Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

I thought we were broke!

Options
123457»

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    chopper6 wrote: »
    Dunno where you get that idea...starter in my job is 21k and thats a contract...there's no more permanent posts

    What the idea that if jobs came up in the public sector after another pay cut and a delay in paying increments by 5/6 years that people who are on the dole or in jobsbridge or contemplating emigration would not go for these jobs?

    Your post seemed to suggest that people wouldnt bother going for a job in the PS if this were the case which is simply not true.

    Have you proof of positions not being filled. As far as I can tell there has been a moratorium for the last number of years so no new permanent jobs have been available? Therefore you cant say for definate that roles if they became available under those conditions would or would not be filled


  • Options
    #183
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    if the choice is Jobsbridge, emigration or a paying job in the PS - I reckon most would go for the PS job.

    what will be interesting to see is how many applicants apply who currently hold comparable paying jobs in private companies - and what their salary expectations are.

    The starting salaries for the AOs they are trying to recruit is about €29k - I'm not saying they won't get applicants - they will by the bucketload, but will they get competent people to operate at the level specified in the recruitment information? I doubt it.

    Most of the AOs I've interacted with have been graduates - plenty of knowledge, lots of 'book' learning but very much diamonds in the rough when it comes to the practical competencies - in other words we're going to pay them €29k pa to learn:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #184
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Jawgap wrote: »
    if the choice is Jobsbridge, emigration or a paying job in the PS - I reckon most would go for the PS job.

    what will be interesting to see is how many applicants apply who currently hold comparable paying jobs in private companies - and what their salary expectations are.

    The starting salaries for the AOs they are trying to recruit is about €29k - I'm not saying they won't get applicants - they will by the bucketload, but will they get competent people to operate at the level specified in the recruitment information? I doubt it.

    Most of the AOs I've interacted with have been graduates - plenty of knowledge, lots of 'book' learning but very much diamonds in the rough when it comes to the practical competencies - in other words we're going to pay them €29k pa to learn:rolleyes:

    That is the nature of all employment. It is the same in the private sector and dont be under illusions is something such as a senior position in say the dept of Finance comes in ..they are hardly going to hire a graduate out of college. But as I state this is how employment woks if you have a non crucial role you hire someone and put them on a learning curve with that job


  • Options
    #185
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    fliball123 wrote: »
    That is the nature of all employment. It is the same in the private sector and dont be under illusions is something such as a senior position in say the dept of Finance comes in ..they are hardly going to hire a graduate out of college. But as I state this is how employment woks if you have a non crucial role you hire someone and put them on a learning curve with that job

    unfortunately that's exactly what the do!!!

    29k pa is not going to buy you someone who can operate at EU / OECD level, much less write cogent pre-budgetary analysis - it buys you a mid to late 20s Masters graduate (or maybe PhD) - nobody who is any good is going to move from private employment to take on an entry level position in the PS regardless of how fast the track is to promotion.

    The problem is there is a gap between what they want (as described in the recruitment literature) and what they attract at that salary level - even if you do get a decent candidate you've no scope for offering them a higher starting salary that reflects their abilities - they come in on the bottom just like everyone else. So you end up with 'qualification rich / experience poor' individuals who have to be taken through how the real world works.


  • Options
    #186
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Jawgap wrote: »
    unfortunately that's exactly what the do!!!

    29k pa is not going to buy you someone who can operate at EU / OECD level, much less write cogent pre-budgetary analysis - it buys you a mid to late 20s Masters graduate (or maybe PhD) - nobody who is any good is going to move from private employment to take on an entry level position in the PS regardless of how fast the track is to promotion.

    The problem is there is a gap between what they want (as described in the recruitment literature) and what they attract at that salary level - even if you do get a decent candidate you've no scope for offering them a higher starting salary that reflects their abilities - they come in on the bottom just like everyone else. So you end up with 'qualification rich / experience poor' individuals who have to be taken through how the real world works.

    Your being very general in terms of all positions within the public sector there is a whole spectrum of jobs from say accounts, to gaurds to nurses etc. The private sector are the same they wont skills and experience aswell , I.T. for example is a sector that is awash with opertunity if you have the nuance to specialise. Having said that a lot of private sector companies will opt to skill up existing staff or get in a graduate and put them on a learning curve..

    Now as much as I am against automatic increments with in the ps as it promotes laziness and complacency. If the public sector introduced a skills/experince and goals based increments system which can be accurately measured as is the case in a lot of private sector companies , I dont think anyone would have a problem, except for the fact that we are still borrowing 12 billion a year. Sorry to keep coming back to this but this is unfortunately the case. and 29k is a lot more than what is offered for jobsbridge or the dole


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Bits_n_Bobs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Bits_n_Bobs


    fliball123 wrote: »
    If the public sector introduced a skills/experince and goals based increments system which can be accurately measured as is the case in a lot of private sector companies

    What you are describing is not an 'increments system'. It's a pay-rise based on achievements.


  • Options
    #188
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »
    What you are describing is not an 'increments system'. It's a pay-rise based on achievements.

    Sorry it is if your pay is incremented on this basis I believe it is an incremental system. Sure it does not matter what it is called once it is implemented correctly and after we get through the current financial difficulties


  • Options
    #189
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Has the public service pensions not changed from retiring income to average Income? Surely if people in the ps get another paycut or/and are not getting increments for say the next 5/6 years until we are completely out of the mess (with luck) Then it has to have a knock on effect for pensions as in bringing down their career average wage which is what pensions are based on?

    http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/01/public-service-pensions-single-scheme-commencement-order/


    Only for new entrants post 1 January 2013


  • Options
    #190
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Godge wrote: »
    Only for new entrants post 1 January 2013

    ahh ok thats why I put the ? at the end I was not sure if he had extended it to existing PS employees


  • Options
    #191
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    fliball123 wrote: »
    ahh ok thats why I put the ? at the end I was not sure if he had extended it to existing PS employees

    The very first sentence on the page you linked:
    "The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin TD, has signed the Public Service Pensions Single Scheme Commencement Order which commenced the Single Scheme for new entrants to the public service who join on or after 1 January 2013."

    Hard to see where the uncertainty arose for you there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    barneystinson wrote: »
    And true to the normal sequence of these threads we now reach the infighting phase
    No in-fighting here. I don't work in the public sector.
    cast_iron wrote: »
    Why not? With respect, why should a clerk/street sweepers earning 25k not be included? They are largely unskilled and anyone could do the job, quite possibly for less.
    Because they're not earning the stupidly high salaries that are the crux of the problem. Street sweeping isn't skilled but it's damn tough work.
    What's so special about nurses and paramedics? Yea, it's not a particularly pleasant job, but they weren't forced into the jobs, nor did they choose those careers purely for some "greater good of the state".
    Ah now. This thing "They weren't forced into it" does not legitimise unnecessarily tough conditions. There are junior doctors working 24 hours in a row, sometimes 35 hours in a row... but "Nobody forced them to work in that field" so that's enough to leave those conditions the way they are? It's a stupid reasoning, and could be applied to anything, yet it would be deemed unacceptable most of the time.
    How do you know there aren't nurses and paramedics who chose their career as a vocation? And I really don't get this notion of "They chose to work in the public sector" as if there's something inherently immoral about that, and as if their detractors wouldn't take a job in the public sector.


  • Options
    #193
    Chemical Burn ReReg
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Chemical Burn ReReg


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    No in-fighting here. I don't work in the public sector.

    Of course you don't work in the public sector, you're unemployed. You've made that abundantly clear before.


  • Options
    #194
    cast_iron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Because they're not earning the stupidly high salaries that are the crux of the problem. Street sweeping isn't skilled but it's damn tough work.
    They have machines that clean the streets these days, but that's neither here nor there anyway. There's no reason that everyone can't take a bit of a pay cut.
    Ah now. This thing "They weren't forced into it" does not legitimise unnecessarily tough conditions. There are junior doctors working 24 hours in a row, sometimes 35 hours in a row... but "Nobody forced them to work in that field" so that's enough to leave those conditions the way they are? It's a stupid reasoning, and could be applied to anything, yet it would be deemed unacceptable most of the time.
    No, I was applying it to the examples you gave - nurses and paramedics. Nurses work 3 day a week (albeit 12 hour shifts). I would agree doctors hours are unacceptable, but you didn't mention them as they rarely illicit much sympathy for whatever reason.
    How do you know there aren't nurses and paramedics who chose their career as a vocation? And I really don't get this notion of "They chose to work in the public sector" as if there's something inherently immoral about that, and as if their detractors wouldn't take a job in the public sector.
    The idea that they chose it as a vocation is daft. They are claiming a salary are they not? They are not vocations anyway, if you ask me.
    And there's nothing wrong with working in the public sector at all. I'm not sure anyone claimed it was immoral?


  • Options
    #195
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    cast_iron wrote: »
    They have machines that clean the streets these days, but that's neither here nor there anyway. There's no reason that everyone can't take a bit of a pay cut.
    The ones on crazy salaries should, I don't see why that means the ones on low salaries should. Even with machines it's a hard job, especially in the winter.
    No, I was applying it to the examples you gave - nurses and paramedics. Nurses work 3 day a week (albeit 12 hour shifts). I would agree doctors hours are unacceptable, but you didn't mention them as they rarely illicit much sympathy for whatever reason.
    The idea that they chose it as a vocation is daft. They are claiming a salary are they not? They are not vocations anyway, if you ask me.
    But if you ask numerous people, they are. You thinking they're not vocations doesn't change that they are to many people. How is it daft to think they're vocations? Dealing with the health of other humans, sometimes really murky situations, is pretty hard-going and deserves respect.


  • Options
    #196
    cast_iron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    The ones on crazy salaries should, I don't see why that means the ones on low salaries should. Even with machines it's a hard job, especially in the winter.
    You can be low paid and still over paid. If someone is low paid, they will by definition have to live in cheaper housing and live more frugally than those who are on higher salaries. It's not like they have the exact same cost base.
    But if you ask numerous people, they are. You thinking they're not vocations doesn't change that they are to many people. How is it daft to think they're vocations? Dealing with the health of other humans, sometimes really murky situations, is pretty hard-going and deserves respect.
    I know many, many people working in the health sector. I'm not sure any of them would say it's a vocation. Yes, alot will have done it to help others, but it is also a paid job that they can leave anytime they wish. And yes, of course they deserve respect. Do the people that built the hospitals they work in not deserve respect? Are nurses and paramedics more important than architects and engineers?


  • Options
    #197
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    cast_iron wrote: »
    Do the people that built the hospitals they work in not deserve respect? Are nurses and paramedics more important than architects and engineers?
    No, about the same. Although in some situations, yes. And vice-versa. I'm just saying nurses and the like in the public sector deserve what they get paid; it doesn't mean I think people in other roles, public or private, aren't as important.


  • Options
    #198
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    cast_iron wrote: »
    .....

    No, I was applying it to the examples you gave - nurses and paramedics. Nurses work 3 day a week (albeit 12 hour shifts). I would agree doctors hours are unacceptable, but you didn't mention them as they rarely illicit much sympathy for whatever reason.

    The idea that they chose it as a vocation is daft. They are claiming a salary are they not? They are not vocations anyway, if you ask me.
    And there's nothing wrong with working in the public sector at all. I'm not sure anyone claimed it was immoral?

    I'm not sure if you know many nurses or if you've ever spent time in a city centre A&E, a geriatric care unit, a hospice or an Alzheimers care facility - ain't no one doing that work just for the money!

    I'd suggest any nurse only interested in money is working for the agencies and / or is working in a private hospital or as a private carer.

    My own theory about why doctors get less sympathy is based around a number of points. First, the points needed to do medicine will get you on to any course you want - so doctors have choice. They can also exit medicine any time they want and pursue a career in a range of related areas such as research. Also doctors spend less time with patients and families compared to nurses and in terms of personality tend to be perceived as having less empathy. Finally, doctors' career progression offers more rewards for putting in long hours early in their training - but as junior doctors they still work ridiculous hours.


  • Options
    #199
    cast_iron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you know many nurses or if you've ever spent time in a city centre A&E, a geriatric care unit, a hospice or an Alzheimers care facility - ain't no one doing that work just for the money!
    I do know some nurses, and I have worked in the busiest A&E in the country. And visited old folks homes many times. I have seen a lot go on in these places, and I know how they work.

    I never said anyone was doing it "purely for the money". What I did say, however, was that I don't think there are many there doing it "purely as a vocation". I suspect the reality is that there is an element of both notions attached to the reasoning a person chose such a career. Otherwise, they probably hate their job!


  • Options
    #200
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    going to take this down a different path now, the OP was about Haddington Road, etc, the below in my opinion is scandalous...

    http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026476.shtml

    Its in relation to over HALF our population claiming some type of welfare...

    "The bailout troika has requested that Joan Burton, minister for social protection, cut €440m next year, or just over 2% from the 2014 budget but a spokesperson has said a reduction of that scale could not be made “without doing some very harsh things.”

    2% savage?! sorry 20% could be described as savage. Making moronic promises, like "we wont touch core welfare rates" for several years during the current crisis... Absolutely ridiculous, there needs to be serious overhaul of welfare, the entire taxation system and the public service...


  • Options
    #201
    Maura74
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Maura74


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you know many nurses or if you've ever spent time in a city centre A&E, a geriatric care unit, a hospice or an Alzheimers care facility - ain't no one doing that work just for the money!

    I'd suggest any nurse only interested in money is working for the agencies and / or is working in a private hospital or as a private carer.

    My own theory about why doctors get less sympathy is based around a number of points. First, the points needed to do medicine will get you on to any course you want - so doctors have choice. They can also exit medicine any time they want and pursue a career in a range of related areas such as research. Also doctors spend less time with patients and families compared to nurses and in terms of personality tend to be perceived as having less empathy. Finally, doctors' career progression offers more rewards for putting in long hours early in their training - but as junior doctors they still work ridiculous hours.

    Knowing how these care home works, I visit one of them regularly. They taken in patient with Alzheimer’s, but do not have a clue how to care for them and lump them in with patients with many other conditions as well. They are certainly in it for the money and provide as little care as possible. None of the staff are there for the love of giving the best possible care to their residents.

    At lease the UK is doing something about it now, but it is too little too late and it's about time Ireland did the same.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19992538

    examples of neglect by professionals

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/bobby-russell-hiv-veteran-sues-hospital_n_3860308.html

    http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/clinical-negligence/medical-misdiagnosis-personal-injury-claims.html

    http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/clinical-negligence-victim-damages.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6216559/One-in-six-NHS-patients-misdiagnosed.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Maura74 wrote: »
    Knowing how these care home works, I visit one of them regularly. They taken in patient with Alzheimer’s, but do not have a clue how to care for them and lump them in with patients with many other conditions as well. They are certainly in it for the money and provide as little care as possible. None of the staff are there for the love of giving the best possible care to their residents.............

    I visit one quite regularly and that would not be my experience but if you want we can populate the rest of this thread with, in my case, links to stories where professionals went above and beyond, and you can post links to neglect stories.

    Healthcare is a very subjective and personal experience.


  • Options
    #203
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    going to take this down a different path now, the OP was about Haddington Road, etc, the below in my opinion is scandalous...

    http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026476.shtml

    .

    Why did welfare bill increase from 9.517 billion in 2002 to 17.8 billion in 2008. That was the boom time. When welfare should have been at its lowest. It currently stands at 20.243 billion after the economy collapsed. That is crazy.

    Welfare really needs to be reduced. Its such a smoke screen that PS pay is the focus of all the attention. How often have you seen it mentioned in the media that welfare has increased in such a way over the last decade.


  • Options
    #204
    funt cucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭funt cucker


    woodoo wrote: »
    Why did welfare bill increase from 9.517 billion in 2002 to 17.8 billion in 2008. That was the boom time. When welfare should have been at its lowest. It currently stands at 20.243 billion after the economy collapsed. That is crazy.

    Welfare really needs to be reduced. Its such a smoke screen that PS pay is the focus of all the attention. How often have you seen it mentioned in the media that welfare has increased in such a way over the last decade.

    Yes and they will undoubtedly, they will hit the PRSI working folk this time again in this budget and do the usual dance around the welfare issue. It is getting to a point that there is no real point having a job unless you earn over the 60k mark.


  • Options
    #205
    Gus99
    Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭Gus99


    woodoo wrote: »
    Why did welfare bill increase from 9.517 billion in 2002 to 17.8 billion in 2008..

    Because state pensions and job-seekers benefit were both increased at more than twice the rate of inflation to buy votes in that period. That was after more than doubling child benefit over the course of just 2 budgets between 00 and 02. But of course, only "big bankers and property speculators" benefitted from the "boom"


    * P.S. I know it was a rhetorical question...


  • Options
    #206
    skafish
    Registered Users Posts: 392 ✭✭skafish


    woodoo wrote: »
    Why did welfare bill increase from 9.517 billion in 2002 to 17.8 billion in 2008. That was the boom time. When welfare should have been at its lowest. It currently stands at 20.243 billion after the economy collapsed. That is crazy.

    Welfare really needs to be reduced. Its such a smoke screen that PS pay is the focus of all the attention. How often have you seen it mentioned in the media that welfare has increased in such a way over the last decade.

    And yet any suggestion regarding the possibility of reducing SW payments will be greeted with disdain, both here on boards and any other fora you can name.
    People who suggest SW payments are too high and that there are jobs out there are vilified and called liars.


  • Options
    #207
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    And yet any suggestion regarding the possibility of reducing SW payments will be greeted with disdain, both here on boards and any other fora you can name.
    People who suggest SW payments are too high and that there are jobs out there are vilified and called liars.
    dont think this would be the case on this particular forum of boards to be fair... but in general its true...


  • Options
    #208
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    woodoo wrote: »
    Why did welfare bill increase from 9.517 billion in 2002 to 17.8 billion in 2008. That was the boom time. When welfare should have been at its lowest. It currently stands at 20.243 billion after the economy collapsed. That is crazy.

    I know its contained within the figures in my post above. But i had meant to point out that the welfare bill only increased a further 3 billion during the massive collapse from 2008 to present. It increased 8 billion during our so called boom where we had only 4% unemployment. These are figures that deserve much more attention by our media. The blame has to lie squarely at Fianna Fails door though.. they were hopeless.


  • Options
    #209
    skafish
    Registered Users Posts: 392 ✭✭skafish


    woodoo wrote: »
    I know its contained within the figures in my post above. But i had meant to point out that the welfare bill only increased a further 3 billion during the massive collapse from 2008 to present. It increased 8 billion during our so called boom where we had only 4% unemployment. These are figures that deserve much more attention by our media. The blame has to lie squarely at Fianna Fails door though.. they were hopeless.

    Have to agree with you re Fianna Fail. However, I can't imagine the current crowd doing much better


Advertisement