FG's plans for the public service

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.

coffee_cake

What about having more goals and objectives for the staff, carefully reviewed, that way any useless ones will clearly be shown up?

StephenHendry

inda has a real idea about public service reform , as a public servant myself we need fine gael/labour to put in place a proper plan for the public service not just redundancies

flash1080

Public servants voting for FG is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

rossc007

Chairman Meow wrote: »

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

.... really?

Making PS employees redundant and putting them on the dole is cheaper than employing them... seem straight forward to me

ixoy

Chairman Meow wrote: »

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

Since there is clearly no saving removing people from PS/CS employment, the government should employ everyone in the public service! Then nobody would be on the dole and everyone would be a tax payer. I just solved the unemployment probem and financial crisis in one go!

Orando Broom

K-9 wrote: »

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!

Fair point but I would be looking at radical changes in how things are done. PS wookers can not lose their jobs, that must change. The Secretary General of Finance should have been sacked for his part in the financial crisis. Were it a private sector mistake he'd have got the bullet. It's the top brass that needs the fear of God put into to them for their jobs not the guys at the counters and on the phones. The clearing of detritus needs to start at the top down.

Tigerbaby wrote: »

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.

Far from it but that is the reality. There are PS workers that would not last two minutes in private sector. If you are a public sector worker yourself you know this to be true. Secondly it's the workshy that won't want FG. The axe simply has to be swung in the PS. There is no escape. You keep the deadweight the good will get a pay cut and they simply won't stay in the job. Rationalise the PS, keep the cream and ditch the mouthbreathers. It simply has to happen. The unions don't care if there are pay cuts, their strike policies only served to lessen the pay burden of the government.

strife

rossc007 wrote: »

.... really?

Making PS employees redundant and putting them on the dole is cheaper than employing them... seem straight forward to me

Why pay for someone to be on the dole VS paying for them to work?
you’d be a bit foolish to be paying someone to sit around scratching their ass, when u could actually be getting something back for your money.
Paying people on the dole is tantamount to burning money

rossc007

strife wrote: »

Why pay for someone to be on the dole VS paying for them to work?
you’d be a bit foolish to be paying someone to sit around scratching their ass, when u could actually be getting something back for your money.
Paying people on the dole is tantamount to burning money

OK, I'll bite....

This is nothing like burning money, its saving money, simple economics. The only loss is the job that person was doing.

ixoy

strife wrote: »

you’d be a bit foolish to be paying someone to sit around scratching their ass, when u could actually be getting something back for your money.

Hardly if you're not getting value for money. You should be paying for something worthwhile and there's too many in the PS who:
1) Aren't working hard enough
2) Doing a job that doesn't really need to be done
3) Doing a job as part of team which could be done by less people

I've seen all three and all these areas need to be addressed to save money and create a better PS for everyone, including the many hard workers there who are doing meaningful and fulfilling work.

Sam Vimes

Chairman Meow wrote: »

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

It's better to have thousands of people on the dole than to have to borrow so much money to pay them that you bankrupt the country. The argument for keeping the public sector as it can not be an economic one. Economically the ideal size of the public sector is zero.