Benchmakring III without the comparison

Rightwing

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.

The public sector is out of control. Just like the welfare payments & OAP entitlements. Too many easy votes at stake.

Idbatterim

The public sector is out of control. Just like the welfare payments & OAP entitlements. Too many easy votes at stake.

yeah and all 1.7 million of us private sector workers just get shafted and fobbed off ( I would say like the shower of idiots we are, but who were we to vote for? I have seen what FG have done, not much, they simply care far too much about concensus, like FF) more the middle and high income earners though, I am bloody sick of it! Pity FG dont do anywhere near as well for the ones they purport to represent i.e. private sector workers, as Labour do for the PS and welfare...

Rightwing

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah and all 1.7 million of us private sector workers just get shafted and fobbed off ( I would say like the shower of idiots we are, but who were we to vote for? I have seen what FG have done, not much, they simply care far too much about concensus, like FF) more the middle and high income earners though, I am bloody sick of it! Pity FG dont do anywhere near as well for the ones they purport to represent i.e. private sector workers, as Labour do for the PS and welfare...

That's a good question. Go with independents, the more of them that are in, the less functional Government will be.

Idbatterim

That's a good question. Go with independents, the more of them that are in, the less functional Government will be.

I am going to vote Renua based on the current options and what I have read on their proposals...

Gumbo

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah and all 1.7 million of us private sector workers just get shafted and fobbed off ( I would say like the shower of idiots we are, but who were we to vote for? I have seen what FG have done, not much, they simply care far too much about concensus, like FF) more the middle and high income earners though, I am bloody sick of it! Pity FG dont do anywhere near as well for the ones they purport to represent i.e. private sector workers, as Labour do for the PS and welfare...

Labour shafted the PS so I doubt they have PS backing this time round.

Black Menorca

Its thanks to Labour and Brendan Howlin that Public Sector workers have a chance to restore some if not all of the money they lost during the crash.

Gumbo

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its thanks to Labour and Brendan Howlin that Public Sector workers have a chance to restore some if not all of the money they lost during the crash.

They won't restore all the money. No way and no PS worker in their right mind would expect that straight away either.

Black Menorca

kceire wrote: »

They won't restore all the money. No way and no PS worker in their right mind would expect that straight away either.

No, not straight away. But its great to finally see serious engagement. an engagement we'd never get from FG and a McGuiness lead FF.

PS workers need to see Labour as their friends as the economy improves.

glacial_pace71

Black Menorca wrote: »

No, not straight away. But its great to finally see serious engagement. an engagement we'd never get from FG and a McGuiness lead FF.

PS workers need to see Labour as their friends as the economy improves.

Unfortunately Labour will forever be tainted by Haddington Road. It had an opportunity to meaningfully engage in long-term reform post-Croke Park cutbacks. Instead it took the path of least resistance: some FG engaged in political bedwetting and Labour, with a hyena-like appetite, tore in to the public service. "Tough decisions" always entail cutbacks for the poor and the vulnerable: almost every other category of public spending on the middle class remained untouched.
Oddly enough I'd almost vote for a Genghis Khan slash-and-burn rightwinger if the right one came along, as so much of public spending at the moment rewards insider-groups like the farming lobby, the construction industry and so forth. Labour offers nothing other than a mudguard to various Blueshirt antics, e.g. see the current disgrace re one-teacher schools, with poor educational outcomes: most parents have voted with their feet, moving children to schools 2 or (at most) 3 miles up the road, but the FG perception that "rural Ireland" entails slack-jawed gob-daws with poor dental work and comb-over wigs forever in thrall to the wisdom of their own parish pump's taychar sadly ends up with FG arm-twisting Labour to maintain unviable schools whilst still cutting back on language support and other socially necessary programmes. There isn't a shred of principle in Labour's "oh but I'm doing it for you" mudguard strategy.
At the end of the day FF, FG and Lab all represent a network of cronyism and patronage that - at present - finds it politically expedient to increase pay in bailed-out banks whilst telling public servants that it can't reverse cuts. But what happens in an economic upturn? How do you expect your country to defend you when the political circus clowns think they can stick their heads in the lions' jaws, engage in knife-throwing wheel antics and steer the show ponies around the ring? Haddington Road represented the deepest betrayal of any attempt at political reform, cutting the legs from under anyone engaged in long-term change management. Labour can't escape that, even if - after helping rob your purse - they now stuff a few bob down your blouse and claim that it's somehow an occasion to be grateful.

Black Menorca

Give it six months with more money in our pay packets thanks to a Labour Minister for PER and you could see Labour shoring up some of the support they lost and we need Labour in the next Government rather than an FG/FF coalition.

Sheldons Brain

glacial_pace71 wrote: »

Unfortunately Labour will forever be tainted by Haddington Road. It had an opportunity to meaningfully engage in long-term reform post-Croke Park cutbacks. Instead it took the path of least resistance: some FG engaged in political bedwetting and Labour, with a hyena-like appetite, tore in to the public service.

This. Haddington Road was a profoundly bad project, in no sense in the national interest. A truly "Labour" based party would have worked the Croke Park agreement and ensured that those who made good efforts to achieve savings under it were at least to some extent protected from further cuts. They were far more cynical than FG who at least have an explicit anti PS policy.

Icepick

kceire wrote: »

Labour shafted the PS so I doubt they have PS backing this time round.

No, they didn't. Just look at lay offs in other countries where reforms were implemented.
However their sense of entitlement is too high to recognise that.

Icepick

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This. Haddington Road was a profoundly bad project, in no sense in the national interest. A truly "Labour" based party would have worked the Croke Park agreement and ensured that those who made good efforts to achieve savings under it were at least to some extent protected from further cuts. They were far more cynical than FG who at least have an explicit anti PS policy.

Anti PS policy with 0 people fired...

Gumbo

Icepick wrote: »

No, they didn't.

Thats your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Yes they did.
Thats my opinion.

glacial_pace71

Icepick wrote: »

No, they didn't. Just look at lay offs in other countries where reforms were implemented.
However their sense of entitlement is too high to recognise that.

Actually a reduction of 40,000 whole time equivalents is quite significant. The sense of entitlement lies with those who expect greater levels of service provision from less staff working longer hours. See the institute for fiscal studies papers on actual levels of service reduction in UK for valid comparison. PS if you have never changed a political diaper you will find it hard to understand what a sense of entitlement can be.

PeteFalk78

Icepick wrote: »

Anti PS policy with 0 people fired...

But yet the PS workforce has been shrunk by 10%.

You would have rathered that those 10% had been fired? With their redundancy costing the country millions? Not making a whole lot of sense there Icepick are you?

Godge

Icepick wrote: »

No, they didn't. Just look at lay offs in other countries where reforms were implemented.
However their sense of entitlement is too high to recognise that.

go on, if you are so sure, produce the links.

Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure.

PeteFalk78

Godge wrote: »

go on, if you are so sure, produce the links.

Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure.

http://databank.per.gov.ie/Public_Service_Numbers.aspx?rep=SectorTrend

Happy?

Eric Cartman

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

http://databank.per.gov.ie/Public_Service_Numbers.aspx?rep=SectorTrend

Happy?

289642 as a percentage of 320387 is 90.4% , so we've had a 9.6% reduction in the PS since 2008 , less than 10%

PeteFalk78

Eric Cartman wrote: »

289642 as a percentage of 320387 is 90.4% , so we've had a 9.6% reduction in the PS since 2008 , less than 10%

Busted. You totally annihilated my statement. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing you never heard Carl Friedrich Gauss or Leonhard Euler. I thought mathematical rounding was mandatory in the primary school curriculum.

I'll give you a brief explanation. If the value you intend to round of is 6,7,8, or 9 then to round up and if it is 1, 2, 3, or 4 then you round down.
When the value you intend to round off is a 5, you must look at the previous value also If it is even, you round down. If it is odd, you round up.

Eric Cartman

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Busted. You totally annihilated my statement. :rolleyes:

I'm guessing you never heard Carl Friedrich Gauss or Leonhard Euler. I thought mathematical rounding was mandatory in the primary school curriculum.

I'll give you a brief explanation. If the value you intend to round of is 6,7,8, or 9 then to round up and if it is 1, 2, 3, or 4 then you round down.
When the value you intend to round off is a 5, you must look at the previous value also If it is even, you round down. If it is odd, you round up.

still doesn't make it over 10% mate.

PeteFalk78

Eric Cartman wrote: »

still doesn't make it over 10% mate.

Who said it was over 10%?

Eric Cartman

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Who said it was over 10%?

judging by godges comment, you, although the context may be wrong.

PeteFalk78

Eric Cartman wrote: »

judging by godges comment, you, although the context may be wrong.

Thanks for your input Eric

Vizzy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

judging by godges comment, you, although the context may be wrong.

I think you need to read Godge's comment again and who he asks to produce links etc.

"Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure. "

Is 9.6% around 10% or not ?

Eric Cartman

Vizzy wrote: »

I think you need to read Godge's comment again and who he asks to produce links etc.

"Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure. "

Is 9.6% around 10% or not ?

im not arguing with the 'around 10%' part , the way it read was like Pete was saying it was more than 10% then produced figures that show its less , I thought he made a serious error there but it read wrong

Vizzy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

im not arguing with the 'around 10%' part , the way it read was like Pete was saying it was more than 10% then produced figures that show its less , I thought he made a serious error there but it read wrong

Or put simply YOU read it wrong !!

Sheldons Brain

Icepick wrote: »

Anti PS policy with 0 people fired...

As pointed out elsewhere, why pay out redundancy to people when you actually need them.

Also the likes of education has not laid off people because there is now significantly more students than in 2008. Would you send these home and which ones would you send?

As the table above shows, sectors like local authorities that could be cut have been very significantly cut.

Godge

Vizzy wrote: »

I think you need to read Godge's comment again and who he asks to produce links etc.

"Our public service is down by around 10%, I would love to see where you get a higher layoff figure. "

Is 9.6% around 10% or not ?

Icepick was claiming that other countries had done more to reduce their public service.

I knew ours had been reduced by around 10% - 9.6% is around 10% and I was wondering if Icepick could back up his claim on other countries.

If we have managed to reduce the public service by nearly 10% without forcing people out of a job (other than non-renewal of temporary staff), isn't that a good thing? If, as I suspect, that is among the biggest reductions achieved by any country, isn't it amazing?

Quin_Dub

Godge wrote: »

Icepick was claiming that other countries had done more to reduce their public service.

I knew ours had been reduced by around 10% - 9.6% is around 10% and I was wondering if Icepick could back up his claim on other countries.

If we have managed to reduce the public service by nearly 10% without forcing people out of a job (other than non-renewal of temporary staff), isn't that a good thing? If, as I suspect, that is among the biggest reductions achieved by any country, isn't it amazing?

Perhaps....

Who did we lose and who did we keep?

The advantage of "targeted" redundancy is that you can cut where the cuts are needed - Either in areas where we have too many staff or areas where the current staff just aren't up to it...

With Voluntary redundancy or "natural attrition" what tends to happen is that you lose the better staff , the ones that have more desirable skills etc. as they are the ones more likely to find other jobs..

So - when we lost 10% , did we lose fat or muscle??