nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Privatisation by stealth

[Deleted User]

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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!

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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).

[Deleted User]

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:

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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?"