Allowances to be stripped from new entrants only into the Public Service

oppenheimer1

It was reported tonight on RTE news that Brendan Howlin may decide to take allowances from new entrants to the public service, and leave them in place for those that are already there.

Personally, I find this inherently unfair. Not only will new entrants be on lower pay scales than those already in the job, now they will be hit again. If I were a public service worker just starting out, I would find it very difficult to join a union that has sold me out once already, and possibly for a second time in order to protect its current members.

However I'm beginning to think that this might be part of the long term strategy of the government. Over time to create two types of worker in the PS and play each off one another in order to wrestle some control back over the PS. Would the government be capable of such a Machiavellian conspiracy?

woodoo

They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.

I don't support these allowances btw. Some of them are ridiculous.

RobbingBandit

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It was reported tonight on RTE news that Brendan Howlin may decide to take allowances from new entrants to the public service, and leave them in place for those that are already there.

Personally, I find this inherently unfair. Not only will new entrants be on lower pay scales than those already in the job, now they will be hit again. If I were a public service worker just starting out, I would find it very difficult to join a union that has sold me out once already, and possibly for a second time in order to protect its current members.

However I'm beginning to think that this might be part of the long term strategy of the government. Over time to create two types of worker in the PS and play each off one another in order to wrestle some control back over the PS. Would the government be capable of such a Machiavellian conspiracy?

Bit overboard on the bold point regarding this, a Machiavellian conspiracy would be the government taking SNA support away from kids that will struggle without it, a Machiavellian conspiracy would be the forthcoming hack and slash of hospital services rather than the removal of over paid under worked civil servants who are not worth their pay let alone these frivolous allowances.

PoleStar

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Bit overboard on the bold point regarding this, a Machiavellian conspiracy would be the government taking SNA support away from kids that will struggle without it, a Machiavellian conspiracy would be the forthcoming hack and slash of hospital services rather than the removal of over paid under worked civil servants who are not worth their pay let alone these frivolous allowances.

You are missing the OP's point. If indeed the allowances are frivolous, then they should be removed from all staff. It is ridiculous to have 2 people doing the same job and one getting paid more just because they were employed before a certain date.

Of course what actually happens is that the unions sell out on future employees to keep current staff happy. Its just another example of the younger generations being shafted by the previous generation.

murphaph

woodoo wrote: »

They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.

Same with any worker working anywhere in the world tbh, including the many in the private sector in Ireland (and some foreign public sectors) that have seen pay cuts due to the circumstances.

RobbingBandit

PoleStar wrote: »

You are missing the OP's point. If indeed the allowances are frivolous, then they should be removed from all staff. It is ridiculous to have 2 people doing the same job and one getting paid more just because they were employed before a certain date.

Of course what actually happens is that the unions sell out on future employees to keep current staff happy. Its just another example of the younger generations being shafted by the previous generation.

No I am not missing any point, just last week it was released that 70% of the HSE budget is spent on wages,the greed in this country makes me sick.

BrianBoru00

It IS unfair and a disgrace BUT, to be fair, its the Unions at fault - only looking out for the current members and screwing their future members.
It will be interesting to see if new entrants choose to join the union - I know if I were in that position I wouldn't.

murphaph

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

It IS unfair and a disgrace BUT, to be fair, its the Unions at fault - only looking out for the current members and screwing their future members.
It will be interesting to see if new entrants choose to join the union - I know f I were in that position I wouldn't.

Any new entrant that joins one of these self serving unions deserves everything they get. I'd also give them a wide berth.

PoleStar

RobbingBandit wrote: »

No I am not missing any point, just last week it was released that 70% of the HSE budget is spent on wages,the greed in this country makes me sick.

Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.

Thats like giving out that most of the money in your taxi fare goes to the taxi driver.

I would have thought that is ble---in obvious.

Perhaps you might like to attend a self service hospital, or day care centre, or apply your own dressings in the community, or prescribe your own drugs, or do your own operation, make your own meals etc

beanie10

The allowances have to be taken away from all employees, most importantly the much abused sick leave.
A girl I know was meant to be working last night, she spent a few hours in ours yesterday where she told us she was due to go to work but didnt feel bothered and had a few sick days left. She rang in sick and went on a bender.
Maybe this abuse is common knowledge, but sick leave has become a target with most public service employees and not a good will gesture from their employer!
These employees need a serious reality check and stop holding this Contry to ransom. Hope when the Croke Park Agreement runs out in 2014 they all get shafted by government, they deserve it!

Kristopherus

beanie10 wrote: »

The allowances have to be taken away from all employees, most importantly the much abused sick leave.
A girl I know was meant to be working last night, she spent a few hours in ours yesterday where she told us she was due to go to work but didnt feel bothered and had a few sick days left. She rang in sick and went on a bender.
Maybe this abuse is common knowledge, but sick leave has become a target with most public service employees and not a good will gesture from their employer!
These employees need a serious reality check and stop holding this Contry to ransom. Hope when the Croke Park Agreement runs out in 2014 they all get shafted by government, they deserve it!

And you base that wonderful assertion on the basis of one experience:eek:

Brussels Sprout

What an absolutely spineless decision, which of course means that it's probably exactly what's going to happen. A tweet I heard about the other day sums it up best really:

The Labour party don't want the church lobbying them on legislation because that's the job of the public sector unions.

RobbingBandit

PoleStar wrote: »

Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.

Thats like giving out that most of the money in your taxi fare goes to the taxi driver.

I would have thought that is ble---in obvious.

Perhaps you might like to attend a self service hospital, or day care centre, or apply your own dressings in the community, or prescribe your own drugs, or do your own operation, make your own meals etc

Ridicules post is ridicules, wow man you really have your priorities set out here, loved that taxi fare comparison. Paying for people is why we don't have A&E services in so many hospitals, I hope it always stays so golden for you and yours.

Sulla Felix

Surely there's some kind of application under the Equality Act here. Two people doing the same job should be getting the same renumeration no?

Laminations

While I don't think it's very fair, it's mad to be referring to this as a pay cut. Starting in a job on a much reduced salary than you expected is not a pay cut. And while it's disappointing that after years of training and working towards a particular job that the salary pays less than you hoped I would say it is more disappointing to work towards a job or get a qualification for position that no longer really exists - like anyone training in construction or architecture or even special-needs education.

oppenheimer1

Laminations wrote: »

While I don't think it's very fair, it's mad to be referring to this as a pay cut. Starting in a job on a much reduced salary than you expected is not a pay cut. And while it's disappointing that after years of training and working towards a particular job that the salary pays less than you hoped I would say it is more disappointing to work towards a job or get a qualification for position that no longer really exists - like anyone training in construction or architecture or even special-needs education.

I agree that it is not a pay cut. But as I said it reinforces the creation of two different types of worker, with the young getting shafted for the old. In fact this has been a theme of the the last few years in Ireland, with the burden of the crash falling at the feet of the youth. While those of the age to have caused the mess are burdened least. I find that inherently unfair.

I also agree that certain allowances should be abolished, but abolished outright - such as the third level qualification supplement for teachers.

oppenheimer1

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

However I'm beginning to think that this might be part of the long term strategy of the government. Over time to create two types of worker in the PS and play each off one another in order to wrestle some control back over the PS. Would the government be capable of such a Machiavellian conspiracy?

I'd be surprised if they ever think that far ahead:(

PoleStar

PoleStar wrote: »

Its just another example of the younger generations being shafted by the previous generation.

The younger generation will also bear the brunt of the inflated pensions to all those retiring from the PS, while they themselves will likely not get any state pension. IMO all non private pensions but including those to bailed out institutions be taxed at 90% for everything over 30K. 30K take home should be more than enough for anybody getting a pension. Especially in a country thats bankrupt.

PoleStar

PoleStar wrote: »

Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.

Thats like giving out that most of the money in your taxi fare goes to the taxi driver.

I would have thought that is ble---in obvious.

Perhaps you might like to attend a self service hospital, or day care centre, or apply your own dressings in the community, or prescribe your own drugs, or do your own operation, make your own meals etc

Wrong, you obviously don't know the cost of medical equipment or medical products. I'd say normal countries the salaries in the health service would be much closer to 50% of total budget.
It may apply in the case of teachers where all that is needed is a room and chalk.

ItsLikeThis

PoleStar wrote: »

Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.

Thats like giving out that most of the money in your taxi fare goes to the taxi driver.

I would have thought that is ble---in obvious.

Perhaps you might like to attend a self service hospital, or day care centre, or apply your own dressings in the community, or prescribe your own drugs, or do your own operation, make your own meals etc

.......... Bring your own bed, cat scanner or private ambulance aswell

Sierra Oscar

The unions are at the heart of sowing division amongst workers and creating a two tier workforce. You just couldn't make it up - spineless stuff. The unions will suffer in the long run, new entrants will not forget that they were shafted and sold out.

beanie10

Quote:
Originally Posted by beanie10
The allowances have to be taken away from all employees, most importantly the much abused sick leave.
A girl I know was meant to be working last night, she spent a few hours in ours yesterday where she told us she was due to go to work but didnt feel bothered and had a few sick days left. She rang in sick and went on a bender.
Maybe this abuse is common knowledge, but sick leave has become a target with most public service employees and not a good will gesture from their employer!
These employees need a serious reality check and stop holding this Contry to ransom. Hope when the Croke Park Agreement runs out in 2014 they all get shafted by government, they deserve it!


And you base that wonderful assertion on the basis of one experience


Yeah youre right, you got me there, I found the one and only dosser in public service. Jaysus with odds like that Ill try the lotto tonight!!
Youre hardly naive, no??

donalg1

beanie10 wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by beanie10
The allowances have to be taken away from all employees, most importantly the much abused sick leave.
A girl I know was meant to be working last night, she spent a few hours in ours yesterday where she told us she was due to go to work but didnt feel bothered and had a few sick days left. She rang in sick and went on a bender.
Maybe this abuse is common knowledge, but sick leave has become a target with most public service employees and not a good will gesture from their employer!
These employees need a serious reality check and stop holding this Contry to ransom. Hope when the Croke Park Agreement runs out in 2014 they all get shafted by government, they deserve it!


And you base that wonderful assertion on the basis of one experience


Yeah youre right, you got me there, I found the one and only dosser in public service. Jaysus with odds like that Ill try the lotto tonight!!
Youre hardly naive, no??

You have used an example of one waster to generalise the whole public service though.

gizmo555

RobbingBandit wrote: »

No I am not missing any point, just last week it was released that 70% of the HSE budget is spent on wages,the greed in this country makes me sick.

PoleStar wrote: »

Again another pointless statistic. Health services are exactly that, SERVICES. What you pay for is people. Of course it will be the biggest chunk of the budget.

Deleted User wrote: »

Wrong, you obviously don't know the cost of medical equipment or medical products. I'd say normal countries the salaries in the health service would be much closer to 50% of total budget.
It may apply in the case of teachers where all that is needed is a room and chalk.

In fact, in our nearest neighbour - the UK - in the type of system we'd probably aspire to have for ourselves - the NHS - labour costs are significantly less than half of the total budget.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2010/apr/07/nhs-spending-staff-goods-services

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/current_projects/general_election_2010/frequently_asked.html#ahow_much_of_the_nhs_budget_is_spent_on_the_workforce

In 2007/8 the total cost of all NHS staff in England was £36.5 billion (Centre for Health Economics 2009) and the total budget for the NHS that year was £90.4 billion (HM Treasury 2007 pre-budget report table 1.3) – so staff costs amount to 40 per cent of the NHS budget.

Jaysoose

woodoo wrote: »

They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.

I don't support these allowances btw. Some of them are ridiculous.

So its justified taking allowances off new entrants but the same allowance cant be removed from an existing worker even though you admit yourself that they are ridiculous?

kinda sums up in a neat little nutshell why we are in the position we are. Self absorbed sections of society that ignore simple facts like the country is completely bankrupt and are happy to hide behind terms and conditions of absurd contracts that were drawn up at the peak of the good times.

What do peoples borrowing have to do with anything? Completely irrelevant to the argument as these were personal decisions made by people.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.

I don't support these allowances btw. Some of them are ridiculous.

Same work, different pay. They are being shafted.

itzme

woodoo wrote: »

They new workers will have the option to take the job or not. They are not being shafted. The problem for existing workers is they have based their finances/borrowings etc around their current income.

I don't support these allowances btw. Some of them are ridiculous.

I'm afraid to me this is an example of the self-serving commentary that has us in the trouble we're in.
"Don't take from me and mine, we can't afford it. That guy/girl over there though..."
To take a simple example, what about a teacher who has been working for 3 years in a school. The schools budget/numbers means they can't rehire, so they go for a position in another school. Under the rules, this is a new position advertised at grade 1 experience doesn't come into it. So where does your neat little bow of them not being shafted fit in here?

Laminations

Jaysoose wrote: »

So its justified taking allowances off new entrants

They are not being taken off them because they never had them in the first place. They may have had the expectation of getting allowances but like I've said many people have been hugely disappointed as they left college with a good qualification and the expectation of just getting a job - it hasn't materialised for many. They are starting the job on different conditions than others. Not fair but it happens. And it's prudent to stop the allowances where there's no contractual impediments and then review, revise and negotiate where you can to reduce or remove them for current employees. Do you think they should keep wasting money giving allowances to new people because they haven't managed to remove them from others??

Jaysoose

Laminations wrote: »

They are not being taken off them because they never had them in the first place. They may have had the expectation of getting allowances but like I've said many people have been hugely disappointed as they left college with a good qualification and the expectation of just getting a job - it hasn't materialised for many. They are starting the job on different conditions than others. Not fair but it happens. And it's prudent to stop the allowances where there's no contractual impediments and then review, revise and negotiate where you can to reduce or remove them for current employees. Do you think they should keep wasting money giving allowances to new people because they haven't managed to remove them from others??

Its not a question of being fair its a question of being realistic, so reading between the lines the minister knows that the allowances are absurd but rather than tackle the REAL problem of removing them from existing workers to reduce costs its deemed valid to remove them from any incoming staff but leave existing staff members alone.

as other posters have pointed out there will be a two tier system within the public service where you could have two groups of people doing exactly the same work but have different work conditions, thats absurd.

But as we have seen from Woodoo this kind of hypocrisy and inequality will be ignored by current staff as long as they continue to receive the allowances he himself deems ridiculous but wont give up.


You could'nt make it up as we are being told that the CPA is improving performance and the reforms are well on the way but we have hairbrained schemes being suggested by the minister in charge that will add additional pressure on managers (that cant manage) and add complexity to a situation that is already impossible to decipher.

ardmacha

There are allowances and allowances.
Extra for degrees may have been appropriate in the labour market 30 years ago, but not today. In today's conditions there may be an ample supply of graduates, however the supply of experienced people has not changed.

Laminations

Jaysoose wrote: »

Its not a question of being fair its a question of being realistic, so reading between the lines the minister knows that the allowances are absurd but rather than tackle the REAL problem of removing them from existing workers to reduce costs its deemed valid to remove them from any incoming staff but leave existing staff members alone.
.

Why do you say rather? It presumes that they will not tackle allowances for current employees. It's quite obviously a more difficult task to remove or alter existing allowances. And what's the real problem? That the allowances are absurd?? I'd agree many are - so why are you proposing continuing to give out absurd allowances on new contracts?

As for two tiered systems, this happens in many workplaces and is usually only remedied with time, when the employees with the old contracts leave. Hell it already exists in the PS with per 95 employees enjoying better conditions

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brussels Sprout

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just to reinforce this point, nowadays a primary degree wouldn't even get you in the door of a lot of jobs. To really stand out you need a Masters or even PhD. Primary degrees are basically equivalent to what having a Leaving Cart was in the 70's. It's no coincidence that this is the era that most of those public sector allowances originate from.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

itzme

Laminations wrote: »

And it's prudent to stop the allowances where there's no contractual impediments and then review, revise and negotiate where you can to reduce or remove them for current employees.

Spot on, its worth point out that there are some allowances that should not be stopped. They all need to examined, justified and reformed/removed if necessary for all candidates not just incoming employees.
For those that will jump down my throat for saying some allowances should not be stopped please take a look here and here. The particular ones I say shouldn't be stopped are the assistant principal and principal allowances. My understanding is that these aren't allowances in anything but name. They are actually the pay rise, justified, from a teacher to a principal. There are many on those lists that do warrant reform and in some cases removal. It would also be very useful to know how many, and the percentage of, teachers claim each allowance.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness, outrage is a bit strong a word. I know a few people who were a bit put out by it, that'd be the height of it. Most PS workers I know that had it knew it was a bit of a joke. The PS Unions were outraged on behalf of it's members and saw it as something to use as leverage tbf.

Lemming

deccurley wrote: »

The PS Unions were outraged on behalf of it's members and saw it as something to use as leverage tbf.

And completely misjudged its perceived value by both their own members and the publicised fact that exceptionally few civil servants are paid by cheque any more. They [the PS Unions] embarassed themselves & made an absolute ass-hat show of their members in trying to oppose the move. Again underscoring PS union leadership inability to see past the end of their own collective noses when it comes to give & take, or picking & choosing the battles worth fighting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

itzme

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can't see front pages from irish times (no subscription), but from memory I thought it was the CS not the PS that received that ridiculous allowance and that the government tried filtering it in '02/'03 by stopping it for new entrants and then it was the first thing they removed under the CPA. Am I wrong?

Godge

RobbingBandit wrote: »

No I am not missing any point, just last week it was released that 70% of the HSE budget is spent on wages,the greed in this country makes me sick.

How does 70% of the HSE budget being spent on wages represent greed?

There is complete disconnection between the two.

Godge

Jaysoose wrote: »

Its not a question of being fair its a question of being realistic, so reading between the lines the minister knows that the allowances are absurd but rather than tackle the REAL problem of removing them from existing workers to reduce costs its deemed valid to remove them from any incoming staff but leave existing staff members alone.

as other posters have pointed out there will be a two tier system within the public service where you could have two groups of people doing exactly the same work but have different work conditions, thats absurd.

But as we have seen from Woodoo this kind of hypocrisy and inequality will be ignored by current staff as long as they continue to receive the allowances he himself deems ridiculous but wont give up.


You could'nt make it up as we are being told that the CPA is improving performance and the reforms are well on the way but we have hairbrained schemes being suggested by the minister in charge that will add additional pressure on managers (that cant manage) and add complexity to a situation that is already impossible to decipher.

Actually you need to look at it in a different way. One of the biggest problems with the public service pension timebomb is that there is a direct link between current pensions of retired people and current employees. By creating a break in payment rates, the Government is taking a long-term strategic decision to break the link between pensions and pay and save large amounts of money in the longer term. This has been reinforced by the pension cuts which differed from the pay cuts applied in the public service. so while the current public servants may think that they are better off because their current salary is protected, their future pensions are indirectly affected and cut by the changes for new entrants.

Elessar

It's in operation in the DAA too. Terminal 2 workers are on significantly less money, longer hours, less favourable conditions and no allowances compared to workers in elsewhere in the airport. No allowances for nights, bank holidays or anything. This is compared to double and triple time that many workers currently earn for a bank holiday, and extra money for nights. We have a system now where staff in T1 are earning significantly more than what staff in T2 are, just a few hundred meters away, doing the same job but with extra workload (due to the new contracts). This is wrong. Especially considering the DAA is flush with cash and is still making tens of millions in profit each year even in this recession.

However our option was to take it or get another job. We've just accepted that this is the way things are now. Public servants will have to do the same. What can you do?

woodoo

itzme wrote: »

I'm afraid to me this is an example of the self-serving commentary that has us in the trouble we're in.
"Don't take from me and mine, we can't afford it. That guy/girl over there though..."?

Itzme that is the problem with the whole country. Read through any thread and all you will see is cut him not me posts. You are at it yourself.

woodoo

Jaysoose wrote: »

as other posters have pointed out there will be a two tier system within the public service where you could have two groups of people doing exactly the same work but have different work conditions, thats absurd.

But as we have seen from Woodoo this kind of hypocrisy and inequality will be ignored by current staff as long as they continue to receive the allowances he himself deems ridiculous but wont give up. .

Sorry jaysoose but your hypocrisy is startling. You wanted increments done away with. It would have had the same result. The older generation of workers on more money than the younger for the same work.

I don't get these allowances btw.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

Itzme that is the problem with the whole country. Read through any thread and all you will see is cut him not me posts. You are at it yourself.

My issue was less about the "cut him, not me", but rather the lame attempt at justifying paying someone less for doing the same job. I really don't see how you can post about the unfairness of suspending increments while simultaneously defending paying people less for the same job

woodoo

sarumite wrote: »

My issue was less about the "cut him, not me", but rather the lame attempt at justifying paying someone less for doing the same job. I really don't see how you can post about the unfairness of suspending increments while simultaneously defending paying people less for the same job

Because i believe it is what is on offer when you agree to take the job that matters. I had a look at the contract when i took up employment and i was happy with it. People starting new now have the same choices to make.

I just don't like the idea of reneging on an agreement . My contract was an agreement between me and my employer.

HeyThereDeliah

If they are cutting allowances for new entrants then the fairest thing is to phase them out over a few years for existing staff.
Two people doing the same job but one getting an allowance would be wrong and unfair. It would cause a divide with workers.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

Because i believe it is what is on offer when you agree to take the job that matters. I had a look at the contract when i took up employment and i was happy with it. People starting new now have the same choices to make.

I just don't like the idea of reneging on an agreement . My contract was an agreement between me and my employer.

If the government breaks a contract, then you can take them to court. The only way they can change things is if you either agree to the change or there is a clause within your contract that allows them to make the change without your consent.

Personally I do not believe the question of fairness is necessarily something defined by a contract. You do the same job, with the same level of experience for the same employer, fairness imo is receiving the same pay.

golden lane

the organisation that the ps workers work for.......is skint, bankrupt, no money........

are they special .........."just keep putting taxes up, and borrow more money..i must get paid what i want".........is that fair on the country.....

l.

woodoo

sarumite wrote: »

Personally I do not believe the question of fairness is necessarily something defined by a contract. You do the same job, with the same level of experience for the same employer, fairness imo is receiving the same pay.

Well then pay them the same as us.

HeyThereDeliah

golden lane wrote: »

the organisation that the ps workers work for.......is skint, bankrupt, no money........

are they special .........."just keep putting taxes up, and borrow more money..i must get paid what i want".........is that fair on the country.....

l.

I don't think it's as skint as it was but some are paid too much but unfortunately it's those at the entry level who will take the most cuts.
I don't think the ps workers at the bottom are well paid In fact workers in the private sector are probably paid more.