Civil Servants Demanding Shorter Working Week

Creative83

Currently they are expected to work 37.5 hours per week. Jeez that seems very reasonable to me considering most private sector full time workers are on the standard 40 hour work.

They are now demanding to be reverted to 34.5 hours per week.

I have seen some shysters in my time but hard to top this bunch....

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/civil-servants-demand-shorter-working-week-36821698.html

Shurimgreat

Meh.
Contractors do a lot of the work in the civil service anyways.
So they could reduce civil servants working hours to 0 and it wouldn't make much difference to their productivity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JohnnyFlash

The Union dude was given a right grilling by Pat Kenny this morning. Very little public support for this. Time to reject the demands of these self-entitled chancers.

Kuva

Civil servants entitled to paid time off for marital breakdown

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0411/953794-civil-servants-marital-leave/

Coming on the back of this aswell.

DPolo

On a completely unrelated note ....... where do you apply for these jobs ? Career change coming to mind here

Creative83

Kuva wrote: »

Civil servants entitled to paid time off for marital breakdown

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0411/953794-civil-servants-marital-leave/

Coming on the back of this aswell.

Yep, you couldn't make it up really

na1

Kuva wrote: »

Civil servants entitled to paid time off for marital breakdown

Should we legalize civil servant marriages like gay marriages?

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

From a Civil Servant's point of view, this is embarrassing. The actual workers on the ground aren't demanding a shorter working week. Out of 8 of us here in my office, nobody supports trying to claw those extra hours back. We're happy enough. We've had a bit of pay restoration, which is what most people were more worried about. Just leave well enough alone ffs.

This is just a case of the unions trying to make themselves look busy. Again, I have to say, I'm just embarrassed. Lads like him are making us all look like money grabbing, self-entitled layabouts.

Feck it, I'll say it once more, this is embarrassing.

spurious

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

From a Civil Servant's point of view, this is embarrassing. The actual workers on the ground aren't demanding a shorter working week. Out of 8 of us here in my office, nobody supports trying to claw those extra hours back. We're happy enough. We've had a bit of pay restoration, which is what most people were more worried about. Just leave well enough alone ffs.

This is just a case of the unions trying to make themselves look busy. Again, I have to say, I'm just embarrassed. Lads like him are making us all look like money grabbing, self-entitled layabouts.

Feck it, I'll say it once more, this is embarrassing.

Don't worry, it won't stop the bashers.

ratracer

I’m very surprised this took until noon to get its own thread....

Birneybau

This talk of hours 'cut'. If by 'cut' it means returning to how they were before the crash, well, why aren't they referred to as exactly that. They're not fcuking cut.

And the option is there for people to revert to 6:57 a day, losing 2 hours pay a week.

So, the only thing being 'cut' is pay. To the tune of almost 10 hours worth every 4 weeks.

Birneybau

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It has taken me 11 years to reach the average industrial wage. But sure, believe the Indo.

And I take a 30 minute lunch break (the minimum). Any longer and I have to stay later. It's flexi time.

Creative83

Birneybau wrote: »

It has taken me 11 years to reach the average industrial wage. But sure, believe the Indo.

And I take a 30 minute lunch break (the minimum). Any longer and I have to stay later. It's flexi time.

What is the average industrial wage in your view... lots of different figures flying around

Birneybau

Creative83 wrote: »

What is the average industrial wage in your view... lots of different figures flying around

Well, it was €35k a few years ago. I'm sure it's more now.

All I'm saying is that Civil Servants wages are transparent, they should be available through a web search. This ridiculous notion that we're all on the pig's back.

The vast bulk of staff would be H.E.O. and below (page 7):

http://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/per/2017/22.pdf

mikemac2

Kuva wrote: »

Civil servants entitled to paid time off for marital breakdown

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0411/953794-civil-servants-marital-leave/

Coming on the back of this aswell.

It’s 1.5 days and only a tiny fraction of staff will ever claim it.

If an employee is stressed over court appearances and custody battles the 1.5 days will help them

Little goodwill here

PhoenixParker

mikemac2 wrote: »

It’s 1.5 days and only a tiny fraction of staff will ever claim it.

If an employee is stressed over court appearances and custody battles the 1.5 days will help them

Little goodwill here

Anyone in that situation can go to the doctor and get a sick note for stress for far longer. In any normal company, public or private only the most assholish boss would quibble.
Labeling it leave for marital breakdown is a meaningless nicety.
It’s not something anyone on either side to get worked up over.

Riskymove

where to start?

Indo says "Civil servants will today demand a shorter working week having largely won a battle to get their pay cuts reversed."

reality: "A Union will today debate a motion calling on their Executive to negotiate the ending of extra unpaid hours imposed on some civil servants"


Indo says: "They work from 9am to 5.45pm Monday to Thursday and from 9am to 5.15pm on Friday, with a lunch break of one hour and 15 minutes."

Reality: "the affected civil servants are on flexitime so work a variety of work patterns from 0730 in the morning and 1900 in the evening."


Indo says: "Almost 8pc (of surveyed private sector) worked 43 hours or more."

Reality: "guess what, plenty of public servants work over 43 hours a week too (and unpaid at that)"

PhoenixParker

Riskymove wrote: »

where to start?

Indo says "Civil servants will today demand a shorter working week having largely won a battle to get their pay cuts reversed."

reality: "A Union will today debate a motion calling on their Executive to negotiate the ending of extra unpaid hours imposed on some civil servants"


Indo says: "They work from 9am to 5.45pm Monday to Thursday and from 9am to 5.15pm on Friday, with a lunch break of one hour and 15 minutes."

Reality: "the affected civil servants are on flexitime so work a variety of work patterns from 0730 in the morning and 1900 in the evening."


Indo says: "Almost 8pc (of surveyed private sector) worked 43 hours or more."

Reality: "guess what, plenty of public servants work over 43 hours a week too (and unpaid at that)"

Some clarity on this.

Most civil servants are at CO, EO and HEO grades, admin, junior and middle managers basically.
They almost all work flextime, which is to work an average of 7 24 a day, and having to be in for morning and afternoon core hours. They must take a minimum half hour break for lunch which isn’t included in the 724.

Except for the 6 minute difference between 724 and 730 a day that’s a very standard set up for private businesses with office based work.

Higher grades don’t usually get flexi and are forced to include a 1hr 15 min lunch break in their working day resulting in them having to be in the office 9 to 545/530 as above. I suspect most people would prefer to have a shorter mandatory lunch break and to get home earlier.

na1

PhoenixParker wrote: »

. I suspect most people would prefer to have a shorter mandatory lunch break and to get home earlier.

Most private sector workers would prefer to take the public sector job, with [font=Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]€916 [/font]average weekly payslip,
secure job and pension entitlements.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/weekly-public-private-sector-pay-difference-widens-to-247-1.3097576

Shurimgreat

I will go further. I believe the entire Civil Service could be run more cheaply and efficiently by Contracted companies - instead of having thousands of civil servants today who do little yet draw down huge pensions, etc.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I take about the 1hr 20 to 1hr 30mins most days. 20 mins or to walk to/from town which ever place I choose to get a sandwich (maybe longer if I need to go into any shops along the way). Back to the office and get tea and sit eating, drinking tea and chatting then get a coffee and some more chatting which all adds up to an hour or so. People generally take as long or as short a lunch as they want in our place.

Actual hours worked have little to do with productivity, often having less working hours gets more done as you are forced to actually be fully concentrated on the work whereas if you are not under pressure you will naturally stretch out the work with extra breaks and talking to people, browsing the internet etc.

That being said I think its a move to a 4 day week is what people should be looking for rather than reducing hours, even if you had to work the full 37.5 hrs in 4 days but have a 3 day weekend.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Civil Servants are not asking for a 'shorter working day'. They are asking for their normal working hours, which were extended during the recession along with pay cuts, and holiday and sick leave reductions, to be restored to them, now that the recession is over and we are no longer in an 'emergency' situation.

Honestly, the way some private sector workers go on. You'd swear they were all models of efficiency, dedication and hard work, and all public service employees are lazy, work shy, inefficient chancers.

The truth, of course, is that you will find all sorts of types in every type of employment.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I will go further. I believe the entire Civil Service could be run more cheaply and efficiently by Contracted companies - instead of having thousands of civil servants today who do little yet draw down huge pensions, etc.

Apt username there.

Ursus Horribilis

I'm a former public servant and I never took an hour for lunch. Nobody in the office ever did. We worked flexi hours and we clocked in and out for lunch. So if anyone took a long lunch break it meant they'd have to make up for it by staying longer or coming in earlier. And despite those tired old stereotypes, where I worked people weren't sitting on their arses all day playing Solitaire. There were deadlines set and targets to be met.

I've a friend who's a union rep and he's not happy about that motion. It's not a good look, to put it mildly. He also reckons there's a snowball's hope in hell of the shorter hours coming back. A 9-5 is the industry norm.

awec

Christina Loud Pinball wrote: »

Civil Servants are not asking for a 'shorter working day'. They are asking for their normal working hours, which were extended during the recession along with pay cuts, and holiday and sick leave reductions, to be restored to them, now that the recession is over and we are no longer in an 'emergency' situation.

Honestly, the way some private sector workers go on. You'd swear they were all models of efficiency, dedication and hard work, and all public service employees are lazy, work shy, inefficient chancers.

The truth, of course, is that you will find all sorts of types in every type of employment.

Asking for a shorter working week when the public sector is already an under-worked, overpaid bloated heap of ****e is not really doing much to dispel this point of view.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

awec wrote: »

Asking for a shorter working week when the public sector is already an under-worked, overpaid bloated heap of ****e is not really doing much to dispel this point of view.

As I already said, that's the Union just taking a ball up off the ground and running with it. Most Civil Servants have enough cop on to know that this looks bad.

Danny Donut

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

From a Civil Servant's point of view, this is embarrassing. The actual workers on the ground aren't demanding a shorter working week. Out of 8 of us here in my office, nobody supports trying to claw those extra hours back. We're happy enough. We've had a bit of pay restoration, which is what most people were more worried about. Just leave well enough alone ffs.

This is just a case of the unions trying to make themselves look busy. Again, I have to say, I'm just embarrassed. Lads like him are making us all look like money grabbing, self-entitled layabouts.

Feck it, I'll say it once more, this is embarrassing.

Worked in the civil service in the uk for a couple of years. It was mind dumbing dull and pretty p-poor money.

Most people then were concerned about money. Union conferences would instruct the big knobs to demand more money and it would come back some derisory amount but with an increase in some obscure special leave category - which was as good as, so we were told.

Birneybau

na1 wrote: »

Most private sector workers would prefer to take the public sector job, with [font=Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]€916 [/font]average weekly payslip,
secure job and pension entitlements.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/weekly-public-private-sector-pay-difference-widens-to-247-1.3097576

Again, page 7:

http://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/per/2017/22.pdf

Also, there's nothing fcuking stopping people going for jobs in the Public Service, has been a massive recruitment drive the last few months. But hey, grade dependent, who wants to start at €22k?

PhoenixParker

na1 wrote: »

Most private sector workers would prefer to take the public sector job, with [font=Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif]€916 [/font]average weekly payslip,
secure job and pension entitlements.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/weekly-public-private-sector-pay-difference-widens-to-247-1.3097576

That’s public sector not civil service.
Big and important difference.
Public sector includes all hospital staff, teachers, Gards etc. as well as civil service.

The public sector average is not reflective of the civil service average.

c6ysaphjvqw41k

This post has been deleted.

Ursus Horribilis

The pension levy takes a hefty lump out of the net pay too. That's never reflected in the pay scales.

Chips Lovell

Could people stop bringing facts into the discussion? We're trying to get a pitchfork wielding mob going here and you're ruining it.

Squatter

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

As I already said, that's the Union just taking a ball up off the ground and running with it. Most Civil Servants have enough cop on to know that this looks bad.

A "Union" is made up of its members. Not its paid officials, who are basically mere employees, tasked with carrying out the members' requirements as decided at the Union's Annual Conference or similar before possibly being refined by the Union's elected executive.

What happened here is that some members of the union tabled a motion at their Branch AGM to go forward to the Annual Conference, and the motion was carried. This is unsurprising, given that many Branch AGMs are poorly attended, mainly by activists and members with a bee in their bonnet about something! It's almost inevitable that motions regarding increases in pay or leave or reduction in working hours will go through both Branch AGMs and Annual Conferences, as very few delegates will vote against them.

At the end of the day, it means very little except that the Union's paid officials will have to include the claim in its next meeting with the "Official Side" to discuss pay and conditions. The claim will either be rejected or accepted and, ultimately, will probably be incorporated in some sort of fudge whenever the next pay award is agreed.

But it gives the media and critics of civil and public servants another opportunity to vent and rail against the greed and lack or realism of this so-called "privileged elite" - which is great fun altogether! And after the storm has died down, life goes on much as before.

na1

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

I'm a former public servant and I never took an hour for lunch. Nobody in the office ever did. We worked flexi hours and we clocked in and out for lunch. So if anyone took a long lunch break it meant they'd have to make up for it by staying longer or coming in earlier. And despite those tired old stereotypes, where I worked people weren't sitting on their arses all day playing Solitaire. There were deadlines set and targets to be met.

If the company (Irish State) is not doing well financially could they legally make a civil servant redundant?
(I'm serious, not joking)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

And it is for reasons like that that I am no longer a Union member.

na1

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

The pension levy takes a hefty lump out of the net pay too. That's never reflected in the pay scales.

And they get the standard rate contributory pension when retired?

na1

PhoenixParker wrote: »

That’s public sector not civil service.
Big and important difference.
Public sector includes all hospital staff, teachers, Gards etc. as well as civil service.

The public sector average is not reflective of the civil service average.

Oh, ok. So nurses teachers and gards are high pay workers who improve the public service statistics?

PhoenixParker

na1 wrote: »

If the company (Irish State) is not doing well financially could they legally make a civil servant redundant?
(I'm serious, not joking)

No, but they can redeploy people and move them around roles at the drop of a hat in a way that would be completely unacceptable in the private sector and even in other parts of the public sector.

They’re not like for like, it’s difficult to compare without looking at a big picture

PhoenixParker

na1 wrote: »

Oh, ok. So nurses teachers and gards are high pay workers who improve the public service statistics?

Compared to the civil service yes.
You only have to look at the salary scales to see.

Squatter

na1 wrote: »

And they get the standard rate contributory pension when retired?

The civil servants who pay the full (Class A) stamp get it as part of their retirement pension. The pension levy is a contribution towards the remainder of their pension.

Rasputin87

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

From a Civil Servant's point of view, this is embarrassing. The actual workers on the ground aren't demanding a shorter working week. Out of 8 of us here in my office, nobody supports trying to claw those extra hours back. We're happy enough. We've had a bit of pay restoration, which is what most people were more worried about. Just leave well enough alone ffs.

This is just a case of the unions trying to make themselves look busy. Again, I have to say, I'm just embarrassed. Lads like him are making us all look like money grabbing, self-entitled layabouts.

Feck it, I'll say it once more, this is embarrassing.

I appreciate your honesty and groundedness, it certainly provides a counter-balance to the usual opinion on civil service workers on here.

Unfortunately, your story doesn't fit in with the pre-conceived opinion I (and many others) have of civil service workers which is - admittedly - built upon a foundation of hearsay and TheJournal comment sections.

With that in mind, I'm going to completely disregard what you have posted and continue to tar you and your seven colleagues with the same brush I have tarred your kind with for years.

Thanks for your input, you lazy overpaid shíte.

:pac:

Squatter

na1 wrote: »

Oh, ok. So nurses teachers and gards are high pay workers who improve the public service statistics?

Not necessarily. Although some of the highest overtime earners in those jobs - plus prison officers - earn a pretty good annual wedge.

It's the likes of air corps pilots, engineers, architects, hospital consultants, doctors, statisticians, teachers, university lecturers, meteorologists, lawyers, vets, economists, accountants etc. etc. that bring up the overall average PS salary.

na1

Squatter wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

And they get the standard rate contributory pension when retired?

The civil servants who pay the full (Class A) stamp get it as part of their retirement pension.    The pension levy is a contribution towards the remainder of their pension.

So they pay more to get higher pensions, right?
Also  their public service pensions are proportional to their contributions.
While the private sectors workers who pay PRSI as a percentage of their income are all getting the same pension, depending on the years worked.
So the company CEO will get the same contributory pension as the person on the minimal wage

na1

PhoenixParker wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

If the company (Irish State) is not doing well financially could they legally make a civil servant redundant?
(I'm serious, not joking)

No, but they can redeploy people and move them around roles at the drop of a hat in a way that would be completely unacceptable

Could you give an example please?

BazzyB

As a Civil Servant of 3 years and having worked before that in a large tech multinational and a big 4 firm I would like to agree with statement that the union has really placed a negative public perception on Civil Servants through this announcement.

The people I work with day to day here work just as hard as those who I worked with in any of my other roles. They are relatively happy with their conditions and the pay restoration meant far more to them than regaining the lost hours. My team have stayed late on more than one occasion without my asking to help out near a deadline. The salaries below senior management aren't all they are cracked up to be and are freely available in the public domain along with any pension deductions which need to be taken into account. The cultural norm for all staff below senior management would be a half hour lunch and to head home earlier in the evenings, much the same as it was in the tech multinational.

Money wise I used to make much more in the private sector where hard work is recognized through bonuses etc. the public sector does not have the liberty to or administrative capability to pay its staff in this manner. However I moved because I wanted a change of role and to make a contribution to the functioning of the country. It really is comparing apples to oranges and at times I wish I never left the private sector, I may go back in future. I feel it is nosense to tar everyone with the same brush there are lazy people everywhere it isn't a public sector phenomenon.

Keyzer

Creative83 wrote: »

Currently they are expected to "work" 37.5 hours per week.

Fixed that for you...

c68zapdsm5i1ru

awec wrote: »

Asking for a shorter working week when the public sector is already an under-worked, overpaid bloated heap of ****e is not really doing much to dispel this point of view.

Really? Have you anything to back this up, apart from articles from the Sunday Indpendent and stuff you've heard from your neighbour's aunty who once knew a lazy civil servant?

Billgirlylegs

na1 wrote: »

And they get the standard rate contributory pension when retired?

How much do you think "they" get?

Nermal

Christina Loud Pinball wrote: »

They are asking for their normal working hours, which were extended during the recession along with pay cuts, and holiday and sick leave reductions, to be restored to them, now that the recession is over and we are no longer in an 'emergency' situation.

Who told you that? We still spend more than we earn.

PhoenixParker

na1 wrote: »

Could you give an example please?

There’s not really much to explain.
To the civil service (especially within a department) a CO is a CO is a CO.

If someone leaves a critical role, or a few people leave together from the same area and they need someone in that spot, they’ll yoink someone at the appropriate level from what they’re doing and get them to do it permanently.

Generally they’ll ask around for nominations/volunteers but if there are none forthcoming they’ll just tell someone, that’s it, from Monday you’re doing that job. It can be a huge change from say filing to face to face with the public all day. It may even involve an office move, especially in Dublin.