Kenny vs Cowen

Sand

leggo wrote: »

Originally, we were talking about Enda vs. Cowen. Then someone brought up TD salaries. Now you're acting as if I feel that public figures volunteering in consultant-type roles are a bad idea.

I'm noting that Ireland doesn't have to pay sky high salaries to get expertise in running the state, when your whole argument is that you cant get excellent performance without paying ridiculous money. Which is disproved by Diaspora Ireland, the better performance of others who are paid less than our lot, and the wholly unqualified and unmotivated people who are employed to represent us.

Your making an argument based on fantasy - woulda, coulda, shoulda. That's nice, but reality is a bit of a problem for your viewpoint.

leggo

Did you read the rest of that paragraph? About how those people are likely all earning six-figure salaries for their expertise already? And how they aren't electable and accountable? None of that went in, no?

Read the post before you reply.

Sand

leggo wrote: »

Did you read the rest of that paragraph? About how those people are likely all earning six-figure salaries for their expertise already? And how they aren't electable and accountable? None of that went in, no?

Read the post before you reply.

All of it was irrelevant.

People are not elected to public boards, they are appointed so that's irrelevant. They're offering to do additional work, unpaid, for free which disproves your claim that you have to offer ridiculous money to get motivated qualified candidates.

Basically, you're wrong.

leggo

You're disagreeing with me saying they aren't electable...by pointing out that they can't be elected, and are appointed? (i.e. they aren't electable)

You argue that you can get qualified people for little to no money, by giving examples of people who earn six-figure salaries in their respective fields because they are qualified.

If you can't see this stuff, you're genuinely not worth arguing with. How can you have a sensible debate with someone talking such nonsense?

have2flushtwice

leggo,
theres a saying, "dont dare argue with an idiot, because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
your posts are rambling, and repetive.

well i think that you are an idiot, run for election with FG please, and get off my thread!

leggo wrote: »

You're disagreeing with me saying they aren't electable...by pointing out that they can't be elected, and are appointed? (i.e. they aren't electable)

You argue that you can get qualified people for little to no money, by giving examples of people who earn six-figure salaries in their respective fields because they are qualified.

If you can't see this stuff, you're genuinely not worth arguing with. How can you have a sensible debate with someone talking such nonsense?

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
Please be advised that some posts are getting a bit "too personal," which violates our charter. Please focus on the topic, not each other.

itzme

Sand wrote: »

@leggo

Where half have no financial qualifications whatsoever. And that there is only two economists with doctorates in the DoF and thats about it, for the entire Irish civil service.

This seems to be one of those points that's easy to get angry but really is an unimportant point. What are the roles in the department that don't have finance qualifications? Are the HR, clerks? Do the roles need a qualification in finance? Without that information there is no justification in getting angry.

Did you read the article you've linked fully? Particularly the part at the end saying that the state laboratory is included in the figures which would include an estimated 80 scientists out of the 100 in the lab. None of which SHOULD have a qualification in finance. That's 80 out of the 422 (19% if you're counting).
This really is akin to getting angry after being told that not everyone in Intel has a computer/engineering qualification. Or that not everyone in a university has a qualification in education.

have2flushtwice

a

itzme wrote: »

This seems to be one of those points that's easy to get angry but really is an unimportant point. What are the roles in the department that don't have finance qualifications? Are the HR, clerks? Do the roles need a qualification in finance? Without that information there is no justification in getting angry.

Did you read the article you've linked fully? Particularly the part at the end saying that the state laboratory is included in the figures which would include an estimated 80 scientists out of the 100 in the lab. None of which SHOULD have a qualification in finance. That's 80 out of the 422 (19% if you're counting).
This really is akin to getting angry after being told that not everyone in Intel has a computer/engineering qualification. Or that not everyone in a university has a qualification in education.

I dont think you are comparing apples with apples. are you telling us that the dept of finance has a hr team within for the dept of finance?

why is it relevant to say that none of the state lab SHOULD have a qualification? I dont understand.
rgds

Sand

This seems to be one of those points that's easy to get angry but really is an unimportant point. What are the roles in the department that don't have finance qualifications? Are the HR, clerks? Do the roles need a qualification in finance? Without that information there is no justification in getting angry.

I'll summarize the context of my post. A poster rolls up stating that focusing on pay to high ranking figures in our state is a non-issue, a distraction from real problems. A couple of statements are made:

1 - People arguing for cuts in pay to TDs, quangos and top civil servants are blood hungry begrudgers, blind to the real problems the country faces
2 - Pay to TDs, quangos and top civil servants are a tiny proportion of our deficit so is not worth focusing on.
3 - We have to pay top salaries to attract top talent to state service - if we don't, the wonderful talent in the public sector will be headhunted by the private sector.
4 - So long as the people are delivering results, their pay is justified
5 - We really don't want to have unqualified people running our state finances, that would be disastrous.

In response I note:

1 - :rolleyes:
2 - Leadership requires those at the top set an example in their willingness to accept reform of pay and conditions before they demand it of others.
3 - Many top qualified and experienced people are willing to serve in Ireland's governance for free, as demonstrated by Diaspora 2016. Many top qualified and experienced people are willing to serve in Ireland's governance for some pay between free and current unaffordable levels. So we can get top class people without paying over the market rate. And the idea of the private sector headhunting in the public sector is laughable.
4 - They're not delivering results - you don't pay for what you're not getting.

5 - (This is the post you're responding to): We do have wholly unqualified people in our Department of Finance running our state finances. The poor quality of the DoF staff and the low numbers with relevant qualifications or experience has been an issue identified as a failing throughout the Celtic Tiger with only recent efforts made to fix it.

Thats the context my post was made in. I'm not going to argue the odds over what percentage need to have qualifications as thats just a red herring - the DoF has been audited and found that it doesn't have enough relevant qualifications or experienced staff, which disproves the idea that if you pay over the odds qualified staff are the result.

You and me arguing over what the % should be on an internet discussion board wont affect that.

itzme

have2flushtwice wrote: »

a


I dont think you are comparing apples with apples. are you telling us that the dept of finance has a hr team within for the dept of finance?

why is it relevant to say that none of the state lab SHOULD have a qualification? I dont understand.
rgds

Yes I am saying they have a human resources team and so are they
here

I really don't think you've thought this through, do you know what the state lab is and what it does? I suggest you look into that before you ask a question why scientists in a scientific lab shouldn't be expected to have a finance qualification, you'll note I was specifically talking about the 80 scientists in the lab not the other staff.
I believe you might have be making assumptions that because the lab comes under the bureaucratic umbrella of the Dept of Finance that it has a financial slant. It doesn't, I suggest you look at page 20 http://www.statelab.ie/PDF/AnnRep2011.pdf

itzme

Sand wrote: »

I'll summarize the context of my post. A poster rolls up stating that focusing on pay to high ranking figures in our state is a non-issue, a distraction from real problems. A couple of statements are made:

1 - People arguing for cuts in pay to TDs, quangos and top civil servants are blood hungry begrudgers, blind to the real problems the country faces
2 - Pay to TDs, quangos and top civil servants are a tiny proportion of our deficit so is not worth focusing on.
3 - We have to pay top salaries to attract top talent to state service - if we don't, the wonderful talent in the public sector will be headhunted by the private sector.
4 - So long as the people are delivering results, their pay is justified
5 - We really don't want to have unqualified people running our state finances, that would be disastrous.

In response I note:

1 - :rolleyes:
2 - Leadership requires those at the top set an example in their willingness to accept reform of pay and conditions before they demand it of others.

There has already been a long thread on politicians salaries recently, it is of course a damn important subject. More than anything it is important because the public need to trust and respect their politicians for them to be as effective as possible. Pay is a significant part of this, I have already gone into detail on my thoughts on this and how I think a fairer system could be implemented in this thread starting here. I am in no way trying to discourage a discussion on this, nor disagreeing with your anger.

Sand wrote: »

3 - Many top qualified and experienced people are willing to serve in Ireland's governance for free, as demonstrated by Diaspora 2016. Many top qualified and experienced people are willing to serve in Ireland's governance for some pay between free and current unaffordable levels. So we can get top class people without paying over the market rate. And the idea of the private sector headhunting in the public sector is laughable.

You make some excellent points, on point 3 though it is only fair to say that many top qualified and experienced people are willing to give some of their time for free. Lets not overstate it as if they are willing to come in and do 10 hour days 5 days a week. Just to be clear I want these individuals to be used, so long as there isn't a conflict of interest and potential exploitation. If these people are still CEOs/high ranking individuals in private companies we want to make sure they are not just there to influence things in their companies favour, i.e Denis O'Brien. So again lets not oversimplify and pretend that we should just open the doors to them.

Sand wrote: »

4 - They're not delivering results - you don't pay for what you're not getting.

On 4, that is your personal opinion and thats fine but I disagree. It is a broad generalisation that in my mind is not true. There are many high ranking individuals in the CS and PS that are delivering results and/or savings and efficiences. To say it in such a flippant way that all of them are not doesn't sit well with me at all. Again, reform and improvements are needed. In some areas, things are nowhere near up to scratch but that is not true everywhere. If you can't accept the positives of a system as well as being able to identify the negatives you have no chance of being able to improve the system.

Sand wrote: »

5 - (This is the post you're responding to): We do have wholly unqualified people in our Department of Finance running our state finances. The poor quality of the DoF staff and the low numbers with relevant qualifications or experience has been an issue identified as a failing throughout the Celtic Tiger with only recent efforts made to fix it.

Thats the context my post was made in. I'm not going to argue the odds over what percentage need to have qualifications as thats just a red herring - the DoF has been audited and found that it doesn't have enough relevant qualifications or experienced staff, which disproves the idea that if you pay over the odds qualified staff are the result.

You and me arguing over what the % should be on an internet discussion board wont affect that.

On the point I was responding to point 5. It is you that placed significance on the % not me originally. I was just asking you why you thought 50% was low considering the department and its staff.
Now you have made a number of statements in this paragraph and I have seen no evidence anywhere that they are true. I am going to ask you to back them up because it seems you are being disingenuous.
1. Apart from the journal article what other sources do you have to back up?
2. "We do have wholly unqualified people in our Department of Finance running our state finances. The poor quality of the DoF staff and the low numbers with relevant qualifications or experience has been an issue identified as a failing throughout the Celtic Tiger with only recent efforts made to fix it. " The journal.ie report states that there are people within the Department who don't have finance qualification it says nothing about them being the chief decision makers as opposed to being HR/ the state lab. So please show me some evidence of this, to me, over the top statement.
3. "the DoF has been audited and found that it doesn't have enough relevant qualifications or experienced staff" Where is this audit that you speak of which found that the Dept doesn't have enough relevant qualifications or experienced staff. I am very interested to read this and who created it. Again I don't know of the existence of this report. To my knowledge the information comes from here where there has been no interpretation of whether the number of qualifications is low/high.