FG's plans for the public service

flash1080

FG expect 18000 people will voluntarily give up their jobs in the next three years! And if they do, they'll get a redundancy payoff and then sign on the dole, costing the taxpayer a fortune.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Do you think that cuts do not need to be made?

squod

Who's in charge of the public sector again?

galwayrush

Getting rid of the unneeded ones will save the country a fortune in the long run.

Krusader

flash1080 wrote: »

FG expect 18000 people will voluntarily give up their jobs in the next three years! And if they do, they'll get a redundancy payoff and then sign on the dole, costing the taxpayer a fortune.

Obviously not as much as it would cost if they were still working, otherwise it wouldn't be a viable policy

easyeason3

Cuts need to be made & the public service is overstaffed.
What's the problem?

billymitchell

flash1080 wrote: »

FG expect 18000 people will voluntarily give up their jobs in the next three years! And if they do, they'll get a redundancy payoff and then sign on the dole, costing the taxpayer a fortune.

who pays their wages now? Thats right, we do. I'd rather pay them 12,000 a year on the dole than pay them 60,000 a year for doing funk all in an office of the public/civil service

pragmatic1

Yeah because they're not costing the taxpayer a fortune as it is. Jesus wise up a bit.

bc dub

galwayrush wrote: »

Getting rid of the unneeded ones will save the country a fortune in the long run.

we don't have a long run

epgc3fyqirnbsx

bc dub wrote: »

we don't have a long run

what are you trying to say, pay people high wages in an unneccesary job until 2012 because the world will end then??

AnonoBoy

bc dub wrote: »

we don't have a long run

We do have a long run left in us, unfortunately it's off a short pier.

RichieC

Destroying 18K people's way of life is just what we need. Sure there's no knock on effect about that.

Bullseye1

How many people are expected to retire in the next three years. I would imagine this is how they will get the numbers required. They won't be replaced.

galwayrush

bc dub wrote: »

we don't have a long run

Ember Happy Seashore wrote: »

what are you trying to say, pay people high wages in an unneccesary job until 2012 because the world will end then??

I thought he was joking.:D

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Bullseye1 wrote: »

How many people are expected to retire in the next three years. I would imagine this is how they will get a large number of the number reductions. They won't be replaced.

yep, that's 12,000

easyeason3

OP just picture the public service as a plaster for a minute. You have two options:

A) If you slowly pull the plaster off your arm it will be painful & will take longer than it should.

OR

Now if you rip the plaster off in one fast motion it will hurt a bit but it will be nowhere near as painful but you will get the same result as option A with less discomfort.


I really can't dumb it down anymore.

galwayrush

RichieC wrote: »

Destroying 18K people's way of life is just what we need. Sure there's no knock on effect about that.

Perhaps we should have a whip aound to find some money to pay them and therefore not destroy their highly paid at tax payers expense way of life.:rolleyes: despite the fact that they are not needed and in the real world they would have been laid off ages ago.

flash1080

galwayrush wrote: »

Getting rid of the unneeded ones will save the country a fortune in the long run.

How would you ensure the ones that you deem to be unneeded are the ones that are offered voluntary redundancy, and how would you ensure that they accept it?

galwayrush wrote: »

Perhaps we should have a whip aound to find some money to pay them and therefore not destroy their highly paid at tax payers expense way of life.:rolleyes: despite the fact that they are not needed and in the real world they would have been laid off ages ago.

Not everyone in the public service is highly paid or useless.

Clive Solas

easyeason3 wrote: »

OP just picture the public service as a plaster for a minute. You have two options:

A) If you slowly pull the plaster off your arm it will be painful & will take longer than it should.

OR

Now if you rip the plaster off in one fast motion it will hurt a bit but it will be nowhere near as painful but you will get the same result as option A with less discomfort.


I really can't dumb it down anymore.

What does OP mean??

squod

Original poster.

billymitchell

Clive Solas wrote: »

What does OP mean??

original poster

easyeason3

Clive Solas wrote: »

What does OP mean??

Opening Poster I think.

Captain_Generic

Clive Solas wrote: »

What does OP mean??

Open Peanuts, its more of a suggestion really

Clive Solas

Captain_Generic wrote: »

Open Peanuts, its more of a suggestion really

Ta, just finding my feet before I let loose.
Long-time lurker, 1st time poster yadda yadda....

squod

Clive Solas wrote: »

Ta, just finding my feet before I let loose.
Long-time lurker, 1st time poster yadda yadda....

Jewish forum

---

>

Unpossible

flash1080 wrote: »

How would you ensure the ones that you deem to be unneeded are the ones that are offered voluntary redundancy, and how would you ensure that they accept it?



Not everyone in the public service is highly paid or useless.

True, surely at the moment with stories of some workers being overrun and others barely doing anything everyday we should first start by trying to relocate people. If someone doesn't have skills that allow them to be relocated and there isn't enough work for them then its time for them to go (assuming there is still not enough work after the others have been relocated).
There shouldn't be a blanket freeze, frontline staff are always needed.

squod

Unpossible wrote: »

True, surely at the moment with stories of some workers being overrun and others barely doing anything everyday we should first start by trying to relocate people. If someone doesn't have skills that allow them to be relocated and there isn't enough work for them then its time for them to go (assuming there is still not enough work after the others have been relocated).
There shouldn't be a blanket freeze, frontline staff are always needed.

There should ideally be two cost centers for the government to allocate funds to. Front-line staff and managerial/clerical should be budgeted for separately.

billymitchell

squod wrote: »

There should ideally be two cost centers for the government to allocate funds to. Front-line staff and managerial/clerical should be budgeted for separately.

:eek:
Thats nearly crazy enough to work!!!

Unpossible

squod wrote: »

There should ideally be two cost centers for the government to allocate funds to. Front-line staff and managerial/clerical should be budgeted for separately.

That might result in more people being hired to keep track of more systems.

Its missmanaged, it would be like hiring 8 people to sit in a McDonalds managers office and only put 2 people on the tills and 2 in the kitchen.

Cosimo Salvatore

You Irish, You aVery Good at Software

squod

billymitchell wrote: »

:eek:
Thats nearly crazy enough to work!!!

We'll never get the chance to find out the way things are looking. Way too much vested interest in the present oligarchy.

delta_bravo

galwayrush wrote: »

Perhaps we should have a whip aound to find some money to pay them and therefore not destroy their highly paid at tax payers expense way of life.:rolleyes: despite the fact that they are not needed and in the real world they would have been laid off ages ago.

Who are they? The anti PS bias here is hilarious. You assume every public servant spends their day swilling tea in some building in Dublin and doesnt lift a pen unless their union says so.

Such a load of rubbish. I dont buy this "save frontline staff" thing either. People need administer the work and work in the clerical setup in every facet of public service life. Arbitrarly getting rid of the "penpushers" will slow down the work of the "frontline" workers. For example in the Gardai, if all the civilian staff were to be let go this would simply mean the job of the Garda being saved but they would spend most of their days behind a desk doing the previous persons job.

People need to think about what they are saying on this matter. You cant just eliminate 12,000 people from a service and expect everything to remain the same. Undoubtedly there is wastage in the PS and I have seen plenty of it when I worked in the private sector aswell. It happens and it needs to be rectified but with some logical and structured proposals. Not some sort of slash and burn approach

squod

delta_bravo wrote: »

It happens and it needs to be rectified but with some logical and structured proposals. Not some sort of slash and burn approach

So then. How would you facilitate the 20,000+ staff cuts in the PS ?

delta_bravo wrote: »

Arbitrarly getting rid of the "penpushers" will slow down the work of the "frontline" workers. For example in the Gardai, if all the civilian staff were to be let go this would simply mean the job of the Garda being saved but they would spend most of their days behind a desk doing the previous persons job.

Systems get changed. Happens everywhere. Just because the process changes doesn't mean the work doesn't get done. Design the process first, then staff the system for that process. As a matter of interest, how many process engineers work in the PS?

flash1080

Ember Happy Seashore wrote: »

yep, that's 12,000

Bullseye1 wrote: »

How many people are expected to retire in the next three years. I would imagine this is how they will get the numbers required. They won't be replaced.

It's 18000 voluntary redundancies on top of the 12000 retiring.

FG have been asked for details but won't give any.

K-9

flash1080 wrote: »

It's 18000 voluntary redundancies on top of the 12000 retiring.

FG have been asked for details but won't give any.

And if they don't go voluntarily FG don't propose compulsory redundancies!

flash1080

K-9 wrote: »

And if they don't go voluntarily FG don't propose compulsory redundancies!

So basically their plan is a load of shíte.

ejmaztec

I suppose that FG will have to close down the unions before they start telling other people to feck off out of their jobs. It'll be very interesting.

th3 s1aught3r

flash1080 wrote: »

FG expect 18000 people will voluntarily give up their jobs in the next three years! And if they do, they'll get a redundancy payoff and then sign on the dole, costing the taxpayer a fortune.

They should be cut, voluntarily or not

K-9

flash1080 wrote: »

So basically their plan is a load of shíte.

Yep, they have constituencies to look after just the same as FF!

Orando Broom

K-9 wrote: »

And if they don't go voluntarily FG don't propose compulsory redundancies!

So nobody goes. Riiiiiight.

The bottom line is the country simply cannot afford to sack public servants. The money in redundancies and coupled with the loss of tax revenue would bury the country further.

It's populist FG claptrap. It is electioneering, no credible plan at all.

Mark my words, the people who'll leave the PS are the people we want to stay. It will become the preserve of the dullard and the idle if FG press ahead with that blanket ****e.

If it were my call I'd get rid of the advisors and outside contractors, upskill the PS workers willing to retrain, and run those who won't. I'd start the stream lining that way. Put a credible sustainable 10 year plan in place to have a public service that will function as a dynamic fluid operation capable of unimpeded change. I'd remove all incentives of Union membership and I'd make the heads of the unions draw only the maximum wage they can earn at their grade. You rein in the unions you can fix the public service. You need a young vibrant PS with young dynamic manangers who are unafraid to make bloody tough calls.

Chairman Meow

Yeah, making thousands more unemployed, thats gonna sort out the economy. Morons.

Logical Fallacy

billymitchell wrote: »

who pays their wages now? Thats right, we do. I'd rather pay them 12,000 a year on the dole than pay them 60,000 a year for doing funk all in an office of the public/civil service

You won't be paying them 12,000 a year on the dole, they'll gt 9776euro the first year based of the fact that they themselves paid PRSI and after that they'll get about 7000 grand a year.

squod

Wonder how many PS employees will vote FG/FF in the next election, given the jobs cuts they face under these parties.

sierra117x

billymitchell wrote: »

who pays their wages now? Thats right, we do. I'd rather pay them 12,000 a year on the dole than pay them 60,000 a year for doing funk all in an office of the public/civil service

thats not fair im a CO on a counter in a dole office im neither high paid nor do i have an easy job so why should i have to give it up to sign on for even less wages . thankless ****ing job

K-9

Orando Broom wrote: »

So nobody goes. Riiiiiight.

The bottom line is the country simply cannot afford to sack public servants. The money in redundancies and coupled with the loss of tax revenue would bury the country further.

It's populist FG claptrap. It is electioneering, no credible plan at all.

Mark my words, the people who'll leave the PS are the people we want to stay. It will become the preserve of the dullard and the idle if FG press ahead with that blanket ****e.

If it were my call I'd get rid of the advisors and outside contractors, upskill the PS workers willing to retrain, and run those who won't. I'd start the stream lining that way. Put a credible sustainable 10 year plan in place to have a public service that will function as a dynamic fluid operation capable of unimpeded change. I'd remove all incentives of Union membership and I'd make the heads of the unions draw only the maximum wage they can earn at their grade. You rein in the unions you can fix the public service. You need a young vibrant PS with young dynamic manangers who are unafraid to make bloody tough calls.

I understand that it does cost a fortune to get rid of them. I think Redundancy is treated as a capital item in the budget but we still have to borrow the money!

Tbh, I like SF's idea of a cap on Public Sector pay but probably not in the way they'd like to implement it!

Orando Broom

K-9 wrote: »

I understand that it does cost a fortune to get rid of them. I think Redundancy is treated as a capital item in the budget but we still have to borrow the money!

Tbh, I like SF's idea of a cap on Public Sector pay but probably not in the way they'd like to implement it!

These are all ridiculous ideas. truthfully I'd rather pay a T.K Whittaker or someone with the nous and wherewithal to turn this mess around what ever salary he'd command in return for RESULTS. No cap no blanket sackings none of that ****. Turn the Public sector into a results based environment, pay top dollar to those who are providing a top class service that is benefitting the maximum number of people with the minimum required resources.

Get people in the public sector off their holes and those who are not measuring up shift them along. Set the targets and let the PS bitch and whige all they like but it's put up or shut up. The Unions need fixing before you'd do this.

If you start off with mass redundancies the unions would bleed the country dry. The terms would suit the smart who could walk into other careers and you'd be left with the unemployable retards.

msg11

Just get rid of the freeloaders like someone said

Ask them to do other jobs
Ask them to engage in new training
Ask them to take a test

Separate the men from the boys and all that.

I also think the same for the government party's .

A win for FG is nothing, it's just give the fingers from the Country to FF. I'm am sure they will be just as bad or worse. Then when the next GE comes around, we will be voting FF just to give the fingers to FG.

We need a new party, that is not full of wackos with no idea what they are talking about. One that for Example has TD's that there fields of expertise is transport , they get put over the Department of Transport.

None of this tom foolery of Irish Teachers over the Social Welfare (just an example!) .

K-9

Orando Broom wrote: »

These are all ridiculous ideas. truthfully I'd rather pay a T.K Whittaker or someone with the nous and wherewithal to turn this mess around what ever salary he'd command in return for RESULTS. No cap no blanket sackings none of that ****. Turn the Public sector into a results based environment, pay top dollar to those who are providing a top class service that is benefitting the maximum number of people with the minimum required resources.

Get people in the public sector off their holes and those who are not measuring up shift them along. Set the targets and let the PS bitch and whige all they like but it's put up or shut up. The Unions need fixing before you'd do this.

If you start off with mass redundancies the unions would bleed the country dry. The terms would suit the smart who could walk into other careers and you'd be left with the unemployable retards.

That's supposed to be the system we have now. We pay fortunes already, benchmarked to the Private Sector.

Suppose I'm old fashioned and think a Public Service job is serving the public!

Tigerbaby

Orlando whatever...


"If you start off with mass redundancies the unions would bleed the country dry. The terms would suit the smart who could walk into other careers and you'd be left with the unemployable retards."

This is very offensive language. you should be ashamed of yourself. What are you? some sort of social darwinist blueshirt?

another reason why I am NOT voting for FG, the doppleganger of FF.
Banks, big business, developers and farmers must be rubbing their hands in glee with "useful idiots" like you around the place.

anyone even remotely associated with the Public Service or semi-states should look on FG as turkeys look on Christmas.

giant_midget

Anyone know which state bodies these will be sought from? Has FG mentioned names of companies that it would cut?

flash1080

giant_midget wrote: »

Anyone know which state bodies these will be sought from? Has FG mentioned names of companies that it would cut?

FG haven't given details of anything.