Should

Should all state provided service be privatized, education, health care, etc.
Any organization could tender for the work, would not matte if they were a for profit company, a charity, or a group of employees the only criteria would be that they meet the standards required and that they were the cheapest. The role of the government would be to set the standards required and to pay for the services. Such a system would dramatically reduce the amount of public services employees and thus the problem of public services pensions.

Or do you thing that people have the right to have philosophical objection to services like education being provided by a FOR PROFIT provider.

ardmacha

Such a system would dramatically reduce the amount of public services employees and thus the problem of public services pensions.

You can make a case that privatised services would be more efficient. However, the "saving" on pensions often arises because the privatised services have no proper pensions at all. People without pensions often fall back on taxpayer resources when they are older.

One of the criteria could be that there has to be a pension provision for the employees of the successful tendering company.

itzme

mariaalice wrote: »

Should all state provided service be privatized, education, health care, etc.
Any organization could tender for the work, would not matte if they were a for profit company, a charity, or a group of employees the only criteria would be that they meet the standards required and that they were the cheapest. The role of the government would be to set the standards required and to pay for the services. Such a system would dramatically reduce the amount of public services employees and thus the problem of public services pensions.

Or do you thing that people have the right to have philosophical objection to services like education being provided by a FOR PROFIT provider.

There really does need to be a move away from this simplistic argument of Public sector workers = bad and Private sector workers = good and pirvate sector can't do public service jobs.
There are plenty of examples where privatising did not bring any benefit (eircom, rail services in uk), where private sector has been terrible (banks, developers..) and where the public sector has been terrible (some of HSE, some regulators...)
My own personal view is that there are some services in the public sector which should not be run to make profit. That does not mean that they should be intentionally run at a loss. Once you bring in a profit based attitude to some of the areas of education and health you are putting the citizen second to money. Again this is not a defense of the current waste but OPs statement is oversimplifying the argument and gets us nowhere.

I work for a charity that is largely funded by a government department plus a small amount of fund raising.

I notice a tendency in myself to recoiled in horror at the thought of say residential care for venerable children being provided by a for profit organization, yet I think that for profit nursing homes ( vetted by HIQA ) are acceptable for venerable older people. That is why I put up the thread.

itzme

mariaalice wrote: »

Should all state provided service be privatized, education, health care, etc.

This was where my emphasis on over simplification was based on.
There will always be a need for state employees and private employees in a capitalist country. So in answer to question, no all state provided services should not be privatised.

Finnbar01

Why not?

Why do people think we cannot have education, health etc unless we have a large government bureaucracy overseen those things?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mariaalice wrote: »

Should all state provided service be privatized, education, health care, etc.
Any organization could tender for the work, would not matte if they were a for profit company, a charity, or a group of employees the only criteria would be that they meet the standards required and that they were the cheapest. The role of the government would be to set the standards required and to pay for the services. Such a system would dramatically reduce the amount of public services employees and thus the problem of public services pensions.

Or do you thing that people have the right to have philosophical objection to services like education being provided by a FOR PROFIT provider.

Absofukinglutely not.

As soon as any given child, elderly or sick patient be deemed unprofitbale they will be given a pat on the head and told to **** off to the nearest grave or prison cell.

itzme

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Why not?

Why do people think we cannot have education, health etc unless we have a large government bureaucracy overseen those things?

Can you point me to one country that has NO state provided services?
That is what the OP was proposing, no state provided services not the privatisation of some.

Markcheese

Some things definitely , all form processing on a large scale, motor tax , medical card even rent allowance ect. Dept of ag do it a lot, even though they're way over staffed .
Schools , probably not.... Can't see what benefit it would bring.... They do with a lot of tightening up... But...
Personaly I'd tender out operating theatres and scanner ect. In their down time... Sweat em 24 hours a day.... I reckon bons secours ect. could run most of our public hospitals cheaper and More efficiently than the current system....

I'd privatise TD's and heads of dept in civil service too ... Seriously ...... Make them self-employed... Responsible for their own pensions...severance pay and expenses ect .....

sarumite

itzme wrote: »

Can you point me to one country that has NO state provided services?
That is what the OP was proposing, no state provided services not the privatisation of some.

If they hires a private company to provide a service, is it not in effect providing a service. Just because the government provides welfare assistance, doesn't necessarily meant it has to be the one doing the paperwork. Many companies outsource their payroll for example.

I don't agree with the 100% outsourcing of government labour, however I do believe there are areas where the government currently is doing work that it shouldn't necessarily be doing. I think outsourcing would allow the government greater flexibility in staffing levels than it currently has at the moment where redundant positions must be retained. However Ireland is very much a fiscally-left leaning country so I don't see things changing.

ardmacha

In some ways we have the worst of both worlds. Many top hospitals and universities in the world are run as not for profit organisations, with clear missions and strong governance. Here, the governing bodies of these type of places are packed with good ol' boys and county councillors, so that their management can pillage them, while still subject to arbitrary rules originating in the civil service.

opti0nal

ardmacha wrote: »

However, the "saving" on pensions often arises because the privatised services have no proper pensions at all. People without pensions often fall back on taxpayer resources when they are older.

Not a problem if the outsourcer exploits cheap labour in or from developing countries.

I think we should definitely privitise the banks.

KyussBishop

Some of the Libertarian threads provide good discussions of the benefits/pitfalls of public vs private in various areas like banking/education, as Libertarians at-heart oppose most government intervention in anything (thus favour privatization of most sectors).

When you start to examine the implications of a privatized system in some essential areas like education though, you see that it completely changes the dynamics of the system in such vast way, in ways that are not superficially obvious when first examining private vs public arguments.


For instance, if you fully privatize education, that means schools have to enact fees and parents have to pay directly to put their children through school, so you effectively remove the long-held guarantee of education for all.

This depends on how you set that up though, as you could still maintain welfare vouchers for schooling, for the most needy; then, however, you have a very regressive system where school fees do not scale based on income (taxation i.e. a public system, however, is progressive as it does scale on income).

What that means, is that the less money you earn, the greater a percentage of your earnings you pay to put your child through school (because school fees don't scale with earnings), which is a completely regressive system that is arguably unfair on less well off families.


So, this (as a basic example; one I've much debated on the Political Theory forum) shows that the public vs private arguments for various sectors is far more complicated than it superficially appears, and you have to very carefully examine the implications of privatization in every sector, as it has serious ramifications which are not immediately obvious.

secretambition

Imagine Ryanair style health care. Some things just should not be done with profit as the sole motive, which would inevitably be the case in the private sector.

Markcheese

Ryanair style health care would be great.,,, more routes, more choice, more people using it ,all at far lower cost ..... Brand new equipment....... And run by a hand full of people ( what do the dept of health do ) reacting quicky.
Admittedly I wouldn't put Michael o Leary in charge of overall health care provision and planning.....he was advocating the American system, where the health care spend is higher in total per person overall( hospitals, doctors pharmacies) but the health outcomes are actually worse per head ... Fine if yr rich with good insurance ... not great on low to average income..

itzme

sarumite wrote: »

If they hires a private company to provide a service, is it not in effect providing a service. Just because the government provides welfare assistance, doesn't necessarily meant it has to be the one doing the paperwork. Many companies outsource their payroll for example.

I don't agree with the 100% outsourcing of government labour, however I do believe there are areas where the government currently is doing work that it shouldn't necessarily be doing. I think outsourcing would allow the government greater flexibility in staffing levels than it currently has at the moment where redundant positions must be retained. However Ireland is very much a fiscally-left leaning country so I don't see things changing.

I think you've mis-interpreted me, I'm all for debating privatising certain areas of the public sector. This is not what the OP was asking though, which is why my two posts were dismissive of the OP question as it was in IMO an overly simplistic question which implied the usual Public = bad, Private = good. It seems you agree with me that privatising the whole public sector is a silly idea.

On the rest of your post, I agree there are some areas that the government should look at alternatives like outsourcing. However, I often find the volume of this is overstated. Also sometimes the knock on effects as Kyussbishop has said are not thought of. Could you say which area's you think we should privatise, I assume (and could be wrong) you mean payroll and areas like that?

Markcheese

Just a couple of examples...
Nct testing privately run , no great drama, testing available saturdays and weekends ,hasn't rocketed in price and a much bigger volume of tests than when it started....
Ptrb ( private tenancies registration board ) state run , slow, expensive, ineffective and will answer the phone 1 morning a week ... Maybe....,
You wouldn't privatise the Gardai or the army or policy making but there's loads of things that could be and probably should be privatised and tendered for.....chief in that would be in health providing and county councils,

secretambition

Markcheese wrote: »

Ryanair style health care would be great.,,, more routes, more choice, more people using it ,all at far lower cost ..... Brand new equipment....... And run by a hand full of people ( what do the dept of health do ) reacting quicky.
Admittedly I wouldn't put Michael o Leary in charge of overall health care provision and planning.....he was advocating the American system, where the health care spend is higher in total per person overall( hospitals, doctors pharmacies) but the health outcomes are actually worse per head ... Fine if yr rich with good insurance ... not great on low to average income..

More routes and more choice as long as you're profitable. Ryanair don't fly places to make a loss. Great for the healthy, wealthy young girl who wants expensive cosmetic surgery. Not so great for the elderly gentleman who needs expensive drugs for the rest of his life and is likely to have numerous issues in the future based on his history.

Also, you wouldn't have any choice in whether Michael O'Leary was in charge or not if it was private and open to the free market.

opti0nal

Markcheese wrote: »

J
You wouldn't privatise the Gardai or the army ... but there's loads of things that could be and probably should be privatised and tendered for..

If you would not privitise the army or Gardai who protect public safety, why would you privitise public health?

Public services are run by the government in situations where the private sector cannot be trusted to operate in interests of the public good. That's why the banks were largely taken out of private control.

sarumite

itzme wrote: »

I think you've mis-interpreted me, I'm all for debating privatising certain areas of the public sector. This is not what the OP was asking though, which is why my two posts were dismissive of the OP question as it was in IMO an overly simplistic question which implied the usual Public = bad, Private = good. It seems you agree with me that privatising the whole public sector is a silly idea.

On the rest of your post, I agree there are some areas that the government should look at alternatives like outsourcing. However, I often find the volume of this is overstated. Also sometimes the knock on effects as Kyussbishop has said are not thought of. Could you say which area's you think we should privatise, I assume (and could be wrong) you mean payroll and areas like that?

I am a little busy at the moment to discuss areas I feel the government do not need to be that organisation actually performing the work, although as an example law and order are areas where there shouldn't be privatisation.

However, Kyussbishop (and many others) arguments are very much based on a libertarian viewpoint.

The op said "Any organization could tender for the work, would not matte if they were a for profit company, a charity, or a group of employees the only criteria would be that they meet the standards required and that they were the cheapest."

From this I gathered that the government would be paying for the service, just not providing it. So the the whole Ryanair health care discussion is a bit moot. The choice is whether the government pay for you to fly ryanair or aerlingus. I have spent a lot of the last 4 years living in Sweden and it is a libertarians nightmare. That said, the universal healthcare in Sweden relies heavily on private hospitals to perform routine work which frees up many of the government run hospitals to specialise in a particular area.

KyussBishop

I suppose government outsourcing to private partners is a more reasoned approach in some areas, and is not as extreme as completely eliminating government involvement; I've not explored that in detail, but I suppose semi-private schools are a good example.

Where would that be well-applied? (and would people be given a choice in selecting which private actor provides the service?)

Stheno

mariaalice wrote: »

Such a system would dramatically reduce the amount of public services employees and thus the problem of public services pensions.

There is legislation such as TUPE to consider in the scenario you are outlining.

secretambition

sarumite wrote: »

The op said "Any organization could tender for the work, would not matte if they were a for profit company, a charity, or a group of employees the only criteria would be that they meet the standards required and that they were the cheapest."

From this I gathered that the government would be paying for the service, just not providing it. So the the whole Ryanair health care discussion is a bit moot. The choice is whether the government pay for you to fly ryanair or aerlingus. I have spent a lot of the last 4 years living in Sweden and it is a libertarians nightmare. That said, the universal healthcare in Sweden relies heavily on private hospitals to perform routine work which frees up many of the government run hospitals to specialise in a particular area.

It's not moot because the private company will have objectives set out for them, but like any service provider, they will have a certain amount of discretion as to how to achieve those goals and can potentially cut corners if all they care about is profit. They are contractors at the end of the day and can't have every move dictated to them like some employees might. You can't cover every situation in a contract. New situations will arise that noboby has thought of. Therefore you need a culture where the health providers aren't solely motivated by profit so that there can be some level of trust there.

sarumite

secretambition wrote: »

It's not moot because the private company will have objectives set out for them, but like any service provider, they will have a certain amount of discretion as to how to achieve those goals and can potentially cut corners if all they care about is profit. They are contractors at the end of the day and can't have every move dictated to them like some employees might. You can't cover every situation in a contract. New situations will arise that noboby has thought of. Therefore you need a culture where the health providers aren't solely motivated by profit so that there can be some level of trust there.

While I know people always comment that private companies cut corners, I am not sure how much of that is based in reality and how much is based on irrational fear. I personally do not know of private hospitals or private schools that have cut corners. The reality is in a private hospital the doctors and nurses who do the work aren't motivated by profit anymore than a doctor or nurse in a public hospital. The adherence to budgets will be no less constrained in a public hospital than a private hospital. I do think a private hospital would be more pro-active about streamlining their adminstration process than the HSE has been prior to being forced to do so. In my opinion the Irish government have shown that it lacks the ability to adapt staffing levels appropriately.

secretambition

sarumite wrote: »

While I know people always comment that private companies cut corners, I am not sure how much of that is based in reality and how much is based on irrational fear. I personally do not know of private hospitals or private schools that have cut corners. The reality is in a private hospital the doctors and nurses who do the work aren't motivated by profit anymore than a doctor or nurse in a public hospital. The adherence to budgets will be no less constrained in a public hospital than a private hospital. I do think a private hospital would be more pro-active about streamlining their adminstration process than the HSE has been prior to being forced to do so. In my opinion the Irish government have shown that it lacks the ability to adapt staffing levels appropriately.

Private hospital and private schools at the moment market themselves as the high quality option. A private school can't cut corners because people quite simply won't pay for a worse alternative that what they could get for free. However, the OP advocated giving the contract to the cheapest, so you are looking at the budget, shave-off-every-penny-you-can-to-get-the-tender attitude rather than the we-sell-a-premium-product-and-you-pay-for-that approach that exists with private schools and hospitals at the moment. It moves from an Aer Lingus to a Ryanair situation.

Markcheese

secretambition wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

Ryanair style health care would be great.,,, more routes, more choice, more people using it ,all at far lower cost ..... Brand new equipment....... And run by a hand full of people ( what do the dept of health do ) reacting quicky.
Admittedly I wouldn't put Michael o Leary in charge of overall health care provision and planning.....he was advocating the American system, where the health care spend is higher in total per person overall( hospitals, doctors pharmacies) but the health outcomes are actually worse per head ... Fine if yr rich with good insurance ... not great on low to average income..

More routes and more choice as long as you're profitable. Ryanair don't fly places to make a loss. Great for the healthy, wealthy young girl who wants expensive cosmetic surgery. Not so great for the elderly gentleman who needs expensive drugs for the rest of his life and is likely to have numerous issues in the future based on his history.

Also, you wouldn't have any choice in whether Michael O'Leary was in charge or not if it was private and open to the free market.

I would imagine the old boy on medication would be a bit like a regular customer ... Very valuable indeed ... I didn't say that the Hse or it's replacement should disappear just the service provider should tender for contract to provide for eg dialysis,or orthopaedics, and if they can provide a better service cheaper while making a profit, brilliant.. and yes some procedures will cost the state more to provide than others, some small hospitals may cost more to run than large ones but our state may decide that's socially desirable ..... Our current healthcare system isn't great, many of the same issues for decades. And it's not cheap either so maybe a change is worth looking at.... But I'm not advocating US model which is great if your rich .....

Markcheese

opti0nal wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

J
You wouldn't privatise the Gardai or the army ... but there's loads of things that could be and probably should be privatised and tendered for..

If you would not privitise the army or Gardai who protect public safety, why would you privitise public health?

Public services are run by the government in situations where the private sector cannot be trusted to operate in interests of the public good. That's why the banks were largely taken out of private control.

Bit of a misunderstanding here I don't want to privatise public health. I'd like to see more health care providers, competing for government contracts....to do specific jobs and services at a certain price, and to be held to account for quality of service on threat of losing their contract....if mallow hospital had spare theatre time and staff and using their facilities more efficiently could tender to provide for extra colonoscopies and safegaurd theatres and rural jobs ... Or if a company could run an existing CT scanner 24/7 getting rid of backlogs and giving out of hours cover where none existed before , cheaply,brilliant. Most of what's wrong in our current system is management ... That could be changed....

sarumite

secretambition wrote: »

Private hospital and private schools at the moment market themselves as the high quality option. A private school can't cut corners because people quite simply won't pay for a worse alternative that what they could get for free. However, the OP advocated giving the contract to the cheapest, so you are looking at the budget, shave-off-every-penny-you-can-to-get-the-tender attitude rather than the we-sell-a-premium-product-and-you-pay-for-that approach that exists with private schools and hospitals at the moment. It moves from an Aer Lingus to a Ryanair situation.

From the OP
" they meet the standards required and that they were the cheapest"

secretambition

sarumite wrote: »

From the OP
" they meet the standards required and that they were the cheapest"

My point is that you can't set out the standards in as much detail as necessary. When you contract out, you pay for an end goal e.g. provision of treatment for illness X. You can make some specifications as to how you would like that treatment provided e.g. patient to be seen within X time or whatever, but you cannot plan for every single situation. What about when a new drug becomes available which is cheaper than the current one and most scientists agree that it is just as good, but a few highly respected ones say it is not. The company want to switch. Who wins? There will always be situations in the future that cannot be planned for where discretion comes into it, and you want that discretion exercised by people who don't have ulterior motives (profit in this case) when it comes to health. You cannot dictate every detail of practice to a contractor like you could to your employee.

Delancey

A key ' danger ' associated with large scale privatisation is the inevitable compilation and use of statistics to support various opinions. ' Key metrics ' such as waiting times for beds or exam results will become the focus to the complete negelect of everything else.
There are lies , damned lies and statistics.......

creedp

Delancey wrote: »

A key ' danger ' associated with large scale privatisation is the inevitable compilation and use of statistics to support various opinions. ' Key metrics ' such as waiting times for beds or exam results will become the focus to the complete negelect of everything else.
There are lies , damned lies and statistics.......

There are plenty arguments (backed up by irrefutable statistics on both sides) to support public or private provision of healthcare and some other publicly funded services. However, we have the worst case scenario at the moment with the public/private mix which both subsidises and provides preferential access to public services for private patients and as a consequences forces public patients to endure longer and longer waiting times for the same public services. At the same time, those advocating the private sector solution are then purchasing services at a premium for public patients who have been waiting the longest from the private sector and all the time the same cadre of consultants are winning (being paid an enormous salary to work in the public hospitals to treat public patients while being able to prioritise their private patients in the same hospital, thereby generating considerable private income, and also being able to pick up even more income when their long sufferring public patients are transferred to private system for treatment - brilliant and only in Ireland). We need to make up our mind either public or private provision not the current Irish only hybrid system.

I do not believe that privatization is always a good thing I have mixed views about the subject.

My daughter is a nurse in the UK in her hospital all catering and portering services were transfered to sedexo a French company all employees keep their terms and conditions but as the the original employees retire they are being replaced by agency workers, I think that is wrong.

In my system which would be a true test of a private company.

(1)Who ever wins the tender to run a state service would be very tightley controlled.

(2) The private company ruining the services would have to have at least 95% of the workers directly employed by the company its self, plus the company would have to offer a pension ( the company would have to have the flexibility to have 5% of employees agency workers )

There are straws in the wind at the moment.

The current model of providing services is financially unsustainable the the cost of public services pensions is huge, so what are the choices.

From now on few people will be directly employed by the state and thus as time goes the cost of the provision of public services pensions will diminish, current employees will retire and no new employees will be added to the public services pension.

But we still need services es so a way to employ people who provide services without giving them access to the public services pension will have to be found ( they will still have some sort of pension just not a public services one )

creedp

mariaalice wrote: »

There are straws in the wind at the moment.

The current model of providing services is financially unsustainable the the cost of public services pensions is huge, so what are the choices.

From now on few people will be directly employed by the state and thus as time goes the cost of the provision of public services pensions will diminish, current employees will retire and no new employees will be added to the public services pension.

But we still need services es so a way to employ people who provide services without giving them access to the public services pension will have to be found ( they will still have some sort of pension just not a public services one )

All employees in these circumstances will have some pension entitlements and so the fee payable to the private provider will incorporate a pension element plus private employees will also be entitled to the contributory old age pension. So its not like if we privatise there will be a zero pension costs for the taxpayer.

ardmacha

The current model of providing services is financially unsustainable the the cost of public services pensions is huge,

People making these contentions conveniently ignore that fact that most current PS retirees do not receive the Old Age pension. Catering and portering staff would actually receive a modest enough pension when this is adjusted.

sarumite

secretambition wrote: »

My point is that you can't set out the standards in as much detail as necessary. When you contract out, you pay for an end goal e.g. provision of treatment for illness X. You can make some specifications as to how you would like that treatment provided e.g. patient to be seen within X time or whatever, but you cannot plan for every single situation. What about when a new drug becomes available which is cheaper than the current one and most scientists agree that it is just as good, but a few highly respected ones say it is not. The company want to switch. Who wins? There will always be situations in the future that cannot be planned for where discretion comes into it, and you want that discretion exercised by people who don't have ulterior motives (profit in this case) when it comes to health. You cannot dictate every detail of practice to a contractor like you could to your employee.

Nothing you mention here would be specific to a privately run hospital. Budgets are constantly being pinched in publicly run hospitals so the questions of which drugs to use is already an issue.

As a side note: The example you give about a cheaper less effective drug doesn't happen though, its always a question of brand name v's generic drugs in terms of cost. A therapeutic that is seen to be less effective than an already established one would never get beyond the lab bench as it costs too much to bring it to the market. The current trend is for publicly run hospitals to question whether to use the less effective drugs that are cheaper or opt for the more effective ones which are more expensive.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

People making these contentions conveniently ignore that fact that most current PS retirees do not receive the Old Age pension. Catering and portering staff would actually receive a modest enough pension when this is adjusted.

The economist magazine has several articles over the last 10 years regarding the unsustainable nature of pensions schemes. Here are just three, one from 2004 and two from 2012

http://www.economist.com/node/3478005

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/05/public-sector-pensions

http://www.economist.com/node/21556945


As to the most current PS retirees (i.e Pre 95) discussion, you conveniently neglected to mention that they also paid a lower prsi rate.

cristoir

There are some things that society must provide it's citizens. An education, health-care, justice and a safety net. After that privatize as much as possible. State control of utilities stifles competition and growth in those sectors. Also private health-care and education are both fine provided their is a good public option as well.

ardmacha

As to the most current PS retirees (i.e Pre 95) discussion, you conveniently neglected to mention that they also paid a lower prsi rate.

and received a lower salary.
What they paid in the past is irrelevant to the present discussion.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

and received a lower salary.
What they paid in the past is irrelevant to the present discussion.

It's directly related to your initial point about pre-95 retirees.

ardmacha

It's directly related to your initial point about pre-95 retirees.

In what way?

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

In what way?

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/PRSI/Pages/prsiclasses.aspx

"Some workers in the public sector do not have cover for all benefits and pensions and they pay a modified PRSI contribution - Class B, C, D or H."

The reason they don't receive the contributory pension is directly related to their modified prsi contribution.

ardmacha

The reason they don't receive the contributory pension is directly related to their modified prsi contribution.

Of course. However, this does not affect my point that for workers such as cleaners or porters that a significant part of their pension is what everyone receives and the distinct PS part may be modest enough.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course. However, this does not affect my point that for workers such as cleaners or porters that a significant part of their pension is what everyone receives and the distinct PS part may be modest enough.

Of course since it was a response to your point that the pre-95 retirees do not receive the contributory pensions.

Markcheese

Don't want to ruin anyone's argument but most cleaners and catering staff in hospitals (at least in cork) work for contract cleaners and caterers so are all ready privatised .... Have been for years as far as I know ... Seems to work fine ...

If people are uncomfortable with privatization and as I said I have mixed views about the subject, how would they suggest the government employ people to provide state services WITHOUT incurring the cost of public services pensions.

I am not saying that people should not have a pension or decent employment but the thing is how to pay for it.

opti0nal

mariaalice wrote: »

If people are uncomfortable with privatization and as I said I have mixed views about the subject, how would they suggest the government employ people to provide state services WITHOUT incurring the cost of public services pensions.

I am not saying that people should not have a pension or decent employment but the thing is how to pay for it.

Somebody has to pay. If not a state pension, then, a private sector one. Either way society bears the cost.....unless you contract out to non EU workers and deport them when they are no longer useful.

Funding of private sector pensions does not come out of thin air. The difference between a private sector pension and a public sector one is that it is easier for the private sector to renege on the promise....but even that is changing.

The qustion is not how to pay for public sector pensions, but how to pay for any pensions.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

Of course since it was a response to your point that the pre-95 retirees do not receive the contributory pensions.

I think the point is that neither do post-95ers. Their 'contributory pension' is set off against their occupational pension and so they don't receive both like they would if they were private sector pensioners.

hardCopy

mariaalice wrote: »

If people are uncomfortable with privatization and as I said I have mixed views about the subject, how would they suggest the government employ people to provide state services WITHOUT incurring the cost of public services pensions.

I am not saying that people should not have a pension or decent employment but the thing is how to pay for it.

Privatisation or not, defined benefit pensions should be banned, they're a stupid stupid idea in a public or private job.

cgarrad

Privatise all sectors with 2 year rolling contracts.

If costumer/state satisfaction is not met the put the contract back on the market. If it is, automatic renewal. Criteria for each 2 year block is reevaluated on an ongoing basis.

Its beyond simple.