Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

Would retention of pay rates for existing experienced employees and some lowering of rates for new recruits not have characterised the private sector response to the recession?

The private sector doesn't have a singular response. Whereas the public sector is a a largely centralised organisation which responded with a bilateral agreement between its employees and its employer, the private sector is a term used to describe the existence of a large number of different organisations (of varying sizes and complexity) operating with a competitive environment.Generally the different private sector organisations have responded with unilateral decisions and not all have followed single path. That said, the government and the unions are setting a bad example to other employers by actively agreeing to a practice where people are getting paid different rates for the same job.

mariaalice

1,382 posts about something that has not actually happened and at the moment is only going to happen for the hospital consultants.

I wonder how many posts it would generate if it really did happen.

noodler

mariaalice wrote: »

1,382 posts about something that has not actually happened and at the moment is only going to happen for the hospital consultants.

I wonder how many posts it would generate if it really did happen.

Well - they are reversing the consultant cuts to an extent for future entrants.

But recent entrants will not benefit as they voted against it.

I think Hospital consultants are sufficiently specialised and well-trained to arguably be excluded from the thrust of this thread. Perhaps that is just me. There literally does seem to be a supply and demand issue there.

Rightwing

noodler wrote: »

Well - they are reversing the consultant cuts to an extent for future entrants.

But recent entrants will not benefit as they voted against it.

I think Hospital consultants are sufficiently specialised and well-trained to arguably be excluded from the thrust of this thread. Perhaps that is just me. There literally does seem to be a supply and demand issue there.

I'd like to see a salary comparison between consultants in the public hospitals and those in the private hospitals.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

I'd like to see a salary comparison between consultants in the public hospitals and those in the private hospitals.

Private sector hospital consultants earn far in excess of their public hospital counterparts. One of the most fiercely defended perks is the right to a private practice.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

Private sector hospital consultants earn far in excess of their public hospital counterparts. One of the most fiercely defended perks is the right to a private practice.

Yes, but they also want to cream it off in the public hospitals. 1 or the other I say.

ardmacha

noodler wrote: »

Mass redundancy would have characterised the private sector response to the recession.

Give me an example of mass redundancies in the private sector in a part of the economy which still enjoyed growing demand for its services.

noodler wrote:

I think Hospital consultants are sufficiently specialised and well-trained to arguably be excluded from the thrust of this thread. Perhaps that is just me. There literally does seem to be a supply and demand issue there.

How about Professors of Biochemistry? Bomb disposal officers? Forensic Accountants?

Rightwing

ardmacha wrote: »

Give me an example of mass redundancies in the private sector in a part of the economy which still enjoyed growing demand for its services.

Dell in Limerick. Bang. Just moved to cheaper location. Similarly with call centres.

noodler

ardmacha wrote: »

Give me an example of mass redundancies in the private sector in a part of the economy which still enjoyed growing demand for its services.

I can't give you an example of a company as hopelessly bankrupted as the Irish State who didn't have to fold - nevermind issue redundancies.

Please step away from your agenda for the moment though and realise that I posted that in response to someone arguing that new entrants should be paid less as it happens in the private sector in times of difficulty.

My response was clearly to point out the hypocrisy of people who pick and choose when and how the PS can and can't be compared with the Private Sector.

noodler

ardmacha wrote: »

How about Professors of Biochemistry? Bomb disposal officers? Forensic Accountants?

Is the State currently unable to fill vacant positions in these areas as with the Hospital consultants? Even when looking to recruits from abroad?

ardmacha

Rightwing wrote: »

Dell in Limerick. Bang. Just moved to cheaper location. Similarly with call centres.

Then perhaps those parts of the PS involved in assembling things should move abroad.

noodler wrote: »

Is the State currently unable to fill vacant positions in these areas as with the Hospital consultants? Even when looking to recruits from abroad?

I've no doubt that the State can get people to become hospital consultants, just not very good ones, certainly not the best. I'm sure there are many others jobs where the same holds though. There are also discontinuities in relation to pensions etc for senior posts which make recruiting from abroad unlikely, or at least successful places abroad.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Is the State currently unable to fill vacant positions in these areas as with the Hospital consultants? Even when looking to recruits from abroad?

Yes, I read something recently about recruitment difficulties in universities.

Rightwing

ardmacha wrote: »

Then perhaps those parts of the PS involved in assembling things should move abroad.



I've no doubt that the State can get people to become hospital consultants, just not very good ones, certainly not the best. I'm sure there are many others jobs where the same holds though. There are also discontinuities in relation to pensions etc for senior posts which make recruiting from abroad unlikely, or at least successful places abroad.

I'm all in favour of that. Most people tax their cars online etc, no need for these offices anymore. Private sector simply couldn't afford that folly. Ship them off.

mariaalice

noodler wrote: »

I can't give you an example of a company as hopelessly bankrupted as the Irish State who didn't have to fold - nevermind issue redundancies.

Please step away from your agenda for the moment though and realise that I posted that in response to someone arguing that new entrants should be paid less as it happens in the private sector in times of difficulty.

My response was clearly to point out the hypocrisy of people who pick and choose when and how the PS can and can't be compared with the Private Sector.

Who should have been included in the mass redundancy, give me an example.

You are coming across as one of those posters who despite having it pointed out to them that the civil and public service is not all administrates really believe its mostly administrators who could be got rid in a mass redundancy.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Yes, I read something recently about recruitment difficulties in universities.

In what subject?

Attracting hospital consultants is more important to the country than than relatively shorter recruitment issues in universities. I can see why the Government has had to reverse tact somewhat in relation to consultants.

noodler

mariaalice wrote: »

Who should have been included in the mass redundancy, give me an example.

You are coming across as one of those posters who despite having it pointed out to them that the civil and public service is not all administrates really believe its mostly administrators who could be got rid in a mass redundancy.

Follow the thread.

mariaalice

noodler wrote: »

Follow the thread.

I have, so which positions exactly in the public and civil services should be subject to mass redundancies.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

I can't give you an example of a company as hopelessly bankrupted as the Irish State who didn't have to fold - nevermind issue redundancies.

Please step away from your agenda for the moment though and realise that I posted that in response to someone arguing that new entrants should be paid less as it happens in the private sector in times of difficulty.

My response was clearly to point out the hypocrisy of people who pick and choose when and how the PS can and can't be compared with the Private Sector.

When did the Irish state go bankrupt?

We had to get money from the lenders of last resort (Troika) who imposed conditions on the money but we didn't go bankrupt.

This would be similar to a private company that didn't go bankrupt but had to get finance from a bank that charged a higher interest rate and had a lien on some of its assets.

noodler

mariaalice wrote: »

I have, so which positions exactly in the public and civil services should be subject to mass redundancies.

You haven't been following the thread if you are asking me that question.

Godge wrote: »

When did the Irish state go bankrupt?

We had to get money from the lenders of last resort (Troika) who imposed conditions on the money but we didn't go bankrupt.

This would be similar to a private company that didn't go bankrupt but had to get finance from a bank that charged a higher interest rate and had a lien on some of its assets.

Fiscally Insolvent.

Without financial independence.

Quibble over the definition if you like. I am sure the troika would have loved to hear the Godge-conomics at the time - "Technically, we aren't bankrupt so we don't have to cut anything!".


Interesting that Greece also required a bailout and they cut 75,000 jobs at least.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/mar/03/greece-public-sector-job-cuts

At least 15,000 were compulsory.

The article says 150,000 was the total target but I haven't checked progress since then.



Back to the original point Godge.

How to you reconcile your opposition to PS pay cuts at the time of the HRA despite excess Labour supply in Ireland with your support of a two-tier wage structure in the Public Sector for new entrants now because "it happens in the private sector"? If it is as simple as I suggested and you only care about cuts which could affect your own pension then you can say so.

Rightwing

noodler wrote: »

You haven't been following the thread if you are asking me that question.



Fiscally Insolvent.

Without financial independence.

Quibble over the definition if you like. I am sure the troika would have loved to hear the Godge-conomics at the time - "Technically, we aren't bankrupt so we don't have to cut anything!".


Interesting that Greece also required a bailout and they cut 75,000 jobs at least.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/mar/03/greece-public-sector-job-cuts

At least 15,000 were compulsory.

The article says 150,000 was the total target but I haven't checked progress since then.



Back to the original point Godge.

How to you reconcile your opposition to PS pay cuts at the time of the HRA despite excess Labour supply in Ireland with your support of a two-tier wage structure in the Public Sector for new entrants now because "it happens in the private sector"? If it is as simple as I suggested and you only care about cuts which could affect your own pension then you can say so.

Oh they heard from Lenihan & Cowen 'we are not bankrupt and the IMF aren't in the country' :rolleyes:

Godge

noodler wrote: »

If it is as simple as I suggested and you only care about cuts which could affect your own pension then you can say so.

I find your repeated references to my own situation offensive and I do not intend to reply to the substantive issue as a result.

This has never been about my future pension, I have been one of the few on here to openly declare the conflict of interest. There are plenty of people who are not as open about what they do or what they are or have been entitled to. I do believe that there should be a cap on public service pensions. Depending on where that is placed, I could suffer. On other threads I have also argued for the abolition of child benefit (at a time when I had children and was in receipt of it) against my own interests. I support the HHC, the LPT and water charges, even though I have to pay them. My own interests come second to my beliefs.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

I find your repeated references to my own situation offensive and I do not intend to reply to the substantive issue as a result.

This has never been about my future pension, I have been one of the few on here to openly declare the conflict of interest. There are plenty of people who are not as open about what they do or what they are or have been entitled to. I do believe that there should be a cap on public service pensions. Depending on where that is placed, I could suffer. On other threads I have also argued for the abolition of child benefit (at a time when I had children and was in receipt of it) against my own interests. I support the HHC, the LPT and water charges, even though I have to pay them. My own interests come second to my beliefs.

I will ignore your situation then and I apologise for bringing it up twice.



Still, I can't phathom how you can justify a standpoint of justification for a two-tier (or even three tier now with the combined scales) system when you were so admantly against cuts to PS pay.

tayto lover

Godge wrote: »

I find your repeated references to my own situation offensive and I do not intend to reply to the substantive issue as a result.

This has never been about my future pension, I have been one of the few on here to openly declare the conflict of interest. There are plenty of people who are not as open about what they do or what they are or have been entitled to. I do believe that there should be a cap on public service pensions. Depending on where that is placed, I could suffer. On other threads I have also argued for the abolition of child benefit (at a time when I had children and was in receipt of it) against my own interests. I support the HHC, the LPT and water charges, even though I have to pay them. My own interests come second to my beliefs.

Ah you're a martyr Godge, a martyr for the cause.

mariaalice

noodler wrote: »

You haven't been following the thread if you are asking me that question.



Fiscally Insolvent.

Without financial independence.

Quibble over the definition if you like. I am sure the troika would have loved to hear the Godge-conomics at the time - "Technically, we aren't bankrupt so we don't have to cut anything!".


Interesting that Greece also required a bailout and they cut 75,000 jobs at least.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/mar/03/greece-public-sector-job-cuts

At least 15,000 were compulsory.

The article says 150,000 was the total target but I haven't checked progress since then.



Back to the original point Godge.

How to you reconcile your opposition to PS pay cuts at the time of the HRA despite excess Labour supply in Ireland with your support of a two-tier wage structure in the Public Sector for new entrants now because "it happens in the private sector"? If it is as simple as I suggested and you only care about cuts which could affect your own pension then you can say so.

I don't think the civil and public services is perfect by the way, we are not in the same situation as Greece, you want mass compulsory redundancies yet don't sight exactly how.

We could compulsory make redundant half the primary school teachers ( because we cant afford it ) and make each class 6o to 1 pupil teacher ration.

noodler

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't think the civil and public services is perfect by the way, we are not in the same situation as Greece, you want mass compulsory redundancies yet don't sight exactly how.

We could compulsory make redundant half the primary school teachers ( because we cant afford it ) and make each class 6o to 1 pupil teacher ration.

Again, you continously say you have followed the thread but you have come to this conclusion?

I don't what what else to say apart from repeat that you should read the relevant parts of the thread again. Context is everything.

mariaalice

noodler wrote: »

Again, you continously say you have followed the thread but you have come to this conclusion?

I don't what what else to say apart from repeat that you should read the relevant parts of the thread again. Context is everything.

I have gone through all your posts on this thread and I don't see where you state who exactly and which exact posts in the public and civil services should be subject to compulsories mass redundancies., somebody is going to to lose out if there was mass redundancies in the public services and it wont be the redundant public services who would have their redundancy payments and pensions or social welfare.

Would these mass redundancies be under existing legislation on redundancy and would the redundant public and civil servants still get any social welfare or pensions they would be entitled too.

Sheldons Brain

noodler wrote: »

I love that Godge thanked your post.


Someone who is perfectly willing to ignore the application of the supply and demand argument in Ireland's labour force to the Public Sector when it suits him i.e. the fact he is so obviously against PS pay cuts despite swells of unemployment (i.e. at HRA time). Yet, its okay to do so for new entrants apprently. I am delighted to at least see Godge implictily admit that he doesn't have an idealogical position at all - he just wants his own pension protected.


Regarding your post itself. Why should new entrants suffer vis-a-vis existing PS members? Many of which are less skilled than their modern cohort? Isn't that supposed to be the type of thing unions fight against?

As I said I do not think this difference should remain in the long term, but it is the difference in welching on terms with existing employees and proposing news ones to new people.

Godge

mariaalice wrote: »

I have gone through all your posts on this thread and I don't see where you state who exactly and which exact posts in the public and civil services should be subject to compulsories mass redundancies., somebody is going to to lose out if there was mass redundancies in the public services and it wont be the redundant public services who would have their redundancy payments and pensions or social welfare.

Would these mass redundancies be under existing legislation on redundancy and would the redundant public and civil servants still get any social welfare or pensions they would be entitled too.

They won't need social welfare or pensions as they will be hung, drawn and quartered to ensure they are really gone. Well pretty much the non-violent equivalent to that.

ezra_pound

Godge wrote: »

They won't need social welfare or pensions as they will be hung, drawn and quartered to ensure they are really gone. Well pretty much the non-violent equivalent to that.

Right. you're obviously not remotely serious. So you're just trolling.

Scofflaw

ezra_pound wrote: »

Right. you're obviously not remotely serious. So you're just trolling.

OK, two points:

1. people are not required to be serious all the time - looking at the rest of Godge's posts on this thread, it's clear he is serious, and has added substantively to the debate here

2. accusations of trolling should not be made on thread, but reported. I appreciate there was a report of Godge's post, but it comes after your post, not before, and your post was left on the thread after the report. Hence the yellow card.

moderately,
Scofflaw