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
Benchmakring III without the comparison
Options
Comments
-
Why would I think that?Leaving aside all the fancy dancing around redundancy and redeployment and open and closed systems do you think that the reported reduction in PS numbers is also a nonsense and that maybe its just a conspiracy by the public sector to try and calm the private sector .. ah sure lads public sector numbers are falling nearly as fast as in the private sector!.
okBy the way while in the main redundancy is very difficult for people, its not universally so. Quite a few people I know have used it to get out of jobs they didn't like with a nice volundary redundancy package allowing them to stay at home with the kids or move to their 'dream' job. Each to their own. But of course the narrative must always be - all in private sector have been hammered while all in the PS are sucking on the golden teat.
0 -
Why would I think that?
ok
There have been redundancies in the public sector, e.g. see the messy situation with Special Needs Assistants (SNAs). No-one wants to see them become part of the permanent staffing complement of a school, as they'd end up becoming some sort of classroom assistant to teachers rather than being dedicated support for children with special needs.
Naturally some diagnoses at the lower end of the spectrum (e.g. certain learning needs) can see the SNA become superfluous as the child develops. In other cases, e.g. take the distressing example of a child with terminal illness in transition from classroom to home tuition, the SNA will also be lost.
The problem is that many schools have regarded the SNA hours allocated as being "theirs" and not that of the children.
The problem with with redundancy system is that it gave way to a compensatory arrangement, e.g. an SNA loses 90% of her hours and is then paid 'compensation' which is taxable rather than 'redundancy', which is not. So the money notionally goes to the SNA but is taken back by Revenue, i.e. there's little/no cost to the State for 'compensation'.
However, overall the system has given a good degree of flexibility. The big fear in the civil service, and in the much of the teaching profession, was that there'd become an expectation on behalf of certain schools (teachers, principals, parents) that they'd hold onto SNAs regardless of what children had come or gone, and that the SNA would become the latest Jimmy Choos or Hermes bag that no teacher could be without, e.g. teachers would be expected to lobby for a resource that their classroom might well need but which was certainly no longer needed on the basis that it was originally granted.
The redeployment doesn't see someone in Malin move to Mizen, so the constant churning of gains and losses around the country does offer a high degree of flexibility.
Details of scheme:
http://www.education.ie/en/Education-Staff/Information/SNA-Redundancy/
Ok, lengthy post, but the point had been made by the other poster that there were net losses in the pubic sector. I'm just adding some info on one small aspect of redundancy within the public sector. (Several SNAs will secure short term work in the private sector between spells of employment and unemployment in the education system).
Btw, as someone who has worked in public and private sector, and has been self employed, I do know that there have been plenty of cases in the past few years of people being made redundant in the private sector and securing work in the public sector. There aren't two separate closed systems.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I will take CSO statistics over your imaginings any day. BTW, that was 2010 figures. Since then salaries have gone up in the private sector while there were further cuts in the public sector.
Perhaps it suits you to
. Whereas Rightwing is totally objective and fair.
Comparing such salaries is arbitrary at best and utterly foolish and dangerous at worst. It boils down to whom one is answerable to: the shareholder/(stakeholder) v taxpayer and involves complex issues such as the agency theory problem. As both an institutional and private shareholder I know this well. Shareholders (institutional) are becoming more active and demanding. Taxpayers by and large are passive and ignorant of matters. However, this is not a reason to further exploit them.
For this reason, I disregard such CSO figures that were in all probability selective in the first instance.Two points: 1) Where are you going with this Junior Cert business? You are well able to criticise others. Why not lay your own quals out on the table and we'll see who is more qualified?!
2) What a pedantic and irrelevant point you make about "responsibility". I was referring to the most senior officer in an organisation. I would have thought such would be clear to such an educated person as yourself, whose studies clearly extend far beyond the Junior Cert you so casually dismiss ...
See above.0 -
Rightwing, you need to calm down a little. The CSO is not some left-wing conspiracy, dreaming up nasty things like statistics, hard facts etc that could cause discomfort to settled prejudices.Perhaps it suits you to. Whereas Rightwing is totally objective and fair.
Comparing such salaries is arbitrary at best and utterly foolish and dangerous at worst. It boils down to whom one is answerable to: the shareholder/(stakeholder) v taxpayer and involves complex issues such as the agency theory problem. As both an institutional and private shareholder I know this well. Shareholders (institutional) are becoming more active and demanding. Taxpayers by and large are passive and ignorant of matters. However, this is not a reason to further exploit them.
For this reason, I disregard such CSO figures that were in all probability selective in the first instance.
See above.
The thread was titled "benchmarking" (well actually it was misspelt "benchmakring" by a right-wing poster) so the original intention was for it to have at least some comparative dimension in respect of remuneration.
On the matter of logic, and on the matter of accountability, you are posing your own teleological argument, making assumptions about inherent characteristics of what you call "taxpayers" and shareholders, before you even engage the issues of corporate governance etc.
Your posts will end up being ignored by people, whereas I presume that you had some point in engaging on the thread. Presumably your parents have worked hard to get you through what you now dismiss as your Junior Cert. When you grow up a little more and enter the workforce you'll have to consider issues such as academic qualifications versus life experience when balancing the management of any team: you'll need pit ponies and show ponies in any workplace. (I take it that you'd expect to hold a position of responsibility when you get older, given that any trust fund held in your name will become a portfolio you can actively manage when you achieve majority age. The term 'shareholder' will take on real meaning).
Why not volunteer an example of why, in an earlier post, you selected an arbitrary monetary amount as an inappropriate level of remuneration in the public sector? Why not volunteer a reason why you believe an office holder under the Public Service Management Act 1997 (the e.g. of the Secretary General provided by a previous poster), a position with responsibility for decision-making that affects billions in public expenditure, is overcompensated relative to the plain vanilla fund manager who tracks the market and eats/drinks his way through his bonus in London without any real accountability in the proper sense of the term?
This thread was intended to be comparative in nature but there have been precious few examples provided thus far from which any disinterested observer could evaluate. Try one, no need to be shy: the public sector workers on this thread are not out with torches and pitchforks for any poster with adverse comments, but are looking for useful examples that can be subjected to a proper talmudic debate.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement