Benchmakring III without the comparison

Sheldons Brain

Idbatterim wrote: »

Some of the previous posts have said the public servants should be paid the going rate for their position and I totally agree with that. But the higher up the pay scales you go, the way less votes there are to buy. Say you will take 100,000 workers out of the tax net, theres a nice few votes, say that you will cut income taxes above E100,000 per annum, one will win you a large amount of votes, the other, very few... Its not even about whats right anymore, it never was, its about them making themselves look like they care, spreading the benefits of recovery to everyone, regardless of merit...

This is only true if the electorate accept playing politics with the organisation of public services, rather than requiring them to be run right. Sadly, this is the case. It is astonishing how people that profess to loath politicians are then entirely supportive of political stunts that treat the electorate like imbeciles.

Idbatterim

I agree Sheldonsbrain. This is the problem though, you have vested interests, making decisions, that also benefit them, not simply in trying to maintain power, but also jacking up their own pay and pensions. This should be removed from them and given to some sort of independent committee or similar IMO. But there is the same likelihood of that, as there is of the tories wanting to change the first past the post system in the Uk...

I believe €12,000,000 is spent on public sector procurement per annum. Why not have an agreement, whereby the PS can start reaping the benefits of savings on public procurement. The problem when it is not your money, is that ultimately nobody gives a toss!

Larbre34

I wonder why the newly formed centralised Office of Government Procurement is trying to hobble small suppliers of goods and professional services? They do a good impression of it being their money..

Oh and can we avoid the Greek comparisions please? The Greek public services did actually bankrupt their economy, ours was bankrupted by shouldering private debt. Public servants were generally offending no one until the private sector financial collapse.

glacial_pace71

Idbatterim wrote: »

I agree Sheldonsbrain. This is the problem though, you have vested interests, making decisions, that also benefit them, not simply in trying to maintain power, but also jacking up their own pay and pensions. This should be removed from them and given to some sort of independent committee or similar IMO. But there is the same likelihood of that, as there is of the tories wanting to change the first past the post system in the Uk...

I believe €12,000,000 is spent on public sector procurement per annum. Why not have an agreement, whereby the PS can start reaping the benefits of savings on public procurement. The problem when it is not your money, is that ultimately nobody gives a toss!

Unfortunately the procurement issue caused major problems. You'll recall that rightwing also mentioned the issue indirectly - via cuts to local authority staff and payments in social welfare - but you're both fishing in the same pond that has alas been somewhat contaminated by political ineptitude on the right and left.

The local authorities largely lost their housing function. In the region of €500 million is spent on private landlords of various descriptions, e.g. from D/Social Protection rent supplements/supports through to HSE emergency housing/accommodation interventions. This current expenditure is in turn a form of capital expenditure by the private individuals who buy housing stock to let. Of course the counter-argument is that the local authority house building programmes of the 1970s (for which Labour's Jim Tully took a bit too much credit) ended up being some of the heroin blackspots of the 1980s, as the housing points system was skewed to greatest socio-economic disadvantage and left communities unbalanced, particularly when combined with sell-offs of quality housing stock and grants to lose community leaders to private purchase schemes in the 1990s. The current system is very, very expensive and the supports are almost certainly factored into rent prices as they tend to be inflationary in nature rather than increasing housing supply. I can understand though that the local authorities don't have to worry about problem estates, and they can mix their housing rental stock between houses and apartments as the demographics change. Similarly, the value of building and owning was often overstated for local authorities, e.g. see the demolition of Ballymun and many other estates in which massive capital outlay was incurred.
Ok, long-winded but 2000s and the local authorities now lose household waste refuse collection due to political activity making the service unviable. Similarly so with the Household charges, which were then given to the Revenue and ABTRAN as the Local Property Tax (LPT). The local authorities are in the course of losing their water services function. They've also lost several sub-county authorities, e.g. although Bray, Drogheda and Dundalk were similar in size to Leitrim and Longford they were scrapped with as yet uncertain savings.
Overall there's quite good reason for the local government sector to lose staff on a considerable scale, but the taxpayers are now paying for their refuse collection and water as quasi-commercial services.
However, look at where the local authorities lost a service, student grants, and the initial chaos that followed. Ok, so SUSI (a combination of CD VEC/ETB and ABTRAN) managed to put together a very good service after a few years, but it took many sensitive changes to data protection protocols to allow a private company access D/Social Protection and Revenue data on families. Given that an ABTRAN employee was prosecuted for credit card fraud during the LPT saga did show that there are legitimate concerns with outsourcing certain functions to private companies that would have staff that could never have passed a Revenue or civil service exam or reached the expected standards of probity in handling sensitive data.

Now on that point re procurement. The politicians were only too glad to nod and wink to IBEC when certain companies won contracts for call centre work, e.g. as mentioned above for the LPT and for SUSI. The problem is that it became seen as part of the problem of political cronyism, e.g. politicians were demanding €300 million of cutbacks under Haddington Rd but were ramping up expenditure elsewhere on their own pet projects or constituency needs. It therefore left many legitimate attempts at outsourcing as being perceived that it was politically driven to award certain in the Construction Industry Federation, IBEC (and its mini-me Small Firms Association), ISME and so forth.

We're now left with a few strange inclusions in the text of the draft agreement, in which outsourcing and related public procurement activities are to be the subject of anxious scrutiny rather than continuing with the working assumption that it should automatically be part of any consideration when looking at how to restructure a workload.

See agreement:
http://www.pseu.ie/_fileupload/Agreements/Public%20Service%20Stability%20Agreement%202013-2018.pdf

See also D/PER's previous guidance and the strong emphasis on outsourcing as part of External Service Delivery:
http://www.per.gov.ie/alternative-models-of-service-delivery/ and http://www.per.gov.ie/esd-plans/

Some FF and FG politicians, and their IBEC counterparts, will need to take a long look at themselves for undermining that whole element of the reform agenda. I doubt it'll halt but some union members are convinced that politicians are trousering money on the procurement issue.

Idbatterim

Oh and can we avoid the Greek comparisions please? The Greek public services did actually bankrupt their economy, ours was bankrupted by shouldering private debt. Public servants were generally offending no one until the private sector financial collapse.

the greek comparisons are an exaggeration, but we are somewhere between them and the far more mature and better run German, Scandinavian countries etc...

Icepick

Blanket pay rise is an expected but nonetheless an incredibly foolish decision.
If anything, money should go into hiring new staff and to reward high performers who are paid on par and where the PS is competing with the private sector on pay.

Black Menorca

This is at best a moderate first step to pay restoration with limited restoration over a future 3 year period. It is progress from the FEMPI cutting fetish and it is pleasing to see the pension pay cut being drastically diminished for lower paid workers.

I will await information meetings with the union before deciding on whether to accept this or not.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Larbre34 wrote: »

I wonder why the newly formed centralised Office of Government Procurement is trying to hobble small suppliers of goods and professional services? They do a good impression of it being their money..

Whats the problem with the OGP? If they were to spend government money without a care in the world they'd equally be at fault :rolleyes:

Icepick wrote: »

Blanket pay rise is an expected but nonetheless an incredibly foolish decision.

If anything, money should go into hiring new staff and to reward high performers who are paid on par and where the PS is competing with the private sector on pay.

In my case for me to return to my PS post which I can hold for another 3 years while on career break I would need at least a 20k per annum rise to put my Public Service job on a par with my Private Sector job.

Icepick

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

In my case for me to return to my PS post which I can hold for another 3 years while on career break I would need at least a 20k per annum rise to put my Public Service job on a par with my Private Sector job.

If true it shows that it's probably a business the government shouldn't be in in the first place.

Rightwing

Crazy policy. Just coming out of a severe crisis and they are making the exact same mistakes again. You just can't beat downright stupidity.

Black Menorca

Rightwing wrote: »

Crazy policy. Just coming out of a severe crisis and they are making the exact same mistakes again. You just can't beat downright stupidity.

Thats right, its the lower paid Public Servants who brought down Anglo. Heck, not only Anglo, but Lehamns too while you're at it.

Really people, if you're going to begrudge PS workers a partial restoration of pay over the coming 3 years, at least do it from an accurate perspective.

Rightwing

Black Menorca wrote: »

Thats right, its the lower paid Public Servants who brought down Anglo. Heck, not only Anglo, but Lehamns too while you're at it.

Really people, if you're going to begrudge PS workers a partial restoration of pay over the coming 3 years, at least do it from an accurate perspective.

Only the extremely naive and gullible buy the 'Anglo' card. Admittedly, that's probably the majority of the population.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Icepick wrote: »

If true it shows that it's probably a business the government shouldn't be in in the first place.

It's very true and my specialty is procurement which is obviously quite central to how a government dept works.

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

Crazy policy. Just coming out of a severe crisis and they are making the exact same mistakes again. You just can't beat downright stupidity.

What mistakes are you talking about? Can you clarify?

Rightwing

kceire wrote: »

What mistakes are you talking about? Can you clarify?

Increasing PS wages and restoring welfare bonuses. Only a lunatic would do this imo.

Letree

These small payrises rises won't be complete until the end of 2017. So after nearly a decade public servants pay will still not have come near what it was in 2010. And people are hopping mad. Thankfully the people making these decisions don't give take much heed of a few moaners online and in newspaper comment sections.

Icepick

Letree wrote: »

These small payrises rises won't be complete until the end of 2017. So after nearly a decade public servants pay will still not have come near what it was in 2010. And people are hopping mad. Thankfully the people making these decisions don't give take much heed of a few moaners online and in newspaper comment sections.

That's because the 2010 levels were madness in practice.

Black Menorca

Letree wrote: »

These small payrises rises won't be complete until the end of 2017. So after nearly a decade public servants pay will still not have come near what it was in 2010. And people are hopping mad. Thankfully the people making these decisions don't give take much heed of a few moaners online and in newspaper comment sections.

Very sobering when you put it this way.

Very modest on pay, but t might just be enough to get union members onboard and Labour into Government next year again.

PeteFalk78

Rightwing wrote: »

Increasing PS wages and restoring welfare bonuses. Only a lunatic would do this imo.

Wrong again Rightwing, its called "Pay restoration" which is part of the FEMPI legislation.

Rightwing

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Wrong again Rightwing, its called "Pay restoration" which is part of the FEMPI legislation.

They must admit that benchmarking was wrong in the first instance and has had catastrophic consequences. Restoring these, will have more catastrophic consequences.

Black Menorca

Rightwing wrote: »

They must admit that benchmarking was wrong in the first instance and has had catastrophic consequences. Restoring these, will have more catastrophic consequences.

It will probably bring down the World Bank I'd say.

creedp

Rightwing wrote: »

They must admit that benchmarking was wrong in the first instance and has had catastrophic consequences. Restoring these, will have more catastrophic consequences.

When would consider it reasonable that pay would again approach 2008 levels. 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, never? It brutally obvious that the latter one is your preference which is why it is difficult to take your opinions seriously. You should try and get over benchmarking ..a decade has passed .. Its old hat.. The world has moved on .. Its obviously an obsession so its time now to try and move on and develop new interests. It for your own good!!!

Rightwing

creedp wrote: »

When would consider it reasonable that pay would again approach 2008 levels. 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, never? It brutally obvious that the latter one is your preference which is why it is difficult to take your opinions seriously. You should try and get over benchmarking ..a decade has passed .. Its old hat.. The world has moved on .. Its obviously an obsession so its time now to try and move on and develop new interests. It for your own good!!!

Pay should be reduced to around 2002 levels.

Black Menorca

Rightwing wrote: »

Pay should be reduced to around 2002 levels.

Not going to happen mate. Not in this timezone.

Rightwing

Black Menorca wrote: »

Not going to happen mate. Not in this timezone.

Unfortunately I'm only too well aware of it.

We should be reducing our debt now that we are in a position to. That's what most people don't get.

Black Menorca

Rightwing wrote: »

Unfortunately I'm only too well aware of it.

We should be reducing our debt now that we are in a position to. That's what most people don't get.

We're in a current account surplus, a lot of which is thanks to huge sacrifices made by PS workers.

creedp

Rightwing wrote: »

Pay should be reduced to around 2002 levels.

To be honest I'm disappointed in you ... You're obviously going soft! I blame your obsession with benchmarking .. Time to get help before its too late

Rightwing

Black Menorca wrote: »

We're in a current account surplus, a lot of which is thanks to huge sacrifices made by PS workers.

I don't buy that.

Why do you think the likes of bus drivers are petrified of privatisation?

Privatisation would be every PS workers' worst nightmare. This indicates there's still a lot of room for hefty cuts.

Black Menorca

Rightwing wrote: »

I don't buy that.

Why do you think the likes of bus drivers are petrified of privatisation?

Privatisation would be every PS workers' worst nightmare. This indicates there's still a lot of room for hefty cuts.

Its sickening to see private sector leeches sniffing around the Public Service.

Unfortunately the bus unions aren't strong enough to call a halt to it.

glacial_pace71

Rightwing wrote: »

I don't buy that.

Why do you think the likes of bus drivers are petrified of privatisation?

Privatisation would be every PS workers' worst nightmare. This indicates there's still a lot of room for hefty cuts.

I think many bus drivers looked at the health and safety issues arising in the case of refuse collection workers. Similarly so with the number of cases taken under the Unfair Dismissals legislation. Incidentally the bus drivers are commercial semi-State and not Croke Parked/Haddington Roadkill.

The problem isn't necessarily public versus private. Consider also the 'useful idiots' of various description who were used as a fig leaf for arguing for external service delivery. Many managers in the public service saw nothing egalitarian or socially just in paying over the odds for a particular service to be delivered in-house. They argued under the Croke Park arrangements for many services to be put before some evaluative mechanism as part of any business case.

The legs were cut from under them in Haddington Road, when several Govt Ministers and Minsters of State openly bragged to various firms and their IBEC reps of "shure bhouys, look at what I've got for ye" when in fact they were just standing beside a set of traffic lights and telling people that they would make it turn to green in a few seconds. The levels of actual political interference were minimal but the perception among many public servants was that an inside track had been formed for political cronyism, and that there was a "ten items or less" aisle set up for every Small Firms Association company to relieve the public purse of monies for goods/services that could still be delivered efficiently in-house.

There's plenty of information in the public domain on the successes and failures of privatization and of external service delivery. In fact keep an eye on the Office of Government Procurement: it has the potential to be another command-and-control HSE-style disaster or it could really screw many SMEs who supply the public service under existing local arrangements. If your interest is in private sector employment uber alles then you may be surprised to find that the revision to many of the service delivery mechanisms could actually see heavy job losses in the Irish private sector, with procurement consisting of an odd mix of sub-contractual relationships and Indian call-centre supports.

Btw none of this is any great state secret. Your workplace may not tender for public contracts but there's plenty of information in the public domain on privatisation and outsourcing/external service delivery. Those with the most to fear are the shrill IBEC/SFA, CFA and ISME reps, who don't appreciate how little the drunken backbencher can intervene once the chill winds of competition blow through the public procurement process.