay wont be cut, despite health workers here being amongst highest paid in world. Ah theres no money for a piece of medical equipment but sure our consultants and nurses are the best paid in europe . People should join the dots and realise that whilst we pay public servants amongst highest pay levels in europe we cant deploy resources into non labour aspects of public services.

But as it stands they have take a 14% hit
No staff is being replaced
More people will be using the system due to not being able to have health insurance
Morale is at an all-time low and like us all they are going to see another massive cut in there take home pay in December
One think for sure cut there wages again and there will be no reform which will lead to more cost on the taxpayer and if you get sick call the undertake and save time.
People on here bash the health service and staff, but they are the very people who have there health insurance and some off them even have part or all of it paid by there employer
Reform is what is required now to protect the people that depend on our health service

galway2007

20Cent wrote: »

They don't need to be destroyed. The Gov just need the backbone to stand up to them. Getting rid of unions sounds like a slippery slope.

Open you eyes
They are in bed with the goverement there is nothing to stand up to

jprender

galway2007 wrote:

One think for sure cut there wages again and there will be no reform

Why the hell not ?

galway2007

jprender wrote: »

Why the hell not ?

Because that will be reform gone out the window and you will be left staff that could not care if you live or die

jprender

galway2007 wrote: »

Because that will be reform gone out the window

I still do not see the reasoning behind this. Gone out the window ?

Are you saying that if it makes sense to reform and save money through efficiencies, staff will refuse to do it if their salaries are cut ?

Who is running the show here ? The time for weak Government must come to an end.

If it makes sense to cut salaries, salaries must be cut.
If it makes sense to reform, then reform must take place.

This is getting ridiculous.

20Cent

galway2007 wrote: »

Open you eyes
They are in bed with the goverement there is nothing to stand up to

Thats the Govs fault then.
Banning Trade Unions sounds like something a dictatorship does.

Amhran Nua

20Cent wrote: »

Banning Trade Unions sounds like something a dictatorship does.

And yet we don't see much if any union activity in the multinationals?

20Cent

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And yet we don't see much if any union activity in the multinationals?

Your point being?

Amhran Nua

20Cent wrote: »

Your point being?

Looks like unions have already been banned in some quarters.

20Cent

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Looks like unions have already been banned in some quarters.

No they haven't. Some multinationals do not recognise Unions but they are not banned. The right to collective bargaining is set down in the constitution.

Amhran Nua

20Cent wrote: »

The right to collective bargaining is set down in the constitution.

"Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right."

20Cent

Amhran Nua wrote: »

"Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right."

So you think laws to ban Unions should be brought in?

Amhran Nua

20Cent wrote: »

So you think laws to ban Unions should be brought in?

No, but I have heard there is some sort of tacit understanding between the government and the multinationals. Pure hearsay of course, but still.

20Cent

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, but I have heard there is some sort of tacit understanding between the government and the multinationals. Pure hearsay of course, but still.

Wouldn't disagree with you.
Still many posters on boards think Unions run the country.
Strange.

jmayo

20Cent wrote: »

Of course Unions are for the benefit of their members, why wouldn't they be?
Its not a unions job to run the economy.

Well then tell them to pi** off from trying to make decisions on taxes and tell them social partnership is over. :mad:

20Cent wrote: »

I think you are giving them way too much credit. They have been pathetic in response to the cuts so far, 1 day of strike and some very low level work to rule type stuff.

What are you suggesting? a ban on Unions?

What should they have done, gone on strike and demand they get paid money that is not available to pay them ?

I do think unions or representative bodies should be banned in certain professions like Army, Gardaí, firefighters, Air Traffic Control.
Now I will duck as I await the responses.

galway2007 wrote: »

...
One think for sure cut there wages again and there will be no reform which will lead to more cost on the taxpayer and if you get sick call the undertake and save time.
People on here bash the health service and staff, but they are the very people who have there health insurance and some off them even have part or all of it paid by there employer
Reform is what is required now to protect the people that depend on our health service

Ah yes the old reform in return for no pay cuts.
If I remember correctly we were due some reform in return for benchmarking. :rolleyes:

galway2007 wrote: »

Because that will be reform gone out the window and you will be left staff that could not care if you live or die

Well then so much for the caring professions. :rolleyes:

Not everyone that works in the health system ever meets a patient nevermind take care of one.

BTW someone mentioned how the ones complaining have private health insurance.
This is true, but the reason for that is that we can't bloody well get proper care from our public system, even though we taxpayers are contributing our taxes and health levies towards the totally inefficient mess that is the public health system.

Isn't it great I get to contribute twice to something thankfully I don't need. :rolleyes:

WalterMitty

They should just cut all public servants by 35% and then give them half of any savings they create through reforms.