Benchmakring III without the comparison

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

What fact did I get wrong and I am only going by what I have seen for myself up in Beaumont and in temple street. The nurses are making very simple mistakes and in the main look very tired and if you look at the barrage of publicity around differing mistakes being made thoughout the countries hospitals it doesn't take an brainiac to see that services are dangerously underfunded.

You said that nurses were overworked and underpaid in a sweeping generalisation. That was wrong.

I produced hard statistical evidence that showed quite clearly that they shouldn't be overworked as there are more of them per patient and more of them per 1,000 population than in other countries. If there is a problem with the health services, it is not because we have too few nurses.

International comparisons show we have too few gardai, too few hospital consultants, too few ordinary civil servants and too few university lecturers. But we have too many nurses.

glacial_pace71

Just on the matter of hospital consultants, nurses and so forth I suppose there's a separate issue of structural reform. In many other countries nurses can sign off on the dispensing of certain medication and a host of related routine tasks. In Ireland the system is consultant-centred, which makes for a very expensive system when it comes to the number of consultant public service hours used on mundane tasks.
But it'd be wrong to blame consultants for allegedly being on the golf course too long, or at too many pharmaceutical company junkets, when in reality it's up to the health system to drive change in terms of how the public service contract hours are delivered.
Some of these problems fall outside the health system though: remember the cost of litigation and the presumption in Ireland that if a medical procedure is not successful then it'd somehow always be legally actionable.
Shatter made a few snarls at the legal profession, then the Govt curled up in foetal position, sucking their thumbs. Like any sensible schoolyard bullies they went looking for someone else to pick upon, and so nurses lost shift allowances and work extra hours per week for free, just so the Govt can hand it over to lawyers, or to overpay a hospital consultant tick a box somewhere. (Even then do remember that some of the cutbacks have produced a higher financial outlay, e.g. the Donegal fiasco where you need tens of thousands to be spent on locum and contractual cover).
The problem is that the Govt have toxified the whole 'Structural Reform' agenda, as they deliberately vandalised any attempt at having centres of excellence in the health service and so forth. Haddington Rd was supposed to be a simple claim ownership by the Govt of various reforms that were being sought anyway, together with the Govt getting to inflict some additional cutbacks. The damage of politicising the cuts so much and then abandoning the reforms in a half-baked fashion (e.g. see the overspending on health and education in politically marginal constituencies) has left the process so discredited the best course of action for the Govt is to repeal the financial emergency (FEMPI) legislation before its stuck down and to allow for properly-negotiated ongoing reform programmes.
Btw the population of Ireland has increased by 400,000 since 2006 but the number of public servants has fallen by 16,000 in that same period, i.e. from 305k to 289k:
databank.per.gov.ie/Public_Service_Numbers.aspx?rep=SectorHistory
The issue of productivity and how it is not being rewarded might also be seen by reference to the fact that the public numbers were over 320,000 in 2008, so the remaining staff are doing the work of 30,000 others in addition to their own roles, e.g. via extra hours, redeployment, restructuring of agencies, shift rostering arrangements and so forth. All for less pay. This is the problem for the Govt, to keep a straight face when talking of 'additional productivity measures' when so much is gushing down a political drain on ill-costed but politically-necessary hobby-horses or via a steadfast refusal to tackle vested interests in the legal profession, the financial services sector.

fliball123

Private Joker wrote: »

I actually find your tone offensive. You're vilifying public servants who have endured all the cutbacks and reductions in pay and conditions which have caused the conditions in our a&e's, it's not the public servants who work there that made the mess.
I am a public servant and i earn less now than i did 10 years ago, i struggle with my bills , if i got another pay cut in the form of extra pension contributions then i would have to consider leaving for the private sector, but why should I , do you not think a fair wage should be paid for an honest days work?

i never joined the public service for the pension , i doubt any person would have the foresight to think over 40 years into the future when starting a career. I take great pride in my work , there is something very gratifying about seeing a project from inception to completion with the sole purpose of enhancing the lives and safeguarding the livelihoods of the general public but its not entirely altruistic, i still need a wage that i can live on.

I'm sorry that my post doesn't include figures and articles from the irish independent, this is an entirely emotive response . we're not all public service piggies that want to line our pockets with your taxes.

I find the tone of the government and unsions offensive, so you tell me one ps employee who does not want a payrise otherwise I repeat all the ps piggies want a sip from the trough. The fact that they want this instead of a tax break for all would further this image in my head and in many others.

Actually it is there fault breaking it down when pay is about 80% of what is spent on health and the government cut the shreds the other 20% used on services before , during and after the cuts to actual wage to public sector employees..This money cut from the actual service should be returned before any payrises to anyone including tax cuts for all.

I have said before there are people working in the PS who deserve a pay rise above increments I have said it numerous times but while the blanket benchmarking III approach with no measure of who good, bad or ugly the employee is and no measure to either other Public services throughout the OCED or within the private sector I would rather not give pay rises. If they want to get someone in from the outside to go through individually the ps employees and give those who deserve a payrise a payrise I have no problem with that.

Your emotion spills over about how money is been taken from you..how do you think we all feel having to pay more taxes for these payrises?? When clearly in a lot of cases they are not deserved

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1027770.shtml


my apologies, the saving was "only" €2.3 bn.

So we are paying 6% less now than in 2007 and how many less working there now? Basically what you have put up has borne out what I am saying. They chose to cut the service and the fact that there are 30k/40k less working there is the only reason why there is a saving.

If you go back to 2006 pre benchmarking there is no saving at all. So basically the tax payer actually clawed back the money that Bertie used to buy votes.

Your link also states we have had no real growth in the last decade, yet we are still paying the more now than in 2005 with less workers in the public sector..

Your link if anything shows whey there should be no payrises..thanks for that

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

Can they not afford one or simply choose not to take one out?
Does this 50% of people include people earning relatively low wages in retail etc as one would not expect them to take out a pension until they move to a professional position or similar.

Yet they are expected to pay more in tax for the ps pensions and payrises..Why should they be expected to do that?

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

Thats not very specific though is it?

Whatever if you cant disprove it just agree and move on

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Whatever if you cant disprove it just agree and move on

Disprove what?
I asked you a very specific question and got a very non-specific answer.

I genuinely wonder what you think the pensions arrangements of civil servant are?

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Whatever if you cant disprove it just agree and move on

You say 50% of private sector workers cannot afford to fund their own pensions.
How do you know this?
How do you know that the same percentage of workers in the public sector also find it difficult to fund their own pensions but have no choice as it is mandatory?

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Yet they are expected to pay more in tax for the ps pensions and payrises..Why should they be expected to do that?

So they get a state OAP for pretty much free.

johnnyskeleton

MOD: fliball123, I was happy to allow you a bit of leeway before, but it's time to cut it out. Calling PS workers piggies and repeating the same point several times in a row is borderline trolling. Keep it up and I can only assume that it is actual trolling

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

I find the tone of the government and unsions offensive, so you tell me one ps employee who does not want a payrise otherwise I repeat all the ps piggies want a sip from the trough. The fact that they want this instead of a tax break for all would further this image in my head and in many others.

This is simply laughable .. show me one worker that doesn't want a pay rise and a tax break. The idea that it seems OK for the private sector to berate the PS for wanting to see the start of a slow gradual return of the very significant pay cuts they sufferred beginning back in 2008 .. 7 years ago .. while at the same time arguing that seeking tax breaks which would benefit themselves is not in anyway looking after No. 1 is beyond comment. Keep it up .. one wonders how some people find the time to holds down a responsible results orientated job

Icepick

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.
First create a system where it's normal and desirable to fire underperformers and then we can talk about pay rises coming from the private sector's money.

Gumbo

Icepick wrote: »

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.
First create a system where it's normal and desirable to fire underperformers and then we can talk about pay rises coming from the private sector's money.

The "I pay your wages" moto has reappeared I see.

kippy

Icepick wrote: »

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.
First create a system where it's normal and desirable to fire underperformers and then we can talk about pay rises coming from the private sector's money.

And again...its not just 'the private sectors money'.
We are all taxpayers and all want to see the money spent wisely.

glacial_pace71

kippy wrote: »

And again...its not just 'the private sectors money'.
We are all taxpayers and all want to see the money spent wisely.

Just on that related point by Fliball too, he/she did refer to having bred/produced offspring, which can give rise to holier-than-thou within the 'I pay your wages ... I pay your benefits' sub-set of these scenarios.

Of the 50 billion in 'voted' current expenditure, i.e. it needs to be passed by the Oireachtas via the Estimates process (Vote 26 = education, Vote 37 = social protection and so forth), about 20 billion of the 50 billion goes on 'social protection' measures. That doesn't just include dole or the state pension but also includes rent supplements and related matters. The Child Benefit figure is over 2 billion.

So, for the 2 billion spent on 150,000 or so public sector pensioners that many right-wingers want to see dead, there is a corresponding danger that some of the stone-throwers could find their glasshouses under attack from single childless disgruntled right-wingers, who regard 2 billion in offspring supports as an unbearable taxpayer expense (quite apart from their usual grumbles on education expenditure or health services for the young and the elderly). It eventually moves from their simple 'eliminate the untermenschen' to a free for all, in which a whole generation of workforce age become like Cronus and devour their children.

Celticfire

Icepick wrote: »

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.

Actually in the second round of benchmarking a value of 12% which the benchmarking body said I'd be due to receive to place me equal to my private sector equivalent was held back due to job security and pension.

ardmacha

Icepick wrote: »

Job security is so high in the PS, no value is put on it.

Some sectors are intrinsically stable, education, health etc and so job security is high in the sector. Other sectors vary greatly by the state of the economy. There is no point in confusing these two.

Icepick

ardmacha wrote: »

Some sectors are intrinsically stable, education, health etc and so job security is high in the sector. Other sectors vary greatly by the state of the economy. There is no point in confusing these two.

How many people lost their PS job involuntarily since '08 for example?

kippy

Icepick wrote: »

How many people lost their PS job involuntarily since '08 for example?

No permanent staff were made redundant if that is what you are getting at.
One of the main reasons for this is the cost to the state.
Making an employee redundant costs the state far more as an employer than it does to a private sector employer.
Not much point in spending money on redundancies and ongoing supports for those made redundant if the same overall result will be achieved, albeit over time, by removal of numbers via other mechanisms, pay cuts, and all of the other terms and conditions changes brought in with CP and HR

Idbatterim

well Fliball. I agree witha lot of what you are saying, and it seems the

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/lucinda-creighton-launches-renua-ireland-party-1.2138379

Renua Ireland will be positioned to the right of centre, with policies that it describes as pro-enterprise, pro-business and geared towards entrepreneurship. However, it has also asserted that its social policies will compassionate, with an emphasis on supporting the most vulnerable in society.
The party has said it has an ambitious reform agenda and is in favour of free and whipless votes on matters of conscience. It is also setting out comprehensive policies to effect radical reform of the public service.
The childcare expert Shane Dunphy is also a declared candidate and the financial commentator Karl Deeter is the party’s ethics officer.

They have also stated they dont believe in benchmarking agreements behind closed doors...

ardmacha

Icepick wrote: »

How many people lost their PS job involuntarily since '08 for example?

I posted that the PS dealt with sectors that were stable and so did not require layoff and you posted this pointless response.

Vincents Hospital, Trintity College, The Naval Service etc continued to operate during this period, why would they layoff people, they needed more not less.

Idbatterim wrote:

They have also stated they dont believe in benchmarking agreements behind closed doors...

And rightly so. But publicising things in this country is problematic which the general quality of public debate is so ridiculous. How many comments on PS pay have there been in the last month or so which completely ignore that PS remuneration was cut in an unprincipled way by far more than comparable sectors? There are sensible observations to be made, but people just rant, and even those that know better just rant to fit in with the crowd.

Idbatterim

And rightly so. But publicising things in this country is problematic which the general quality of public debate is so ridiculous. How many comments on PS pay have there been in the last month or so which completely ignore that PS remuneration was cut in an unprincipled way by far more than comparable sectors? There are sensible observations to be made, but people just rant, and even those that know better just rant to fit in with the crowd

My honest opinion is, that it is such a complex and grey area. Ultimately though, they want pay restored to boom times, as if that is "the norm", in my opinion there are areas that should be targeted before buying the next election and these areas are not first and foremost, in my back pocket. But I don't have an upcoming election and power to preserve...

The question is, why should pay simply be restored, to what is deemed "the norm" when you factor in all of the benefits of the job and the fact that many positions are still remunerated better than private sector, with all of the pro's that come with the jobs. Why is Ireland the exception on this v our European peers?

These shower and I mean all of them SF, FF, FG, Labour are going to come knocking on the door in a few months, offering up a measly few euro in income tax reductions, few more euro on welfare, in the pockets of public servants, whatever! How about they solve some real critical issues, the housing crisis in Dublin that is costing people a fortune per month in rent or on mortgages, the appalling public transport "system" that we have here, they can start on that before offering their pathetic few extra euro a week in my back pocket, that they obviously deem will be enough for the electorate...

We hear about the problems with the HSE, people on trolleys, people dying due to poor care, cuts to the GENUINELY vulnerable which are seriously impacting them and what they are now proposing is taking more out of the tax net (who already contribute as good as nothing in direct taxes ( a large part of them problem in this country), PS pay restoration) The quality of government here and our options are appalling and reckless IMO...

And I agree with your totally the quality of debate here is absolutely appalling...

Gumbo

Idbatterim wrote: »

How about they solve some real critical issues, the housing crisis in Dublin

The problem is that not enough houses are being built at the moment.
The developors are making more money by selling to the public rather than the Local Authorities in most cases.

Dublin City Council for example are actively trying to buy newly constructed houses from developers at the moment.

Idbatterim wrote: »

that is costing people a fortune per month in rent or on mortgages

How do you fix this though?
Do we all get discounts on our mortgages?
How can we invite landlords to reduce rent? There is already so many taxes on Landlords that its become a no win business!

Reforms to the Rent allowance Scheme etc have to be brought in to protect the landlord, its no wonder LL's will not accept these people as they are waiting 3 months for the first payment in cases, then the final 3 months are withheld by the tennant in other cases!

Idbatterim

How do you fix this though?
Do we all get discounts on our mortgages?
How can we invite landlords to reduce rent? There is already so many taxes on Landlords that its become a no win business!

Reforms to the Rent allowance Scheme etc have to be brought in to protect the landlord, its no wonder LL's will not accept these people as they are waiting 3 months for the first payment in cases, then the final 3 months are withheld by the tennant in other cases!

Ok the banks have effectively been forced to reduce variable rate interest rates on mortgages for the "greater good". So I would suggest Nama starts doing something similar, if builders do not have the funds to do so or dont have the margins they need. Start with lowering the cost of building, which I believe is being looked into now. Potentially start taxing sites in dublin city that are not being developed ( I believe or read a while ago, they were looking into this) In some areas, out around Sandyford, Leopardstown etc, there are single houses on large amounts of land, maybe it is time to start taxing single dwellings on large amounts of land, at a high rate if the site is suitable for more housing or demolition of the existing one and a new development built on site (not sure of the legalities of this) Allow far higher densities in the docklands, what is being built down there is a disgraceful use of dwindling amounts of prime location, commercial rent's rocketing again, (threatening our competitiveness) In certain hubs with good transport connections, build huge amounts of apartments, but ones that are also capable of comfortably raising a family... So families could actually deem them a viable alternative to houses, which are in such high demand...

They are some suggestions. Maybe housing is something that the government should be involved in, it is critical to all of us and maybe the developers, speculators and land owners shouldn't be allowed cream it off, at great expense to the rest of us...

Build MN, the luas connecting cherrywood with bray, places there are still a lot of land available and build the housing in close and closeish proximity at a very high density...

Also and I have read this being discussed on the property and accommodation forum, do something to get the elderly out of "family homes" and into retirement communities etc...

ardmacha

Idbatterim wrote: »

My honest opinion is, that it is such a complex and grey area. Ultimately though, they want pay restored to boom times, as if that is "the norm", in my opinion there are areas that should be targeted before buying the next election and these areas are not first and foremost, in my back pocket. But I don't have an upcoming election and power to preserve...

The last thing politicians want is some kind of independent analysis of PS pay. Such an analysis would give the wrong answers. It might well recommend increases for relatively well paid people, audit specialists in the Revenue, biotechnology professors in universities, brain surgeons, etc without recommending more money for the clerks in general, preventing "deals" and "fair" arrangements.

Idbatterim

The last thing politicians want is some kind of independent analysis of PS pay. Such an analysis would give the wrong answers. It might well recommend increases for relatively well paid people, audit specialists in the Revenue, biotechnology professors in universities, brain surgeons, etc without recommending more money for the clerks in general, preventing "deals" and "fair" arrangements.

I agree and these "well paid" people are being crucified on the marginal rate of tax... The headline gross salary and the net pay are two very different things here for even middle earners, never mind high income earners...

Icepick

kippy wrote: »

And again...its not just 'the private sectors money'.
We are all taxpayers and all want to see the money spent wisely.

Where do you think the net part of PS salaries comes from?

Anyway, you avoided my main point - we need to reform PS so that there is a system where under-performing employees go through a proper process that allows redundancies if they don't change.

There should also be no automatic pay rises (increments). It's all needs to be tied to performance etc.

ardmacha

Icepick wrote: »

Where do you think the net part of PS salaries comes from?

Anyway, you avoided my main point - we need to reform PS so that there is a system where under-performing employees go through a proper process that allows redundancies if they don't change.

There should also be no automatic pay rises (increments). It's all needs to be tied to performance etc.

Redundancy means there is no need for you, under-performing employees are sacked.

glacial_pace71

Bear in mind that teachers are not employed by the State, but by the local Board of Management of a school (which is usually under the patronage of a particular religious denomination). The Department of Education & Skills manages the payroll on behalf of schools but is not the employer.

If teachers were the subject of the Redundancy Payments Acts we would be in a situation in which they'd be paid a wad of cash every time they were released by one school and employed by another. (Pupil-teacher ratios determine the number of teachers a school can retain in the event of enrolment numbers dropping in a particular area, so it's a regular enough occurrence).

Why on earth would be hand over money as redundancy payments, just so that some right wing commentators can cheer on the fact that there would have been large scale redundancies in the public sector?

As it stands the redeployment scheme is working, and in quite a transparent manner, e.g. go to a Govt website and look at the actually existing reality outside the commentariat's opinion pieces:

http://education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Services/Teacher-Allocations-Staffing/Teacher-Allocations-and-Redeployment-Panels/

There's a pattern in much of the media commentary, e.g. it usually starts with a 'I pay your wages' and if the person is identified as a net beneficiary rather than a net contributor (e.g. pick so many sectors of the economy that are dependent on public procurement, such as construction) then there's the usual "you're all overpaid and lazy" line, which usually mutates into something on the lines of defending various cutbacks without much knowledge of what this had involved, then topped off with something about tackling underperformance or tackling staff redeployment/redundancy issues (once again, without much interest in looking at what's actually happening).

The original post mentioned 'Benchmarking III', yet we are in a situation in which the Government could well lose a legal challenge if it attempts to extend emergency legislation that it has in effect undermined itself. Reversals of pay cuts will of course be referred to as 'increases' but the status quo ante is still the situation which applied prior to the invocation of emergency powers legislation. The Govt needs to put together a realistic set of proposals but the time-frame is narrowing.

kippy

Icepick wrote: »

Where do you think the net part of PS salaries comes from?

Anyway, you avoided my main point - we need to reform PS so that there is a system where under-performing employees go through a proper process that allows redundancies if they don't change.

There should also be no automatic pay rises (increments). It's all needs to be tied to performance etc.

Tax payers.
We all pay tax.
From the private sector worker, to the self employed, to the guy on social welfare, to the guy in the public service, to the multinational company, to the small business etc etc etc
I am not avoiding your main point. I agree wholeheartedly with it.
Technically increments are tied to performance although how real in practice that is a major bone of contention.
Under performing employees should indeed be subjected to those policies and again, technically there are fairly rigid polices in place that allow for dealing with under performance but again how real they are in practice is questionable.