Public Service bashing sticks at the ready, call to "benchmark pay again"

bobbysands81 · 13-02-2012 03:35PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

It's not just the Unions though. It's the (senior) Civil Servants; the Politicians (senate still operating after all the promises); etc. Those charged with change will be the most effected. So they won't do it. It HAS to come from outside.

This country suffered a property bubble. All of the aforementioned people live in an economic bubble - ignoring what's going on (even in Greece) hoping it will go away, and that they can keep soaking money from the country that it doesn't have.

**He says completely ignoring the fact that my take home pay has been reduced by 20% over last two years**

What about the tens of thousands of people who have not lost their jobs nor taken pay cuts, what's your feeling on them?

davet82 · 13-02-2012 03:41PM

Einhard wrote: »

, but I'm about to qualify as a tacher this year ?

just thought i'd point out you cant spell teacher before some other azzhole does...

i'm a petty, petty man

bobbysands81 · 13-02-2012 03:42PM

Einhard wrote: »

Was benchmarking an absurd, bvote grabbing exercise? Yes. Are all public servants riding the gravy train? No, of course not- but that seems to be the broad generalisation so often made, and it's slightly tiresome. By all means, let's have a debate. But can those who are engaging in it, on both sides, at least base their points on evidence and facts?

I think there's been huge amounts of revisionism around the Benchmarking process and why the Benchmarking process was actually brought in.

The public service was haemorrhaging staff every which way and had to respond in order to hang onto staff... the response was to increase pay. I earned more as a assistant to a delivery man that I earned as a middle manager in the Civil Service, I took a pay cut to join.

The question remains... if our jobs are so good then why didn't everyone apply for them?

davet82 · 13-02-2012 03:46PM

Bad Times, Good Job
Bad Job, Good times

Doc Ruby · 13-02-2012 03:49PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I earned more as a assistant to a delivery man that I earned as a middle manager in the Civil Service, I took a pay cut to join.

Bollocks.

Rabidlamb · 13-02-2012 03:54PM

Einhard wrote: »

Hmmm, well don't really know about others in the public service, but I'm about to qualify as a teacher this year and if I get a job, I'll be getting about 23% less than I would have as a teacher two years ago.

June, July & August.

bobbysands81 · 13-02-2012 03:57PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Bollocks.

Not much I can do to prove it mate but I guarantee you it's true.

StephenHendry · 13-02-2012 04:01PM

this is off topic, but i am doing a thesis atm on how local government, the public service etc. in ireland can show greater leadership. if anyone has any suggestions, ideas they would be most helpful. you can pm me if you want

smash · 13-02-2012 04:03PM

StephenHendry wrote: »

this is off topic, but i am doing a thesis atm on how local government, the public service etc. in ireland can show greater leadership. if anyone has any suggestions, ideas they would be most helpful. you can pm me if you want

The could take a few tips from Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart!

Doc Ruby · 13-02-2012 04:12PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Not much I can do to prove it mate but I guarantee you it's true.

It's bollocks, as is most of what you're saying.

Furthermore, the authors found that by 2006 senior public service workers earned almost 8 per cent more than their private sector counterparts, while those in lower-level grades earned between 22 and 31 per cent more. The public premium results derived in the paper relating to March 2006, predate the payment of the two most recent Social Partnership wage deals, along with the pay increases awarded in the second Benchmarking exercise and by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in Reports No. 42 and 43.

bobbysands81 · 13-02-2012 04:13PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Agreed. It's only a matter of time until the Public Sector wage bill has to be slashed drastically. I can hear the IMF already:

You're paying [pencil PS position in as required] what??!! WTF?

Is €2.5bn annually not enough?

bobbysands81 · 13-02-2012 04:19PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

It's bollocks, as is most of what you're saying.

Nothing in those articles disproves anything I've said on this thread nor does the piece you've quoted. Maybe you could pick out the exact bit of what I'm saying that you disagree with mate.

StephenHendry · 13-02-2012 04:30PM

smash wrote: »

The could take a few tips from Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart!

thanks, a inspiring figurehead would certainly help

Doc Ruby · 13-02-2012 04:36PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Nothing in those articles disproves anything I've said on this thread nor does the piece you've quoted. Maybe you could pick out the exact bit of what I'm saying that you disagree with mate.

You're the one making the claims, mate, show us the civil service middle management job that pays the same as a delivery driver's assistant (minimum wage).

Its great to see that the civil service has all the problems of the country solved by the way seeing as you're posting on boards all day. We can expect you to clock out around 4, 4.30 so?

flanders1979 · 13-02-2012 05:18PM

These public jobs were available to almost everyone in the early 2000s. Most people wanted to work in construction or related industries and laughed at the pay available to them in Public Service. Few wanted the secure lowly paid job.
Get over it. This crap is getting old.

Nijmegen · 13-02-2012 05:25PM

flanders1979 wrote: »

These public jobs were available to almost everyone in the early 2000s. Most people wanted to work in construction or related industries and laughed at the pay available to them in Public Service. Few wanted the secure lowly paid job.
Get over it. This crap is getting old.

What's this 'most people' business? At the height of the boom, April-June 2007 says the CSO, 12.76% of the workforce was in construction.

21.47% were in public administration, education or healthcare.

Also, regardless of your feelings that we should have all jumped on the bangwagon and sorry for missing out, we face simple economic realities today. These realities see us cutting back on services to preserve pencil pushing middle management in the great circular filing system that is the bureaucracy, or for quangos that serve doubled up or just useless functions.

I'd rather drop some of those jobs and hire a few more nurses.

amacachi · 13-02-2012 05:33PM

Einhard wrote: »

Hmmm, well don't really know about others in the public service, but I'm about to qualify as a tacher this year and if I get a job, I'll be getting about 23% less than I would have as a teacher two years ago. I'm not complaining about the cut- I'll take that hit, even though it's grossly unfair (existing teachers don't receive the same cut). What i don't like though, is this constant insinuation that I, as a teacher, have somehow been insulated from cutbacks. It simply isn't true.

And that's not even considering the deterioration in working conditions. In one of my classes, I have three eastern European kids with practically no English. A few years ago, there would have been a teaching assistant provided to help them. Now there's none. I take time out of my day to provide them with extra private tuition. Free of charge. I don't say this to boast or anything, but just to point out that the bald headlines rarely tell the full story.

Do there need to be efficencies in the PS? Sure. Was benchmarking an absurd, bvote grabbing exercise? Yes. Are all public servants riding the gravy train? No, of course not- but that seems to be the broad generalisation so often made, and it's slightly tiresome. By all means, let's have a debate. But can those who are engaging in it, on both sides, at least base their points on evidence and facts?

The thing is that as far as most people are led to believe there's feck all teachers coming through lately or soon so the cuts they've made will affect hardly anyone. I completely agree that the targetting of new entrants stinks and it represents all that I hate about the way unions and their mates in the government operate. It's a disgrace. Eh, Joe.

MysticalRain · 13-02-2012 05:35PM

flanders1979 wrote: »

These public jobs were available to almost everyone in the early 2000s. Most people wanted to work in construction or related industries and laughed at the pay available to them in Public Service. Few wanted the secure lowly paid job.
Get over it. This crap is getting old.

Strange. I knew plenty of people applying to the PS back then.

Einhard · 13-02-2012 06:30PM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

June, July & August.

Wow, clever. My point was that I have taken cuts already, whereas the common meme is that I haven't.

Also, June, July, and August, won't pay my bills.

Also, because of cutbacks, even if I do get a job on qualification, it'll be very unlikely that it'll be permanent, meaning I won't get paid for June, July, and August. I'll be working during those months though.

Anyway, nice attempt at a smart arse answer. Came across as silly and glib more than anything else.

tayto lover · 13-02-2012 06:34PM

Colm McCarthy is just a well paid mouth-piece who's only objective is to make money for himself. If he can divide the two Sectors and cause mayhem then he will make many radio/t.v. appearances and thus more money for himself.

bobbysands81 · 13-02-2012 06:59PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You're the one making the claims, mate, show us the civil service middle management job that pays the same as a delivery driver's assistant (minimum wage).

Its great to see that the civil service has all the problems of the country solved by the way seeing as you're posting on boards all day. We can expect you to clock out around 4, 4.30 so?

No, you told me that I was talking bollocks, I've asked you to point out where and you can't so you change your point of attack.

I'm on a day off today mate... is that ok with you?

Always amazes how personally folk like you take hese arguments. Are you one of the tens of thousands of people unable to get into the Civil Service? It's ok mate, competitive interviews are difficult.

woodoo · 13-02-2012 07:20PM

Say no to benchmarking.

woodoo · 13-02-2012 07:23PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Colm McCarthy is just a well paid mouth-piece who's only objective is to make money for himself. If he can divide the two Sectors and cause mayhem then he will make many radio/t.v. appearances and thus more money for himself.

And he made a big report and it must have been rubbish because the government ignored it.

Freddie59 · 13-02-2012 07:30PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

**He says completely ignoring the fact that my take home pay has been reduced by 20% over last two years**

What about the tens of thousands of people who have not lost their jobs nor taken pay cuts, what's your feeling on them?

Are you talking public or private sector?

BTW sorry about your pay, but this is the reality. Your employer cannot afford to pay you even the wage you are on. Something has to give.

K-9 · 13-02-2012 07:53PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Agreed. It's only a matter of time until the Public Sector wage bill has to be slashed drastically. I can hear the IMF already:

You're paying [pencil PS position in as required] what??!! WTF?

Plenty said the same thing 3 or 4 years ago, wait until the IMF come in, they arrived and no massive cuts.

They'll leave it to the Government to decide. Obviously if targets start getting missed drastically it'll have to be looked at again, but that'll be more because it and welfare are high expenditure areas. The PS pay bill as a % of GDP isn't that big really and the bill has dropped from a few years ago and even from the early 90's.

bobbysands81 · 13-02-2012 08:10PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Are you talking public or private sector?

BTW sorry about your pay, but this is the reality. Your employer cannot afford to pay you even the wage you are on. Something has to give.

Obviously I'm talking about the Private Sector, every Public Sector worker has taken a pay cut.

Tens of thousands of private sector folk haven't taken a cut at all and the irony regarding those that have taken a pay cut is that they pay even less tax to try and get us out of this state. Whereas my take home pay is down 20% and every single cent of that 20% goes back to the exchequer to be redistributed to where it's needed the most.

The Govt can afford my wages, they have already cut my wages to a level that they can afford without my permission (another thing that only happens in PS).

SeanW · 13-02-2012 09:17PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I tried to pay my mortgage last month with "job security" but the bank wouldn't accept it.

Try paying it with the dole, which many in the private sector (i.e. the people who pay your wages) have had to do.

tayto lover · 13-02-2012 09:23PM

SeanW wrote: »

Try paying it with the dole, which many in the private sector (i.e. the people who pay your wages) have had to do.

So who is paying your dole ? The workers in BOTH sectors.

bobbysands81 · 13-02-2012 09:32PM

SeanW wrote: »

Try paying it with the dole, which many in the private sector (i.e. the people who pay your wages) have had to do.

Loads of public sector folk have lost their jobs too mate. Would it make you happier if loads more lost their jobs too?

The Civil Service were recruiting there last week, only 3,200 people went for the jobs, they were disgusted given that there's 450,000 unemployed so even if we take it that ALL those applicants were unemployed (which they obviously aren't) then 149 out of every 150 unemployed people weren't bothered applying.

Nijmegen · 13-02-2012 09:46PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Loads of public sector folk have lost their jobs too mate. Would it make you happier if loads more lost their jobs too?

The Civil Service were recruiting there last week, only 3,200 people went for the jobs, they were disgusted given that there's 450,000 unemployed so even if we take it that ALL those applicants were unemployed (which they obviously aren't) then 149 out of every 150 unemployed people weren't bothered applying.

According to the CSO public sector administration, education and health and social services have added 6.7% jobs 07-11.

If we isolate only "Public administration and defence; compulsory social security" we see a 2.05% decrease net.

Apart from non-permanent positions, IE contracts of a defined or loose duration by their nature, how many jobs have been lost bar retirements?

(And by the way, I disagree with the recruitment embargo. I think we should be shutting quangos and replacing nurses and teachers rather than just letting whomever goes go, regardless of operational knock on.)

Public Service bashing sticks at the ready, call to "benchmark pay again"

Comments