FG's plans for the public service

flash1080 · 22-02-2011 11:50PM #1

FG expect 18000 people will voluntarily give up their jobs in the next three years! And if they do, they'll get a redundancy payoff and then sign on the dole, costing the taxpayer a fortune.

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 23-02-2011 12:01AM

Do you think that cuts do not need to be made?

squod · 23-02-2011 12:02AM

Who's in charge of the public sector again?

galwayrush · 23-02-2011 12:03AM

Getting rid of the unneeded ones will save the country a fortune in the long run.

Krusader · 23-02-2011 12:04AM

flash1080 wrote: »

FG expect 18000 people will voluntarily give up their jobs in the next three years! And if they do, they'll get a redundancy payoff and then sign on the dole, costing the taxpayer a fortune.

Obviously not as much as it would cost if they were still working, otherwise it wouldn't be a viable policy

easyeason3 · 23-02-2011 12:05AM

Cuts need to be made & the public service is overstaffed.
What's the problem?

billymitchell · 23-02-2011 12:10AM

flash1080 wrote: »

FG expect 18000 people will voluntarily give up their jobs in the next three years! And if they do, they'll get a redundancy payoff and then sign on the dole, costing the taxpayer a fortune.

who pays their wages now? Thats right, we do. I'd rather pay them 12,000 a year on the dole than pay them 60,000 a year for doing funk all in an office of the public/civil service

pragmatic1 · 23-02-2011 12:15AM

Yeah because they're not costing the taxpayer a fortune as it is. Jesus wise up a bit.

bc dub · 23-02-2011 12:16AM

galwayrush wrote: »

Getting rid of the unneeded ones will save the country a fortune in the long run.

we don't have a long run

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 23-02-2011 12:17AM

bc dub wrote: »

we don't have a long run

what are you trying to say, pay people high wages in an unneccesary job until 2012 because the world will end then??

AnonoBoy · 23-02-2011 12:18AM

bc dub wrote: »

we don't have a long run

We do have a long run left in us, unfortunately it's off a short pier.

RichieC · 23-02-2011 12:19AM

Destroying 18K people's way of life is just what we need. Sure there's no knock on effect about that.

Bullseye1 · 23-02-2011 12:19AM

How many people are expected to retire in the next three years. I would imagine this is how they will get the numbers required. They won't be replaced.

galwayrush · 23-02-2011 12:20AM

bc dub wrote: »

we don't have a long run

Ember Happy Seashore wrote: »

what are you trying to say, pay people high wages in an unneccesary job until 2012 because the world will end then??

I thought he was joking.:D

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 23-02-2011 12:20AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

How many people are expected to retire in the next three years. I would imagine this is how they will get a large number of the number reductions. They won't be replaced.

yep, that's 12,000

easyeason3 · 23-02-2011 12:21AM

OP just picture the public service as a plaster for a minute. You have two options:

A) If you slowly pull the plaster off your arm it will be painful & will take longer than it should.

OR

Now if you rip the plaster off in one fast motion it will hurt a bit but it will be nowhere near as painful but you will get the same result as option A with less discomfort.

I really can't dumb it down anymore.

galwayrush · 23-02-2011 12:23AM

RichieC wrote: »

Destroying 18K people's way of life is just what we need. Sure there's no knock on effect about that.

Perhaps we should have a whip aound to find some money to pay them and therefore not destroy their highly paid at tax payers expense way of life.:rolleyes: despite the fact that they are not needed and in the real world they would have been laid off ages ago.

flash1080 · 23-02-2011 12:32AM

galwayrush wrote: »

Getting rid of the unneeded ones will save the country a fortune in the long run.

How would you ensure the ones that you deem to be unneeded are the ones that are offered voluntary redundancy, and how would you ensure that they accept it?

galwayrush wrote: »

Perhaps we should have a whip aound to find some money to pay them and therefore not destroy their highly paid at tax payers expense way of life.:rolleyes: despite the fact that they are not needed and in the real world they would have been laid off ages ago.

Not everyone in the public service is highly paid or useless.

Clive Solas · 23-02-2011 12:32AM

easyeason3 wrote: »

OP just picture the public service as a plaster for a minute. You have two options:

A) If you slowly pull the plaster off your arm it will be painful & will take longer than it should.

OR

Now if you rip the plaster off in one fast motion it will hurt a bit but it will be nowhere near as painful but you will get the same result as option A with less discomfort.

I really can't dumb it down anymore.

What does OP mean??

squod · 23-02-2011 12:34AM

Original poster.

billymitchell · 23-02-2011 12:34AM

Clive Solas wrote: »

What does OP mean??

original poster

easyeason3 · 23-02-2011 12:34AM

Clive Solas wrote: »

What does OP mean??

Opening Poster I think.

Captain_Generic · 23-02-2011 12:36AM

Clive Solas wrote: »

What does OP mean??

Open Peanuts, its more of a suggestion really

Clive Solas · 23-02-2011 12:40AM

Captain_Generic wrote: »

Open Peanuts, its more of a suggestion really

Ta, just finding my feet before I let loose.
Long-time lurker, 1st time poster yadda yadda....

squod · 23-02-2011 12:42AM

Clive Solas wrote: »

Ta, just finding my feet before I let loose.
Long-time lurker, 1st time poster yadda yadda....

Jewish forum

>

Unpossible · 23-02-2011 01:16AM

flash1080 wrote: »

How would you ensure the ones that you deem to be unneeded are the ones that are offered voluntary redundancy, and how would you ensure that they accept it?

Not everyone in the public service is highly paid or useless.

True, surely at the moment with stories of some workers being overrun and others barely doing anything everyday we should first start by trying to relocate people. If someone doesn't have skills that allow them to be relocated and there isn't enough work for them then its time for them to go (assuming there is still not enough work after the others have been relocated).
There shouldn't be a blanket freeze, frontline staff are always needed.

squod · 23-02-2011 01:19AM

Unpossible wrote: »

True, surely at the moment with stories of some workers being overrun and others barely doing anything everyday we should first start by trying to relocate people. If someone doesn't have skills that allow them to be relocated and there isn't enough work for them then its time for them to go (assuming there is still not enough work after the others have been relocated).
There shouldn't be a blanket freeze, frontline staff are always needed.

There should ideally be two cost centers for the government to allocate funds to. Front-line staff and managerial/clerical should be budgeted for separately.

billymitchell · 23-02-2011 01:27AM

squod wrote: »

There should ideally be two cost centers for the government to allocate funds to. Front-line staff and managerial/clerical should be budgeted for separately.

:eek:
Thats nearly crazy enough to work!!!

Unpossible · 23-02-2011 01:28AM

squod wrote: »

There should ideally be two cost centers for the government to allocate funds to. Front-line staff and managerial/clerical should be budgeted for separately.

That might result in more people being hired to keep track of more systems.

Its missmanaged, it would be like hiring 8 people to sit in a McDonalds managers office and only put 2 people on the tills and 2 in the kitchen.

Cosimo Salvatore · 23-02-2011 01:31AM

You Irish, You aVery Good at Software

squod · 23-02-2011 01:36AM

billymitchell wrote: »

:eek:
Thats nearly crazy enough to work!!!

We'll never get the chance to find out the way things are looking. Way too much vested interest in the present oligarchy.

FG's plans for the public service

Comments