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

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.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

Well then pay them the same as us.

Kind of my point. If the government want to make cuts, they should be applied equally rather than just new recruits.

A Dub in Glasgo

There are loads of jobs where people do the same or very similar jobs and they are not on the same salary or conditions of service. I work for the railway in Britain and I had protected rights that were part of my contract when British Rail got privatised (final salary pensions & free travel being the most obvious). I moved job to another railway firm but not one of the privatised firms therfore I lost those entitlements. I am now back within one of the 'BR group of companies' and I am on less benefits than those who kept their entitlements. I may bitch and moan about it but it was my choice therefore I think that new entrants have no justification for looking for parity should this be made plain to them before they are offered the job.

sarumite

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There are loads of jobs where people do the same or very similar jobs and they are not on the same salary or conditions of service. I work for the railway in Britain and I had protected rights that were part of my contract when British Rail got privatised (final salary pensions & free travel being the most obvious). I moved job to another railway firm but not one of the privatised firms therfore I lost those entitlements. I am now back within one of the 'BR group of companies' and I am on less benefits than those who kept their entitlements. I may bitch and moan about it but it was my choice therefore I think that new entrants have no justification for looking for parity should this be made plain to them before they are offered the job.

That may be all true and well, however I am merely questioning the fairness of it. I know it happens. Suspending increment would be unfair to some, paying new entrants less for the same jobs would be unfair to others. If you argue that the former shouldn't happen because it is unfair, I don't see how you can support the idea of the latter happening if you are basing your argument on the idea of 'fairness'.

A Dub in Glasgo

I pointed out that it happens in the real world therefore it looks like bitching and moaning

It there is less money to go around, it makes sense to restrict some benefits

itzme

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.

Can you point me to an example of where I have said as explicitly as you have, don't cut me, cut this other group. Sounds like you are trying to justify a position you have agreed is a bad one to hold.

murphaph

woodoo wrote: »

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

I had a contract with my employer until last week. We were all called in from our department and told that the department would no longer exist and that we are to be made redundant. I'm very lucky in that I have good contacts here and have a new job already but some of my colleagues are not so lucky. They also had a contract with our employer.

This is how it is in the real world. Contracts can be torn up under certain circumstances, such as when the money isn't there to maintain them.

nursextreme

We could also cut all allowances for new entrants to Social Welfare while leaving those on who are long term unemployed with all the perks.

Allowances being stripped for new entrants to the public service will have no major impact while the recruitment embargo and recruitment pause exists, its really just more spin.
Real reform will only take place when the Chainsaw is unleashed on the Croke Park agreement, if that ever happens.

Jaysoose

woodoo wrote: »

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.

Thats not true,

I never said that increments should be unilaterally cut i made the point that increments were being awarded to staff without any performance management system which has created an environment were staff are being rewarded with payrises for doing exactly the same job wether they work any harder or have improved. The culture of rewarding staff for doing nothing extra should be scrapped, thats very different from removing automatic payrises done away altogether.

Listen i get that you have to defend your position and i can respect that but at some stage we have to accept that their are agreements within the public service that are beyond ridiculous. Ive taken the below text from the CPA itself and it clearly states that in ALL CASES incremental progression should be linked to performance. Its been admitted by the minister in charge that this is not happening and is a clear breach of the agreement. You talk in terms of your contract being in place and it cant be changed but the entire public service is allowed to break this particular agreement?

1.13 The Parties agree that, in order to ensure a high performing, high productivity Public
Service, appropriately skilled personnel from outside the Public Service will be recruited to
secure scarce and needed skills at all levels. Merit-based, competitive promotion policies
will be the norm. There will be significantly improved performance management across all
Public Service areas, with promotion and incremental progression linked in all cases to
performance. Performance management systems will be introduced in all areas of the Public

neil_hosey

woodoo wrote: »

Well then pay them the same as us.

:rolleyes: yes yes... isnt the whole point of doing this TO SAVE MONEY???

BlaasForRafa

woodoo wrote: »

Well then pay them the same as us.

No, pay you the same as them. Its about time public servants copped on and stopped being so selfish and hypocritical.