Civil Service keeping their "privilege days": reform will have to be forced

Dionysus

For once I'm in full agreement with IBEC.

---

Back when civil servants were thinking hard on behalf of the British Empire of wonderfully counter-revolutionary plans to defeat the Land League, Fenians and any other Irish who had a bit of spirit the British monarch gave them two extra days as a reward for their loyalty: one to honour himself (the modesty!) and one to honour his British Empire.

It being 2011 and in the midst of a recession, the government wants to get rid of them, saying it will save us - the taxpayers of this republic who are paying for these royalist days off - €5 million per year:

'The Department of Finance had told a Civil Service Arbitration Board hearing last month that the measures proposed would generate productivity savings of €4.6 million per year and lead to greater administrative efficiencies.

It said that privilege days were out-moded, represented an obstacle to the achievement of efficiency and had attracted an amount of adverse public comment.'

'Privilege day' abolition rejected

The following from the Civil Service Arbitration Board, in particular, is baffling:

'It also pointed out that converting privilege days into annual leave entitlements could widen the gap between the civil service and the rest of the public service, and create a barrier to an integrated public service.'

Proposal to reduce privilege days rejected

Does the above mean that the Arbitration Board is agreeing that the civil servants don't need another two days holidays and that to convert the two 'privilege days' into official holidays would not look well so let's continue to hide the extra two days holidays under the guise of "privilege days"?

The Civil Service Arbitration Board today amazingly agreed with the unions and said that they had a right to their extra two days holidays.

---

If these people in the civil service union are refusing to give up two days, what hope is there for making the serious reform which the Irish civil service, and public sector generally, needs to undergo?

Do you agree with the government that these civil service 'privilege days' should be abolished?

OutlawPete

Dionysus wrote: »

For once I'm in full agreement with IBEC.

Yeah, she's sound

4zn76tysfajdxp

OutlawPete wrote: »

Yeah, she's sound

New TV already?

Gunsfortoys

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

Of course they should be abolished, the sheer arrogance of the pubic servants refusing to abolish it says it all.

Yakult

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

I would like who ever voted no to state why they shouldnt be abolished?

that should make for good reading!!

sollar

No they shouldn't be abolished. Even now public servants get less annual leave days than most other european countries barr the UK.

Its much ado about nothing.

Sofiztikated

IBTIPSVPSSM

(In Before The Inevitable Public Service Versus Private Service Slagging Match)

Warper

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

Gotta love the description too "Privilege Days"

Gunsfortoys

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

sollar wrote: »

No they shouldn't be abolished. Even now public servants get less annual leave days than most other european countries barr the UK.

Its much ado about nothing.

Most european public services are operated properly and not overstaffed by about 60%. Also wages earned by some public sector workers in this country are huge in comparison.

What an excuse though.

Odysseus

I for one enjoy my privilege days and no amount of trolling here will change my position on them. I do however think it is unfair that I get them as "an officer of the board" [I work in the HSE], yet the general assistants in my clinic don't, I think the clerical staff get them, but I'm unsure on that.

So not all PS workers get privilege days, in fact having them added to my annual leave would be a better option. I generally have to use it up within a week of the actual holiday, i.e. Xmas or Easter. BTW I have no idea what being "an officer of the boards" actually is, all I know is it's stated in my contract that I get 2 privilege days a year.

Having them added as annual leave should have been done years ago, rather than having to take it at Easter or Xmas, they are generally busy times patient wise. No one likes having to try cram patients in, especially as Xmas is a stressful time.

Gunsfortoys

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

Odysseus wrote: »

I for one enjoy my privilege days and no amount of trolling here will change my position on them. I do however think it is unfair that I get them as "an officer of the board" [I work in the HSE], yet the general assistants in my clinic don't, I think the clerical staff get them, but I'm unsure on that.

So not all PS workers get privilege days, in fact having them added to my annual leave would be a better option. I generally have to use it up within a week of the actual holiday, i.e. Xmas or Easter. BTW I have no idea what being "an officer of the boards" actually is, all I know is it's stated in my contract that I get 2 privilege days a year.

Having them added as annual leave should have been done years ago, rather than having to take it at Easter or Xmas, they are generally busy times patient wise. No one likes having to try cram patients in, especially as Xmas is a stressful time.

The arrogance I was talking about.

Warper

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

Odysseus wrote: »

I for one enjoy my privilege days and no amount of trolling here will change my position on them. I do however think it is unfair that I get them as "an officer of the board" [I work in the HSE], yet the general assistants in my clinic don't, I think the clerical staff get them, but I'm unsure on that.

So not all PS workers get privilege days, in fact having them added to my annual leave would be a better option. I generally have to use it up within a week of the actual holiday, i.e. Xmas or Easter. BTW I have no idea what being "an officer of the boards" actually is, all I know is it's stated in my contract that I get 2 privilege days a year.

Having them added as annual leave should have been done years ago, rather than having to take it at Easter or Xmas, they are generally busy times patient wise. No one likes having to try cram patients in, especially as Xmas is a stressful time.

There is practically no difference between calling them "Annual Leave" or "Privilege Days" apart from when you take them. They are still days off. If anything changing them to Annual Leave is better for the public servants.

bleg

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

Next you'll be wanting us to be giving up our free quart of ale on Fridays. I enjoy my quart of ale.

Dozen Wicked Words

Point of Arbitration is to abitrate, they did, said Civil Service could keep the days.

galwayrush

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

The sense of entitlement from the overpaid top level in the Civil Service is beyond belief, i wonder how long they would survive in the real world.

Senna

Its barking mad. If i had two extra days off, i sure as hell wouldn't want to give them up, no mater who asked or told me, so i cant see CS staff coming on here and saying they dont want the days.

But if their two extra days for nothing and losing them will still leave the same amount of holidays as PS workers, then the days should be taken off them. Its about time someone in this country grew a set of balls and made some decisions without consulting with unions etc.

galwayrush

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

Senna wrote: »

Its barking mad. If i had two extra days off, i sure as hell wouldn't want to give them up, no mater who asked or told me, so i cant see CS staff coming on here and saying they dont want the days.

But if their two extra days for nothing and losing them will still leave the same amount of holidays as PS workers, then the days should be taken off them. Its about time someone in this country grew a set of balls and made some decisions without consulting with unions etc.

If our Government won't, the IMF will bash the Unions with their balls.

The Waltzing Consumer

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

Odysseus wrote: »

I for one enjoy my privilege days and no amount of trolling here will change my position on them

:rolleyes: The sooner the lower paid public servants break from these overpaid privileged "Servants" the better. No wonder people have such bad stereotypes of the PS. Split the unions, 1) low paid PS and 2) snobby privileged lazy overpaid PS

RichieC

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

The arrogance I was talking about.

Oh the humanity! he enjoys his days off! the fking arrogance of it! :rolleyes:

4zn76tysfajdxp

"PS" as an abbreviation is pretty useless when it refers to both the Private and Public Sectors.

Gunsfortoys

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

RichieC wrote: »

Oh the humanity! he enjoys his days off! the fking arrogance of it! :rolleyes:

I wasn't saying he shouldn't enjoy his days off. I was simply saying he came across as arrogant.

You should try being objective for once in your boards posting career.

RichieC

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

I wasn't saying he shouldn't enjoy his days off. I was simply saying he came across as arrogant.

You should try being objective for once in your boards posting career.

:rolleyes:

yes perhaps I should join the objective CS bashing club!

The Waltzing Consumer

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

RichieC wrote: »

:rolleyes:

yes perhaps I should join the objective CS bashing club!

I am going to take a wild wild guess and say you are in the civil service?

Bullseye1

They should keep all of their entitlements, wage decreases reversed and more of them hired.

Gunsfortoys

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

RichieC wrote: »

:rolleyes:

yes perhaps I should join the objective CS bashing club!

It is a valid point when the state is paying what it can't afford to fund your privilege days.

RichieC

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I am going to take a wild wild guess and say you are in the civil service?

Ex

garhjw

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

sums up the atitude of public sector workers and unions in this country.

RichieC

garhjw wrote: »

sums up the atitude of public sector workers and unions in this country.

God I used to be laughed at by me builder mates about me ****e wages when I was in the service... funny how things change.

Slydice

This whole story is an absolute joke.

Did no one read the feckin articles?

One the one side they get the 2 privilege days which are kinda fixed around certain week or if this change is "forced", civil service workers get 2 holiday days to take whenever they like.

Then the newspapers go off and call them as english holidays to get everyone riled up.

Either way, there are still 2 days holidays.

How easy to manipulate do the newspapers think we are?

The Waltzing Consumer

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

RichieC wrote: »

God I used to be laughed at by me builder mates about me ****e wages when I was in the service... funny how things change.

Ah yes, I loved the times when everyone who was not in the public service was a builder. Even all the children were builders. :rolleyes:

Gunsfortoys

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

RichieC wrote: »

God I used to be laughed at by me builder mates about me ****e wages when I was in the service... funny how things change.

Funny that, they actually worked for their living?,
They weren't protected by unions or took money from state coffers?

Completely stupid and irrelevant argument.

RichieC

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Ah yes, I loved the times when everyone who was not in the public service was a builder. Even all the children were builders. :rolleyes:

Good times indeed.

RichieC

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Funny that, they actually worked for their living?,
They weren't protected by unions or took money from state coffers?

Completely stupid and irrelevant argument.

I used to be fking run off my feet in the CS...

You haven't a fking clue what you're talking about, you have an opinion that's been spoon fed to you by the media.

The Waltzing Consumer

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

RichieC wrote: »

I used to be fking run off my feet in the CS...

You haven't a fking clue what you're talking about, you have an opinion that's been spoon fed to you by the media.

And you are certainly not doing any of your CS colleagues any favour by arguing in such an arrogant and abusive way. Think before you type.

RichieC

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

And you are certainly not doing any of your CS colleagues any favour by arguing in such an arrogant and abusive way. Think before you type.

yak yak herp derp.

Gunsfortoys

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

RichieC wrote: »

I used to be fking run off my feet in the CS...

You haven't a fking clue what you're talking about, you have an opinion that's been spoon fed to you by the media.

No it hasn't, the figures speak for themselves.

I actually do know what I am talking about, I have known enough of the penpushers and office dwellers of the service through my profession over the years. Their sense of entitlement is quite disturbing.

I am certain that money would be better put towards other areas of care.

The Waltzing Consumer

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

RichieC wrote: »

yak yak herp derp.

Classy. Good talk, good talk. :rolleyes:

Side Show Bob

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

The CS should have the two days in question removed without delay.
its a disgrace the way they behave, about 20 more days holiday should also be removed ASAP!

RichieC

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

No it hasn't, the figures speak for themselves.

I actually do know what I am talking about, I have known enough of the penpushers and office dwellers of the service through my profession over the years. Their sense of entitlement is quite disturbing.

I am certain that money would be better put towards other areas of care.

You act like they're a different race of people, anyone could have gone in and tried to join the CS.

RichieC

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Classy. Good talk, good talk. :rolleyes:

It's a long Long time since I've realised there's no point reasoning with sour grapes.

Gunsfortoys

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

RichieC wrote: »

You act like they're a different race of people, anyone could have gone in and tried to join the CS.

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Ronin247

Yakult wrote: »

I would like who ever voted no to state why they shouldnt be abolished?

that should make for good reading!!

I am not nor was I ever a civil servant,nor am I as eloquent as a lot of posters but I will try to explain why I voted no.

The 2 "priviledge days" are part and parcel of the pay and conditions package that people signed up for when they took the job,in a recession all employers will try and break down the conditions of the working man/woman.
If we stand idly by while other workers have enforced changes to the agreed contracts then eventually we all end up working for minimum wage with free overtime thrown in.
If the government want reductions then bring in enforced redundancy for the excess staff.

Its amazing that we want our fellow workers brought down while our leaders pay off the 100billion or so gambling debts of French and German banks with our tax money.They give away 10 s of billions of our oil and gas to FOREIGN multi nationals and we begrudge our fellow Irishman a couple of legitimate days off..Shame on us,I wish we had balls as a nation.

poolboy

Ronin247 wrote: »

I am not nor was I ever a civil servant,nor am I as eloquent as a lot of posters but I will try to explain why I voted no.

The 2 "priviledge days" are part and parcel of the pay and conditions package that people signed up for when they took the job,in a recession all employers will try and break down the conditions of the working man/woman.
If we stand idly by while other workers have enforced changes to the agreed contracts then eventually we all end up working for minimum wage with free overtime thrown in.
If the government want reductions then bring in enforced redundancy for the excess staff.

Its amazing that we want our fellow workers brought down while our leaders pay off the 100billion or so gambling debts of French and German banks with our tax money.They give away 10 s of billions of our oil and gas to FOREIGN multi nationals and we begrudge our fellow Irishman a couple of legitimate days off..Shame on us,I wish we had balls as a nation.

Ronin after 4 years of this crap i can honestly say that is the most sensible and reasonable post i have read on the subject.

lightangel

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

Us lesser citizens feel duped by this arrangement more because the value for money of these " servants if the state" doesn't match up. This all adds insult to injury. I'm ashamed to be Irish in this instance.

Sam Vimes

Ronin247 wrote: »

I am not nor was I ever a civil servant,nor am I as eloquent as a lot of posters but I will try to explain why I voted no.

The 2 "priviledge days" are part and parcel of the pay and conditions package that people signed up for when they took the job,in a recession all employers will try and break down the conditions of the working man/woman.
If we stand idly by while other workers have enforced changes to the agreed contracts then eventually we all end up working for minimum wage with free overtime thrown in.
If the government want reductions then bring in enforced redundancy for the excess staff.

Its amazing that we want our fellow workers brought down while our leaders pay off the 100billion or so gambling debts of French and German banks with our tax money.They give away 10 s of billions of our oil and gas to FOREIGN multi nationals and we begrudge our fellow Irishman a couple of legitimate days off..Shame on us,I wish we had balls as a nation.

The government tried to take away a holiday that was granted to celebrate the birthday of of a foreign monarch who's been dead for 100 years and the unions fought against it. What do you think would happen if there were mass enforced redundancies?


Also, since you're totally against the idea that a company should cut back pay and conditions in the bad times, I presume that you're also against them improving them in the good times? After all, why should the staff share in the good times if they refuse to share in the bad?

sdanseo

My dad said it best a while back.

If you're going to cut the public service budget, you're going to cut public services.

It's all very well to say ah sure we can reduce civil service payroll bill by x amount by sacking x workers, or reduce their holidays to the bare minimum, reduce the lunch break pay to zero, etc etc. If you sack people, less work gets done. If you reduce people's renumeration, they become less incentivised to be productive. It's simple maths.

The same people moaning about civil servants getting two extra days' holidays will be the same ones who'll moan when the phone goes unanswered.

The same people arguing that they should sack 10,000 public servants will be the same ones moaning when Gardaí don't arrive till four hours after their house is burgled.

There are of course exceptions to the rule. Some areas of the public service are overstaffed and that's a seperate issue. The HSE, for example, seems to have more managers than nurses and doctors put together. That's a seperate issue.

People are never happy. Begrudgers, get over yourselves.

The Waltzing Consumer

No, the civil service should keep these extra days

sdonn wrote: »

My dad said it best a while back.

If you're going to cut the public service budget, you're going to cut public services.

It's all very well to say ah sure we can reduce civil service payroll bill by x amount by sacking x workers, or reduce their holidays to the bare minimum, reduce the lunch break pay to zero, etc etc. If you sack people, less work gets done. If you reduce people's renumeration, they become less incentivised to be productive. It's simple maths.

The same people moaning about civil servants getting two extra days' holidays will be the same ones who'll moan when the phone goes unanswered.

The same people arguing that they should sack 10,000 public servants will be the same ones moaning when Gardaí don't arrive till four hours after their house is burgled.

There are of course exceptions to the rule. Some areas of the public service are overstaffed and that's a seperate issue. The HSE, for example, seems to have more managers than nurses and doctors put together. That's a seperate issue.

People are never happy. Begrudgers, get over yourselves.

In other words, there are plenty of examples to show that all you have written here is not accurate and can be proved wrong

Let me take another wild guess, your father works or has worked in the public service. In case you did not notice, even in the boom times with no cuts and increases across the board, the public service still did not answer phones and Gardai still had a great reputation of taking hours to arrive. Your whole argument is lazy and the premise is that cuts means bad quality in service, except in celtic tiger Ireland, no cuts and plenty of perks and salary increases meant bad quality in service. They hired more people, paid more, gave more perks and the public service was awful. You would have to be pretty indoctrinated in the public service to try defend the "quality" of work done.

Sam Vimes

sdonn wrote: »

My dad said it best a while back.

If you're going to cut the public service budget, you're going to cut public services.

It's all very well to say ah sure we can reduce civil service payroll bill by x amount by sacking x workers, or reduce their holidays to the bare minimum, reduce the lunch break pay to zero, etc etc. If you sack people, less work gets done. If you reduce people's renumeration, they become less incentivised to be productive. It's simple maths.

The same people moaning about civil servants getting two extra days' holidays will be the same ones who'll moan when the phone goes unanswered.

The same people arguing that they should sack 10,000 public servants will be the same ones moaning when Gardaí don't arrive till four hours after their house is burgled.

There are of course exceptions to the rule. Some areas of the public service are overstaffed and that's a seperate issue. The HSE, for example, seems to have more managers than nurses and doctors put together. That's a seperate issue.

People are never happy. Begrudgers, get over yourselves.

The simple maths here is that we can't afford the public service in its current form. If we have to take a hit on service so that we don't have to borrow money at punitive rates to pay for it then so be it

And as you point out there are plenty of areas where we could bring in cut backs with no effect on service.

gazzer

Side Show Bob wrote: »

The CS should have the two days in question removed without delay.
its a disgrace the way they behave, about 20 more days holiday should also be removed ASAP!

You do realise that if 20 more days were to be removed from CS staff they would have NO leave. The annual leave allowance for CO's in the CS (which make up the vast majority of the CS) is 20 days.

sdanseo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And as you point out there are plenty of areas where we could bring in cut backs with no effect on service.

And therein lies the problem. While cutting out useless jobs is one thing, most of the wage cuts and removal of perks or benefits are across the board. They're cutting renumeration from evryone in the public service to pay for the inefficiencies of bodies like the HSE.

Yes, my Dad was a civil servant, and luckily he was there long enough that he was able to absorb pay cuts while still being quite comfortable. In fact, he was offered early retirement to avoid an 8% pay cut, took it and then Lenihan stabbed him and a number of others in the back and took the 8% off the state pension anyway.

I'm as angry at the powers that be as the rest are but there is an assumption that public servants are total layabouts who scrounge off the state and just take, take take while everyone else suffers. That's not the case. My mother for example, works in a semi-state and is roughly €400 a month down on this time in 2006. That's over 30% of her after tax pay gone when you add up all the different deductions. To the extent that if I wasn't earning money, we'd probably be in the red (my sub-€15k income was 100% disposable until the USC, thank fúck). Yet she's still just as productive and the PS is just as wasteful as it always has been.

I know there are private sector jobs in exactly the same or worse situations - but the idea that the PS is a guarenteed cash cow for all its luck members is absolute horseshít.

Sam Vimes

sdonn wrote: »

And therein lies the problem. While cutting out useless jobs is one thing, most of the wage cuts and removal of perks or benefits are across the board. They're cutting renumeration from evryone in the public service to pay for the inefficiencies of bodies like the HSE.

Yes, my Dad was a civil servant, and luckily he was there long enough that he was able to absorb pay cuts while still being quite comfortable. In fact, he was offered early retirement to avoid an 8% pay cut, took it and then Lenihan stabbed him and a number of others in the back and took the 8% off the state pension anyway.

I'm as angry at the powers that be as the rest are but there is an assumption that public servants are total layabouts who scrounge off the state and just take, take take while everyone else suffers. That's not the case. My mother for example, works in a semi-state and is roughly €400 a month down on this time in 2006. That's over 30% of her after tax pay gone when you add up all the different deductions. To the extent that if I wasn't earning money, we'd probably be in the red (my sub-€15k income was 100% disposable until the USC, thank fúck). Yet she's still just as productive and the PS is just as wasteful as it always has been.

I know there are private sector jobs in exactly the same or worse situations - but the idea that the PS is a guarenteed cash cow for all its luck members is absolute horseshít. .

I don't know anyone who thinks the entire public sector are layabouts, I know there are parts that work very hard but equally there are parts that don't. If you want the government to target the inefficient parts of the sector it's not the government you need to complain to, it's the unions who protect the 'layouts' to the detriment of everyone in the country, including those parts of the public sector who work hard. Just look at what's happened here; the government tried to take away a perk that should have been taken away 100 years ago and that only about 10% of the public sector get and they couldn't do it because of the unions.

Having said that, I don't think you're grasping the scale of the problem. Yes there are inefficient parts of the public sector that need to be tackled but even if we removed all of the inefficiencies we still wouldn't be able to afford to pay for it. We need to remove the inefficiencies and cut pay and conditions to bring it back down to a level that we can afford. If that means worse services then we'll just have to put up with it and if the staff feel that it's not fair then tough, they can take their chances in the private sector if they feel that their job isn't paying them what they're worth. At the end of the day I don't really care how the public sector reduces its costs to an affordable level but it has to be done one way or another and no argument about how unfair it is or how hard some of the staff work is going to change that