Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Privatisation by stealth

13»

Comments

  • #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Forget about the public services pension part of the argument IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE LONG TERM in its current form.

    Private hospitals are a good example, they will pay nurses and doctors broadly in line with the public services in Ireland because its a comparative market for their skills, so its not such an issue at that skill level.

    When a contract goes out to tender from the state should it be mandatory for any for profit or not for profit company to adhere to certain standards of employment not just the legal min they can get away with.


  • #63
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #64
    maudgonner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    mariaalice wrote: »
    When a contract goes out to tender from the state should it be mandatory for any for profit or not for profit company to adhere to certain standards of employment not just the legal min they can get away with.

    Why are those workers seemingly entitled to better conditions to everyone else though?

    Why should other workers have to put up with standards that are unacceptable to (former) public servants? What makes them so special?


  • #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A better way of punting it.

    The way I see it is that it is a choice the service provider could choose/ be mandated to have certain conditions of employment for all employees and other choices than the lowest labour cost they can operate at.

    Ultimately it does not matter who the employer is.


  • #66
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    No, it's in the government's interests to have a large PS. It's pretty simple, you have a ready made bloc of workers/voters that the gov of the day have control over. Increase the pay, numbers, benefits and you've got a great base for an election. Look at how FF very successfully won them over in the recent past. Look at the nonsense all the parties were coming out with in the lead up to the last election.

    The fantastically generous pension packets, and other benefits, make no sense outside of this mindset.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    maudgonner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I'd agree with everything except this. The public sector does not necessarily have to be small. In an ideal world more of our essential services would be provided by the public sector. It's ridiculous how many services are provided by charities and private organisations. I'd be all for a larger public sector if it was more efficient, accountable and had none of the archaic attitudes that are so prevalent currently. I don't hold out much hope for that, sadly.


  • #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    maudgonner wrote: »
    Why are those workers seemingly entitled to better conditions to everyone else though?

    Why should other workers have to put up with standards that are unacceptable to (former) public servants? What makes them so special?

    Noting make them special but its a choice for society.


  • #69
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #70
    maudgonner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I did say it would have to be an ideal world :)

    In fairness, the Children's hospital will be built by a private contractor, so you can't really blame the spiralling costs on the public sector. And for every public sector screw up you could probably point to an equivalent private/charity sector example - Console, Rehab, Setanta etc etc.

    But there are some parts of the public sector that seem much more efficient than others. I've always been impressed with Revenue (hard as it is to part with my money to them). An online tax returns system that works well, staff that have always been good to deal with. I have no idea how cost efficient it is, but in terms of service I think they deliver well.


  • #71
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    it proves private health care as well as the state health care works. not that privatized health care works. i also have experience of private health care and agree it is good however i also have witnessed a plenty what happens when you put public services in private hands and it does not work.

    Such as?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    red ears
    Closed Accounts Posts: 945 ✭✭✭red ears


    c_man wrote: »
    No, it's in the government's interests to have a large PS. It's pretty simple, you have a ready made bloc of workers/voters that the gov of the day have control over. Increase the pay, numbers, benefits and you've got a great base for an election. Look at how FF very successfully won them over in the recent past. Look at the nonsense all the parties were coming out with in the lead up to the last election.

    The fantastically generous pension packets, and other benefits, make no sense outside of this mindset.

    I don't agree with that. I'm a public servant and I've never voted for a party because they gave me a payrise.


  • #73
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,334 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    salonfire wrote: »
    And you'll see there are plenty of people who entered the competitions. Can't be that bad when so many people are applying.

    Job security and flexible working hours are attractive. The salary is not.

    Any talk of 'massive' salaries is a bunch of ignorant nonsense.

    Posters mouthing off about 'gold plated pensions' ignore that pre-95 public servants don't get the state old age pension, post-95 do but have it deducted from their occupational pension.

    c_man wrote: »
    No, it's in the government's interests to have a large PS. It's pretty simple, you have a ready made bloc of workers/voters that the gov of the day have control over.

    You must be having a laugh. Public servants have been f**ked over good and hard by the last two governments, FF FG and Labour among them so the idea of a loyal voting block is ridiculous

    No employer in the private sector can change the law to disadvantage their employees in a way which would otherwise be illegal, but that's what the government did to its own employees. It's not all sunshine and lollipops in the public sector.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #74
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    You must be having a laugh. Public servants have been f**ked over good and hard by the last two governments, FF FG and Labour among them so the idea of a loyal voting block is ridiculous

    The wage, benefit and number increases between 1997 and 2008 were extraordinary in the PS.

    Yes, when the bubble popped some of it was taken away. And it only took a few years for the demands for restoration to come up again.

    Wait, were are the guys telling me that the PS pensions aren't all that great? Where did they fall away to? :)


  • #75
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Posters mouthing off about 'gold plated pensions' ignore that pre-95 public servants don't get the state old age pension, post-95 do but have it deducted from their occupational pension.

    Must suck alright. Though imagine if ye had to pay the market prices for that pension? :eek:


  • #76
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

    No employer in the private sector can change the law to disadvantage their employees in a way which would otherwise be illegal, but that's what the government did to its own employees. It's not all sunshine and lollipops in the public sector.

    You're right

    The law does not even need changing, it is perfectly legal for hundreds of thousands of employees to be dumped onto the dole lines or else have their pay cut. This is what happens to private sector employees.

    You literally cannot see how good it is for the average public sector workers versus the average private sector worker. Even in this thread, it is pointed out how much better the pension is and still you cannot see it.

    Granted, those in the upper most levels of the public service are probably at a dis-advantage compared to what they could earn in a business.


  • #78
    maudgonner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    What punishments were handed out anyone involved in the banking crisis though, whether public or private sector? I don't think the public sector is unique in failing to have consequences for those in senior positions. It seems quite common in large organisations. Golden parachutes the worst case scenario, and frequently no action at all. Employees in lower ranks do have much more protection in the public sector, sure.
    Sure, some parts of the public sector are more efficient than others, but daily frustrations such as long delays in everything from getting a driving test appointment to a hospital appointment to a passport would suggest that this is simply not true across the board.

    And anyone who has had to deal with 'customer service' from the likes of telecoms providers (hello Vodafone) or insurance companies will tell you how frustrating that can be - just as bad as the public service.

    I certainly don't intend to defend the public service as it is today, the faults and inefficiencies in it frustrate me as much as anyone else and that's partly down to an outdated attitude by those involved at all levels. But I don't agree that the public services could never be properly provided by a public sector, that private would be preferable in all circumstances. As a philosophy, I think that's way too simplistic. It's a bit too US Republican for my taste.


  • #79
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,334 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    c_man wrote: »
    The wage, benefit and number increases between 1997 and 2008 were extraordinary in the PS.

    Wage increases in the 90s were 1-1.5% a year when inflation was multiples of that.

    So-called 'benchmarking' was really a much delayed cost of living increase, which has since been clawed back and then some.

    Most people in the private sector had no wage cuts at all, and fair play to them, but it's a bit much for those insulated from the crash to bitch about those bearing the brunt

    c_man wrote: »
    Must suck alright. Though imagine if ye had to pay the market prices for that pension? :eek:

    Do social welfare pensioners pay market prices for their pensions? Many of them paid nothing at all. Many public sector pensioners will get little on top of the social welfare pension.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #80
    red ears
    Closed Accounts Posts: 945 ✭✭✭red ears


    maudgonner wrote: »
    But there are some parts of the public sector that seem much more efficient than others. I've always been impressed with Revenue (hard as it is to part with my money to them). An online tax returns system that works well, staff that have always been good to deal with. I have no idea how cost efficient it is, but in terms of service I think they deliver well.

    That's a good point. The choice shouldn't necessarily be about a service being provided by the public or private sector. It should be about a service being provided efficiently or not. There are many examples efficiency in the public service and there are many examples where there is a serious lack of efficiency. That is a management issue.


  • #81
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    salonfire wrote: »

    You literally cannot see how good it is for the average public sector workers versus the average private sector worker. Even in this thread, it is pointed out how much better the pension is and still you cannot see it.

    It's not pointed out anywhere. It's stated (quite a few times) about how much better the pension is but there's no comparative figures anywhere. Too many people are just going with the populist Eddie Hobbs soundbite of 'Gilt Edged State Pensions'.

    The reality for most serving PS staff (post '95, and in particular post '05) is only now beginning to surface and it's not all that it's cracked up to be. It's easy to quote figures for those at the top of the tree, the politicians and high fliers etc., but once you drop under that level the real story isn't great. As I say, the real story is only beginning to surface and I hope to attend a meeting during the week to clarify some details but it looks like once I retire I'm in the sh**e !!

    Briefly : I'll retire at 60 - mandatory - and get half my pension until 67/68. Meanwhile I can also apply for Jobseekers (at 60 !!!) to make up some of the shortfall. When that runs out we can apply for FIS until the State Pension brings us back up 7 or 8 years later. That's the info we have so far but hopefully get it clarified this week sometime.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/11/virgin-care-700m-contract-200-nhs-social-care-services-bath-somerset?CMP=share_btn_fb


  • #83
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I'm against privatisation, I feel like selling all this stuff off is taking the power away from the people and giving it to private groups and individuals. We go from having an ability to provide electricity to our people to having a lump of money that will be spent almost instantly and then it's gone. Decades of work, acres of infrastructure disappears from the public and is replaced temporarily by an entry in a database and even that will eventually get handed over to someone.

    I'm not against using the private sector, but not handing everything over to them and depending on them to do the right thing. I kind of feel privatising everything is undoing all the work done to move power from the elites to the rest of the population.


    The state needs to be reeducated on how to be a service provider though. They're terrible at it. Half the people working in the public sector could probably be let go.


  • #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I'm against privatisation, I feel like selling all this stuff off is taking the power away from the people and giving it to private groups and individuals. We go from having an ability to provide electricity to our people to having a lump of money that will be spent almost instantly and then it's gone. Decades of work, acres of infrastructure disappears from the public and is replaced temporarily by an entry in a database and even that will eventually get handed over to someone.

    I'm not against using the private sector, but not handing everything over to them and depending on them to do the right thing. I kind of feel privatising everything is undoing all the work done to move power from the elites to the rest of the population.


    The state needs to be reeducated on how to be a service provider though. They're terrible at it. Half the people working in the public sector could probably be let go.


    You depend on the private sector for food, fuel, clothing, etc. How's that working for you? Ever go hungry due to the lowest paid workers in the country going on strike?


  • #85
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    salonfire wrote: »
    You depend on the private sector for food, fuel, clothing, etc. How's that working for you? Ever go hungry due to the lowest paid workers in the country going on strike?
    The state, us, is being striped of it's power and resources. The problem is the state isn't adapting to the new world, the people we employee to serve us are fighting progress.

    The private economy only works if you've got money, without money you don't get any say at all. The current trend is money moving back into the hands of the rich. If we keep eroding the power of the state we'll end up with no ability to control large private groups and they'll be able to impose whatever prices they want on us, and if you don't like it you can suffer and die.


  • #86
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I'm against privatisation, I feel like selling all this stuff off is taking the power away from the people and giving it to private groups and individuals. We go from having an ability to provide electricity to our people to having a lump of money that will be spent almost instantly and then it's gone. Decades of work, acres of infrastructure disappears from the public and is replaced temporarily by an entry in a database and even that will eventually get handed over to someone.

    I'm not against using the private sector, but not handing everything over to them and depending on them to do the right thing. I kind of feel privatising everything is undoing all the work done to move power from the elites to the rest of the population.


    The state needs to be reeducated on how to be a service provider though. They're terrible at it. Half the people working in the public sector could probably be let go.

    And because this won't happen, it adds more fuel to the privatization side.


Advertisement