Benchmakring III without the comparison

Godge

Icepick wrote: »

:rolleyes:
How many people were laid off or fired again?
Meanwhile hundreds of thousand people lost jobs in the private sector.

The size of the public service decreased by 10%.

The number of jobs in the private sector decreased by around 11% over the same period.

This was shown about a year ago using CSO data.

Godge

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0602/705403-ahcps/


Getting back on topic, I knew this deal favoured the lower-paid but

"It has been estimated that between 2016 and 2018, a Government employee on €30,000 will receive a pay rise of €2,170 (7.2%), a worker on €60,000 will have a pay hike of €1,895 (3.2%) while a public servant on €100,000 will see an increase of €1,000 or 1%."

Considering the higher-paid got the biggest cut, that is quite a surprise. You can only imagine it is because there is an election.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Idbatterim wrote: »

Another field I am closely related to is now bringing legal proceedings against the Garda commissioner's office, an extract from the article. Ireland has also been warned that is it breaching EU tendering guidelines, I will dig the link out for that later, if I can find it...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/translation-service-brings-legal-action-against-garda-commisioners-after-interpreter-contract-awarded-to-rivals-31138930.html[/url

Misleading article Word Perfect aren't the only suppliers of translation services to AGS it's a Framework panel of 5 companies.

Being perfectly honest that challenge against AGS will fail. AGS procurement processes are amongst if not the most robust in the State. They have been challeneged countless times in High Court and not lost yet.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

The size of the public service decreased by 10%.

The number of jobs in the private sector decreased by around 11% over the same period.

This was shown about a year ago using CSO data.

This again. The last time you made this claim I pointed out the fundamental flaw in your argument. This argument only works if you assume the private sector is a closed system, which it is not. If a company closes down in Cork and 50 people are made redundant on the same day that a new company opens up in Dublin and hires 50 new people; the CSO will record this as 0 jobs lost despite the fact that 50 people in Cork are still redundant.

Sheldons Brain

Godge wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0602/705403-ahcps/


Getting back on topic, I knew this deal favoured the lower-paid but

"It has been estimated that between 2016 and 2018, a Government employee on €30,000 will receive a pay rise of €2,170 (7.2%), a worker on €60,000 will have a pay hike of €1,895 (3.2%) while a public servant on €100,000 will see an increase of €1,000 or 1%."

Considering the higher-paid got the biggest cut, that is quite a surprise. You can only imagine it is because there is an election.

Indeed there is a huge discontinuity at €65,000, a decent but hardly outrageous salary. Someone earning €70,000 will not get enough "restoration" to cover inflation in this period, having been cut by maybe 17-18%.

sarumite

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Indeed there is a huge discontinuity at €65,000, a decent but hardly outrageous salary. Someone earning €70,000 will not get enough "restoration" to cover inflation in this period, having been cut by maybe 17-18%.

It fits the prerogative of both the unions and the government to try and satisfy the highest number of people rather than the most deserving.

Larbre34

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0603/705535-teachers/

TUI to recommend rejection of 'Lansdowne Road', which is par for their particular course.

What is interesting though is the focus on not conceding the productivity aspects which the Govt want to copper fasten. I suspect that may be a bigger issue within many of the PS unions than pay restoration, the feeling of it being a thin end of the wedge. It could make acceptance of the agreement a very close run thing.

Sheldons Brain

Larbre34 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0603/705535-teachers/

TUI to recommend rejection of 'Lansdowne Road', which is par for their particular course.

What is interesting though is the focus on not conceding the productivity aspects which the Govt want to copper fasten. I suspect that may be a bigger issue within many of the PS unions than pay restoration, the feeling of it being a thin end of the wedge. It could make acceptance of the agreement a very close run thing.

A lot of these productivity aspects were half baked at best, more designed to achieve the appearance of everyone "giving something" than actually improving the delivery of services.

relax carry on

Larbre34 wrote: »

Effectively yes.

http://www.ictu.ie/about/committees/14/

Can't say I've ever seen the PSEU telling me who to vote for. Even if they and other unions actively promoted that their members vote for a particular party, there is nothing compelling the members to vote for that particular party. The unions have no control over their members thought processes.

Quin_Dub

relax carry on wrote: »

Can't say I've ever seen the PSEU telling me who to vote for. Even if they and other unions actively promoted that their members vote for a particular party, there is nothing compelling the members to vote for that particular party. The unions have no control over their members thought processes.

Of course..it's not like they operate a whip system or something...

But surely you'd have to concede that having the union endorse a specific party or candidate could be quite influential on a significant number of people?

Larbre34

^exactly as Quin says.

If the parties believed there was nothing in it, they wouldn't waste resources on it. All you need is to corral a decent percentage, it means a lot to a smaller party in a marginal constituency.

relax carry on

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Of course..it's not like they operate a whip system or something...

But surely you'd have to concede that having the union endorse a specific party or candidate could be quite influential on a significant number of people?

I can only speak from experience if the PSEU. No one I know pays a blind bit of notice to what the union says. Most are in the union because it's what you do and the perceived benefits of collective bargaining power. The only ones who take it in anyway serious are some of the union reps.
On a related note, if any of the groups or organisations you are a member of or have an interest in said please vote for candidate or party X, would you do it?

Quin_Dub

relax carry on wrote: »

I can only speak from experience if the PSEU. No one I know pays a blind bit of notice to what the union says. Most are in the union because it's what you do and the perceived benefits of collective bargaining power. The only ones who take it in anyway serious are some of the union reps.
On a related note, if any of the groups or organisations you are a member of or have an interest in said please vote for candidate or party X, would you do it?

Personally - No , certainly not it is was just a plain "Vote for X" note..

But if it was a note framed in terms of "Vote for X, because X is the only one that will support our aims, or don't vote for Y because Y wants to shaft us over this issue or that issue" - Then I can absolutely see how some people that were undecided, could be influenced one way or the other..

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

This again. The last time you made this claim I pointed out the fundamental flaw in your argument. This argument only works if you assume the private sector is a closed system, which it is not. If a company closes down in Cork and 50 people are made redundant on the same day that a new company opens up in Dublin and hires 50 new people; the CSO will record this as 0 jobs lost despite the fact that 50 people in Cork are still redundant.

Similarly, when a person is redeployed within the public sector a job is lost in say the Department of Education but gained in the Department of Justice.

Your example is redeployment private sector way, a harsher form of redeployment public sector way. But the stats tell the correct overall story.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

A lot of these productivity aspects were half baked at best, more designed to achieve the appearance of everyone "giving something" than actually improving the delivery of services.

Two and a quarter hours a week extra work from everyone in the public service not half-baked.

kippy

Godge wrote: »

Similarly, when a person is redeployed within the public sector a job is lost in say the Department of Education but gained in the Department of Justice.

Your example is redeployment private sector way, a harsher form of redeployment public sector way. But the stats tell the correct overall story.







Two and a quarter hours a week extra work from everyone in the public service not half-baked.

Tbf godge no one actually gets made redundant in your example.

Godge

kippy wrote: »

Tbf godge no one actually gets made redundant in your example.

That is true but go back to the original point of the conversation.

From peak to trough, private sector lost 11%, and from peak to trough public sector lost 10%.

Sarumite made the fair point that those stats masked the fact that private sector jobs lost in Cork could be offset by jobs gained in Dublin so the figure of 11% was net job losses in the private sector rather than gross job losses. I was only pointing out that the public sector used redeployment to deal with such issues.

From the point of view of ordinary worker's rights, through a combination of retirements, voluntary redundancy, non-renewal of temporary contracts and redeployment, the public sector handled the crisis in a much more humane way than the private sector but still managed to get a similar outcome in terms of net jobs lost. That should be a reason for praising the public sector rather than criticising it.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Godge wrote: »

From peak to trough, private sector lost 11%, and from peak to trough public sector lost 10%.

However, public sector didnt lose numbers same way private sector did.

The public sector numbers are red herring as alot of those (outside of temp contracts not being renewed) would have been retirements and crucially people like me would be included in that figure also.

In other words in the next 1-3 years that public service number is going to massively reverse not even taking into account any additional recruitment.

Icepick

Now is the time to invest in infrastructure instead of wasting precious and limited public resources on blind salary increases.
Property is picking up, which will lead to increased costs. The government should invest as much money as possible into Metro North, refurbishment of schools, police stations and so on. This will benefit those public servant working in old buildings much more than a small salary increase.
Of course that would not help the union pursuing their own myopic goals.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Icepick wrote: »

The government should invest as much money as possible into Metro North, refurbishment of schools, police stations and so on. This will benefit those public servant working in old buildings much more than a small salary increase.

Of course that would not help the union pursuing their own myopic goals.

Not sure about Metro North, but schools are being built and refurbished nationwide on an already well published schedule, Garda stations are very modern buildings already despite what they might look like from the outside / public counter side.

In fact I can't remember the last time I was in a non modern civil service office in general

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

That is true but go back to the original point of the conversation.

From peak to trough, private sector lost 11%, and from peak to trough public sector lost 10%.

Sarumite made the fair point that those stats masked the fact that private sector jobs lost in Cork could be offset by jobs gained in Dublin so the figure of 11% was net job losses in the private sector rather than gross job losses. I was only pointing out that the public sector used redeployment to deal with such issues.

From the point of view of ordinary worker's rights, through a combination of retirements, voluntary redundancy, non-renewal of temporary contracts and redeployment, the public sector handled the crisis in a much more humane way than the private sector but still managed to get a similar outcome in terms of net jobs lost. That should be a reason for praising the public sector rather than criticising it.

Redundancy and redeployment are two completely different things. Your analogy is utter nonsense. surely even you can see the fallacy of what your writing?

Of course they had the luxury of being 'humane'. The government has a de-facto monopoly on many essential services which are run in non-proft manner in a non-competitive environment and funded through mandatory taxation. (please, stop with the nonsense about net jobs. As I pointed out, your argument is so fundamentally flawed)

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Redundancy and redeployment are two completely different things. Your analogy is utter nonsense. surely even you can see the fallacy of what your writing?

Of course they had the luxury of being 'humane'. The government has a de-facto monopoly on many essential services which are run in non-proft manner in a non-competitive environment and funded through mandatory taxation. (please, stop with the nonsense about net jobs. As I pointed out, your argument is so fundamentally flawed)

You can't argue with the facts. The size of the private sector decreased by 11%, the size of the public sector decreased by 10%. Net job losses across both sectors were broadly similar.

One point I forgot to make is that the make-up of the health services changed dramatically over the period since the crisis with the number of consultants increasing and the number of nurses decreasing. Many contract nurses lost their jobs and went abroad. Very similar to the way the private sector restructured.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

Redundancy and redeployment are two completely different things. Your analogy is utter nonsense. surely even you can see the fallacy of what your writing?

Of course they had the luxury of being 'humane'. The government has a de-facto monopoly on many essential services which are run in non-proft manner in a non-competitive environment and funded through mandatory taxation. (please, stop with the nonsense about net jobs. As I pointed out, your argument is so fundamentally flawed)

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!.

By 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.

Tiger Mcilroy

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Not sure about Metro North, but schools are being built and refurbished nationwide on an already well published schedule, Garda stations are very modern buildings already despite what they might look like from the outside / public counter side.

In fact I can't remember the last time I was in a non modern civil service office in general

I can categorically say this is not the case, have you been garda headquarters for example..its an archaic building that bears no resemblance to a modern building.

Larbre34

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I can categorically say this is not the case, have you been garda headquarters for example..its an archaic building that bears no resemblance to a modern building.

No, so we'll demolish it. Take the GPO, Government Buildings and the Custom House while you're at it. Garda HQ has modern developments on its campus, Ive been inside it and it integrates very well. A huge national HQ isnt needed as the regions and divisions have their own offices.

Its all very well for people to say they want urgent work done on new and refurbished public buildings and schools without the requisite staff to design and build them. Do they realise how busy OPW actually are? And this is after they lost most of their corporate experience and knowledge base to early retirement

Tiger Mcilroy

Larbre34 wrote: »

No, so we'll demolish it. Take the GPO, Government Buildings and the Custom House while you're at it. Garda HQ has modern developments on its campus, Ive been inside it and it integrates very well. A huge national HQ isnt needed as the regions and divisions have their own offices.

Its all very well for people to say they want urgent work done on new and refurbished public buildings and schools without the requisite staff to design and build them. Do they realise how busy OPW actually are? And this is after they lost most of their corporate experience and knowledge base to early retirement

Where did i say demolish garda HQ, is it the case in this thread that any criticism is met with absurd replies about demolishing goverment buildings?.

The modern developements you speak of, are these the prefabs in the front courtyard that face out onto the road or the delapidated ones stacked one on top of the other at the rear of the building where large portions of the the IT work is done?

Garda HQ is an example of a building (rabbit warren) that has been left for decades with little or no improvements by successive goverments and the OPW could surely have spared a few workers over twenty years but sure lets shut down any debate on this with the usual vague arguments about resources.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I can categorically say this is not the case, have you been garda headquarters for example..its an archaic building that bears no resemblance to a modern building.

Which part would that be fleet , commissioners block , it or finance?

They are all very modern interiors while outside looks dated due to it being a listed site

Ctrl Alt Delete

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

Where did i say demolish garda HQ, is it the case in this thread that any criticism is met with absurd replies about demolishing goverment buildings?.

The modern developements you speak of, are these the prefabs in the front courtyard that face out onto the road or the delapidated ones stacked one on top of the other at the rear of the building where large portions of the the IT work is done?

Garda HQ is an example of a building (rabbit warren) that has been left for decades with little or no improvements by successive goverments and the OPW could surely have spared a few workers over twenty years but sure lets shut down any debate on this with the usual vague arguments about resources.

That site has had significant work done. Including massive drainage works and those prefabs are admin definitely not where the main it work is done apart from hardware around the back. Also because it's a listed site prefabs are only way it can be expanded without masses upon masses on hoops to jump through

Tiger Mcilroy

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Which part would that be fleet , commissioners block , it or finance?

They are all very modern interiors while outside looks dated due to it being a listed site

In the interests of clarity, i have worked in garda HQ in the past and can categorically state that the word "modern" is not how i would describe the interior of the buildings.

What you are saying is wrong, its that simple and more effort is put into the coffee facilities in the (dry) canteen than the IT services stuck out the back so claiming that the insides are "modern" is nonsense.

When people make claims against the public service on here they get shut down....pity the same cant be said for the defenders talking nonsense.

Icepick

A new Garda divisional HQ will actually be built

But when I went to the Santry station, I thought I travelled to the 70s for example. Loads of schools are also antic. Refurbishing them is also a good opportunity to secularize them and take them from the grip of the Catholic Church.

glacial_pace71

Icepick wrote: »

A new Garda divisional HQ will actually be built

But when I went to the Santry station, I thought I travelled to the 70s for example. Loads of schools are also antic. Refurbishing them is also a good opportunity to secularize them and take them from the grip of the Catholic Church.

The problem is that the PPP bundles for schools have proven to be quite an expensive way of getting the necessary infrastructure. (Of course some will argue that it keep employment up in the construction industry and so the net costs aren't as great).

Re Santry Garda station? Ugly alright, and it now takes on Whitehall's duties. However, that brings up a useful point re Garda Districts in Dublin, e.g. Raheny doesn't cover much of Raheny, as it was just fields when the divisions were drawn up, hence Coolock having responsibility for much of the area. However, redistricting would affect the number of Superintendents and District Officers. Reform in the criminal justice area need not always be about closing district courts that are a few miles apart.

Re the RC grip on education? The constitution still defines parents as the primary educators of the child. They've a constitutional baseball bat with which to whack the State any time it takes too much of an interest in ownership. Consequently the State sets the standards for teachers and for school buildings, it funds the capital cost of school buildings, it pays the teachers' salaries (and manages their payroll on behalf of schools) but schools remain under the ownership of their patron body (usually a religious order).