Privatisation by stealth

Or where all the jobs with pensions and good conditions have gone.

A small piece in the Irish times today about the public services pay talks the article says one of the reasons the talks broke down is because the government side want to change the rules for the business case for privatisation of services formerly provided by the state.

The bit they want changed is references to labour costs.

Now i'v nothing against privatisation as long as the privatised services keeps the same conditions of employment including pensions is that unreasonable?

Donald Trump

Too many in the public sector with their snouts in the trough.
They don't give a shite about the rest of the people. 
They were quick to sacrifice the new teachers coming in as long as their own gilded positions weren't affected. Unions only started to "care" after a few years when the old members started retiring and dying off and the people who were getting fecked at the bottom started to become a sizeable proportion of their potential member-base.
It's a case of "get in, pull up the ladder quick".

As for that well-provisioned trough full of goodies and riches, well the non-public sector have to pay to keep that filled. That puts direct pressure on the private sector. Not to mention indirect pressure due to inefficiencies and bureaucracy.

Leo to the rescue!

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Too many in the public sector with their snouts in the trough.
They don't give a shite about the rest of the people. 
They were quick to sacrifice the new teachers coming in as long as their own gilded positions weren't affected.
It's a case of "get in, pull up the ladder quick".

As for that well-provisioned trough full of goodies and riches, well the non-public sector have to pay to keep that filled. That puts direct pressure on the private sector. Not to mention indirect pressure due to inefficiencies and bureaucracy.

Leo to the rescue!

But everyone forgets it's their children who will grow up in to a world where a job with a decent pension is a fantasy but that will be alright because they are more interested in getting rid of the present public servants.

As I said I have nothing against privatisation so long as conditions of employment remain broadly the same .

maudgonner

mariaalice wrote: »

But everyone forgets it's their children who will grow up in to a world where a job with a decent pension is a fantasy but that will be alright because they are more interested in getting rid of the present public servants.

As I said I have nothing against privatisation so long as conditions of employment remain the same.

Why should the public sector be entitled to a pension that the private sector can only dream of?

They seem unwilling to accept lower salaries as a trade off for the conditions they enjoy, so I don't see how those conditions are justified.

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

Why should the public sector be entitled to a pension that the private sector can only dream of?

They seem unwilling to accept lower salaries as a trade off for the conditions they enjoy, so I don't see how those conditions are justified.

Forget public services pension long term that is not sustainable, but what about having jobs with some sort of pension.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

mariaalice wrote: »

But everyone forgets it's their children who will grow up in to a world where a job with a decent pension is a fantasy but that will be alright because they are more interested in getting rid of the present public servants.

As I said I have nothing against privatisation so long as conditions of employment remain the same.

Then, ipso facto, you are against privatisation because the conditions cannot and will never be the same. They can't be. The pension entitlements alone will not be mirrored in the private sector any more.

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

Why should the public sector be entitled to a pension that the private sector can only dream of?

They seem unwilling to accept lower salaries as a trade off for the conditions they enjoy, so I don't see how those conditions are justified.

It's a trade off. They get stuck in a job with little prospects or scope for advancement and will likely be earning a mediocre salary throughout their career. Payoff is a good pension.

maudgonner

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a trade off. They get stuck in a job with little prospects or scope for advancement and will likely be earning a mediocre salary throughout their career. Payoff is a good pension.

Except the salaries are quite frequently not mediocre at all. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Nathanael Tangy Headboard

Nathanael Tangy Headboard wrote: »

Then, ipso facto, you are against privatisation because the conditions cannot and will never be the same. They can't be. The pension entitlements alone will not be mirrored in the private sector any more.

As I said forget the public services pension its unsustainable long term. I mean general condition of employment for example paid maternity leave.

death1234567

mariaalice wrote: »

Now i'v nothing against privatisation as long as the privatised services keeps the same conditions of employment including pensions is that unreasonable?

Yes.

Why? Because public sector pensions are not sustainable and are grossly over subsidised by the taxpayer.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

mariaalice wrote: »

As I said forget the public services pension its unsustainable long term. I mean general condition of employment for example paid maternity leave.

Even that won't be matched by the private sector. The notion that all conditions would be matched is naïve at best.

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

Except the salaries are quite frequently not mediocre at all. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

We are talking about privatisation of services formerly provided by the state, something I have nothing against in principle.

Nathanael Tangy Headboard

Nathanael Tangy Headboard wrote: »

Even that won't be matched by the private sector. The notion that all conditions would be matched is naïve at best.

But it should be that is my point.

maudgonner

mariaalice wrote: »

We are talking about privatisation of services formerly provided by the state, something I have nothing against in principle.

But you want private sector jobs to have the same conditions as the public sector. Which are already unsustainable and only maintained because of powerful public sector unions and successive governments with vested interests in not upsetting them.

I'm all for better conditions for private sector workers, but I don't think public sector standards are what we should be aiming at, they're unrealistic and unsustainable. (Paid maternity leave is far from uncommon in the private sector btw).

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

Except the salaries are quite frequently not mediocre at all. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Quite frequently yes. But it's the lack of opportunity in the public sector as opposed to the private sector that draws most people to the private sector. Stability and a good pension is what attracts anyone to the public sector, if that wasn't there there'd be nobody.

If it stings you can console yourself by the fact that you have the potential to earn much more than them.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

mariaalice wrote: »

But it should be that is my point.

I know, but the reality is it can't, and will never, be because of the need for private sector to perform and make profit

JupiterKid

With Varadkar in power, expect many more privatisations to be pushed through.

He'd probably privatise and sell air if he could!:rolleyes:

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

But you want private sector jobs to have the same conditions as the public sector. Which are already unsustainable and only maintained because of powerful public sector unions and successive governments with vested interests in not upsetting them.

I'm all for better conditions for private sector workers, but I don't think public sector standards are what we should be aiming at, they're unrealistic and unsustainable. (Paid maternity leave is far from uncommon in the private sector btw).

What standards of employment should we be aiming at then?

maudgonner

mariaalice wrote: »

What standards of employment should we be aiming at then?

Let's start with eliminating zero hour contracts and work from there.

Our social welfare system needs an immediate overhaul too, so that those who get stuck working e.g. a 15 hour week spread out over 5 days don't lose all their benefits for the week. That's absolutely scandalous.

I find it hard to have sympathy for public sector workers when there's people on the lowest wages putting up with this kind of crap.

Atoms for Peace

The current unions don't now the meaning of solidarity they are willing to sell out their own members as long the majority get their ridiculous pensions.

nice_guy80

private companies secretly love the public sector

they get contracts for provision of services across so many areas and its a goldmine

pangbang

What happens to a gambler when they overspend, lose too much?

They'll spend what money they have to cover debt. Next, they'll start to make a lot of promises for I.O.U's.

Once the promises start to run dry, they'll move onto their assets. Sell the car, the television and so on. Until they have nothing left, becoming destitute ultimately.

Does that sound familiar? It should, because it works on an individual level right up to country level. Just like Ireland.

Privatisation is the last step to destitution. It might take a while to play out, but it WILL play out.

Its not unique to our country, its everywhere in the developed world, that desperate last gasp of pretend normality is rife.

Nothing an individual can do about our country. Services are/will plummet, living expense will skyrocket, children will become unaffordable, immigration will skyrocket under the guise of "population decline", personal security and assets will dissolve, and lots more fun things.

Even if the government pulled off a miracle, what would stop the entire world scrambling into our utopia? Wouldn't be a utopia then. Its all inevitable.

So.......do not sell anything even close to an asset or that has value. It is entirely improbable that you will ever get it back, or that your children will ever get it back. Grab what you can, and hold tight. Because the lucky/careful people who "own" will be the only ones with anything left when all is said and done. And there IS a difference between sheer greed and preservation. Greed got us all here, preservation will get a few out.

Its all very hyperbolic sounding, but there is no ignoring the big picture here, unless you wilfully choose to ignore it.

So, you know, privatisation is bad.

Harry Palmr

The last couple of generations have emptied the pensions pot - the fekkers are living longer and interest rates are on the floor. It's a combination that means the pensions trough will never be as full again, not unless you want to put 50% of your disposable income into a fund.

red ears

I don't believe privatization yields the improvements in service and savings people think. Contrary to what the likes of the Indo will tell you most public servants do a decent days work. Privatizing will just mean any savings made on wages will become the profits for the new private owners.

twowheelsonly

maudgonner wrote: »

Why should the public sector be entitled to a pension that the private sector can only dream of?

They seem unwilling to accept lower salaries as a trade off for the conditions they enjoy, so I don't see how those conditions are justified.

That 'dream pension' is a myth in most cases.
Only those that were in before '95 get the original 'Golden Goose' pension. Anyone after that is on a different scheme and anyone after 2004/05 is different again - in fact it appears that most of them would be far better off investing in a private pension.

mariaalice wrote: »

We are talking about privatisation of services formerly provided by the state, something I have nothing against in principle.

Makes for a lovely soundbyte but what exactly would you privatise ?

Waste collection ? That's gone.....
Toll roads ? That's gone....
Lotto ? That's gone....
Oil ? That's gone.... (Never was a state 'service' obviously but should have been..)
Water ? Don't mention the war......

Seriously, what State Services would you privatise ? There's not actually a whole lot that you can privatise successfully without it costing each individual more money. If you go through each state department then they all have specific functions, some of which are quite simply 'not for profit' so no-one would want them. If companies could cherry pick the services they wanted then we'd be left with all of these ones and how would we fund them if the income was going into private hands ?

Undoubtedly some of our services need to be streamlined - starting at the very top - but privatising them is not going to be the answer.

Sometimes I wish we were a poor country again, when our bins were collected and all we complained about was road tax and the state of the roads and we didn't complain about each others wages.

Persephone kindness

We are a small country that doesn't have the population to support public services in the private sector. I am against it. Smaller populations do better with systems like Norway. We are stronger together. And we bailed out the banks as a nation. So if we can be there for them they can be there for us.

Persephone kindness

We don't have anything left to privatize.

Oh wait ...TD wages. ?? ANYONE??

Persephone kindness

TD Pensions ..they serve one term and get life pension. No job gets that. Work for four years and a pension package ..hmm?

Persephone kindness

Leo will get that too.

twowheelsonly

twowheelsonly wrote: »

That 'dream pension' is a myth in most cases.
Only those that were in before '95 get the original 'Golden Goose' pension. Anyone after that is on a different scheme and anyone after 2004/05 is different again - in fact it appears that most of them would be far better off investing in a private pension.



Makes for a lovely soundbyte but what exactly would you privatise ?

Waste collection ? That's gone.....
Toll roads ? That's gone....
Lotto ? That's gone....
Oil ? That's gone.... (Never was a state 'service' obviously but should have been..)
Water ? Don't mention the war......

Seriously, what State Services would you privatise ? There's not actually a whole lot that you can privatise successfully without it costing each individual more money. If you go through each state department then they all have specific functions, some of which are quite simply 'not for profit' so no-one would want them. If companies could cherry pick the services they wanted then we'd be left with all of these ones and how would we fund them if the income was going into private hands ?

Undoubtedly some of our services need to be streamlined - starting at the very top - but privatising them is not going to be the answer.

Sometimes I wish we were a poor country again, when our bins were collected and all we complained about was road tax and the state of the roads and we didn't complain about each others wages.

Its in the broad area of health and social services where its happning the most. Look at private for profit companys providing fostering serviced.

Beyondgone

Healthcare will be privatised within the next decade or two. There won't be any state owned or run hospitals IMO.

Also, remember the NPRF was used to fund the bailout.. so that could explain a bit of a gap in funding. The Politicians went: "Lets chuck the Pension money into the Banks, then we can, erm, erm, well we can keep our own pensions and bin everyone else's?"

red ears

They have already started using private care staff. They charge plenty for it but pay the staff a pittance. The rest goes to private profit. I'm not sure why the average man and woman on the street want this. Instead of a fair wage being paid to workers that will be spent in the economy. The money will end up in some millionare or billionaires account in Malta. I would say careful what you wish for regarding privitisation.

Mrs OBumble

mariaalice wrote: »

Its in the broad area of health and social services where its happning the most. Look at private for profit companys providing fostering serviced.

But the state has never provided the majority of those services in this country. Until the 1940s, the state had very little little involvement or interest in hospitals at all.

Rekigious order provided huge amounts of services.

Buford T. Justice XIX

red ears wrote: »

They have already started using private care staff. They charge plenty for it but pay the staff a pittance. The rest goes to private profit. I'm not sure why the average man and woman on the street want this. Instead of a fair wage being paid to workers that will be spent in the economy. The money will end up in some millionare or billionaires account in Malta. I would say careful what you wish for regarding privitisation.

An article I came across on rising the minimum wage can boost the economy, in Canada anyway.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/minimum-wage-analysis-1.4141311

But it would seem to support the view that raising lots of peoples wages a bit can have a huge impact on an economy, more so than just raising a CEOs wages for example. Whoda thunk it?:rolleyes:

wordofwarning

OP what exactly is the benefit of privatisation if you want public services to the private sector for them to pay the same pension + pay to then charge a margin? There is zero benefit to the taxpayer. In fact, they are worse off as they are now paying more

Public sector pensions are unsustainable. It is biaraze that as a civil servant you get a massive salary, a massive bonus payment at retirement and then a massive pension that you not paid for at all. It is being funded by general taxation ie a working person. At least in the US public sector pensions are often funded by member contributions ie not general taxation

Public sector pensions are a ponzi scheme aka a pyramid scheme. They are being funded by current member contributions and general taxation. Current members are getting excellent benefits, but when there is less members in a few years which will happen. Everyone is ****ed. Well not everyone, as the teachers, nurses, civil servants etc are getting their pensions funded by general taxation. The only people who are ****ed is the taxpayer, paying sustainable pensions

But OP we should ignore that and keep the gravy train going?

red ears

wordofwarning wrote: »

OP what exactly is the benefit of privatisation if you want public services to the private sector for them to pay the same pension + pay to then charge a margin? There is zero benefit to the taxpayer. In fact, they are worse off as they are now paying more

Public sector pensions are unsustainable. It is biaraze that as a civil servant you get a massive salary, a massive bonus payment at retirement and then a massive pension that you not paid for at all. It is being funded by general taxation ie a working person. At least in the US public sector pensions are often funded by member contributions ie not general taxation

Public sector pensions are a ponzi scheme aka a pyramid scheme. They are being funded by current member contributions and general taxation. Current members are getting excellent benefits, but when there is less members in a few years which will happen. Everyone is ****ed. Well not everyone, as the teachers, nurses, civil servants etc are getting their pensions funded by general taxation. The only people who are ****ed is the taxpayer, paying sustainable pensions

What do you think the average public service pension is? You'd nearly imagine everyone is retiring on 80k pensions. The average will retire on 11k more than the state pension someone will get even if they never worked a day in their life. Any those public servants will pay 9% of their wage towards that additional 11k for 40 years. Post 1995.

end of the road

maudgonner wrote: »

Why should the public sector be entitled to a pension that the private sector can only dream of?

They seem unwilling to accept lower salaries as a trade off for the conditions they enjoy, so I don't see how those conditions are justified.

because they for the most part do the most important jobs.

Beyondgone

red ears wrote: »

They have already started using private care staff. They charge plenty for it but pay the staff a pittance. The rest goes to private profit. I'm not sure why the average man and woman on the street want this. Instead of a fair wage being paid to workers that will be spent in the economy. The money will end up in some millionare or billionaires account in Malta. I would say careful what you wish for regarding privitisation.

Nip over to Malta btw. An oddly prosperous little Island with no real visible industry or exports.. chock full of Elederly overseas visitors.

Why perchance? Because Malta has quietly built a Privately owned network of Hospitals specialising in "Fly-in, get surgery, recuperate and fly out." If you can afford it. Plenty can and plenty do. Is D.OB just copying what he has seen in action in his new homeland? He has certainly actively added Hospitals to his portfolio. I can see future healthcare being on a "what you can afford to pay for or have insurance to cover" basis. Pay or die. The ultimate Business of all Businesses.

goose2005

maudgonner wrote: »

Why should the public sector be entitled to a pension that the private sector can only dream of?

They seem unwilling to accept lower salaries as a trade off for the conditions they enjoy, so I don't see how those conditions are justified.

How will making work conditions worse for public employees make conditions better for private employees? If my neighbour gets a pay cut I don't get a raise.

Phoebas

Persephone kindness wrote: »

TD Pensions ..they serve one term and get life pension. No job gets that. Work for four years and a pension package ..hmm?

That's gone a good while now.

awec

red ears wrote: »

They have already started using private care staff. They charge plenty for it but pay the staff a pittance. The rest goes to private profit. I'm not sure why the average man and woman on the street want this. Instead of a fair wage being paid to workers that will be spent in the economy. The money will end up in some millionare or billionaires account in Malta. I would say careful what you wish for regarding privitisation.

I think the average man and woman on the street wants an efficient public sector that delivers value for money and the current system has shown that it cannot do this.

elperello

At the rate we are going there will be no such thing as a "good job" in a few years time.

Phoebas

goose2005 wrote: »

How will making work conditions worse for public employees make conditions better for private employees? If my neighbour gets a pay cut I don't get a raise.

If you contribute towards your neighbour's pay you do.

awec

goose2005 wrote: »

How will making work conditions worse for public employees make conditions better for private employees? If my neighbour gets a pay cut I don't get a raise.

Are you paying your neighbours wages?

RustyNut

maudgonner wrote: »

Why should the public sector be entitled to a pension that the private sector can only dream of?

They seem unwilling to accept lower salaries as a trade off for the conditions they enjoy, so I don't see how those conditions are justified.

I think you are looking at it the wrong way.

Why should private sector workers not be entitled to a decent salary and guaranteed pension?

Try drag the bottom up not the top down.

uptherebels

RustyNut wrote: »

I think you are looking at it the wrong way.

Why should private sector workers not be entitled to a decent salary and guaranteed pension?

Try drag the bottom up not the top down.

Guaranteed by who?
private business doesn't follow the magic money tree philosophy

uck51js9zml2yt

maudgonner wrote: »

Why should the public sector be entitled to a pension that the private sector can only dream of?

They seem unwilling to accept lower salaries as a trade off for the conditions they enjoy, so I don't see how those conditions are justified.

I'll be lucky to get the equivalent of a state pension....please tell me how I can get one of these guilt edge ones?

Ps I joined the civil service this year and pay a contribution to a pension I will never see.

red ears

red ears wrote: »

What do you think the average public service pension is? You'd nearly imagine everyone is retiring on 80k pensions. The average will retire on 11k more than the state pension someone will get even if they never worked a day in their life. Any those public servants will pay 9% of their wage towards that additional 11k for 40 years. Post 1995.

Why did you not mention the lump sum payment on retirement? That insignificant huh?

The workers in Poland or India are not going to stand in solidarity with their Irish brethren once jobs are moved from Ireland to overseas. That's the threat hanging over the private sector all the time. Not quite as simple just saying pay private sector more.

red ears

red ears wrote: »

They have already started using private care staff. They charge plenty for it but pay the staff a pittance. The rest goes to private profit. I'm not sure why the average man and woman on the street want this. Instead of a fair wage being paid to workers that will be spent in the economy. The money will end up in some millionare or billionaires account in Malta. I would say careful what you wish for regarding privitisation.

I have heard of all the horror stories of what people have to endure in the private hospitals like the Beacon or Mater Private.

No wait, it's the HSE hospitals where people are treated like cattle.

Persephone kindness

Leo won't do anything drastic. He isn't a leftie but he is hardly margaret thatcher.

end of the road

salonfire wrote: »

I have heard of all the horror stories of what people have to endure in the private hospitals like the Beacon or Mater Private.

No wait, it's the HSE hospitals where people are treated like cattle.

that doesn't prove privatization of health care would be a good thing or would work. it just proves we need good management and oversight to insure our public services work. privatization of public services never works for the better.