Directors Of Services Costing €1m annually in Local Authorities

Dudess · 10-04-2012 05:19PM

Close relative of mine became a director of services in 2001, salary was nothing near the one in that piece - don't believe everything you read. He had been employed by that local authority for 25 years, working his way up the ranks. Prior to securing employment there, he had spent 10 years working various contracts - some public sector, some private. He started off as an entry-level technician. Despite opportunities and experience in both public and private, he ultimately chose public because of the security - the money was FAR higher in the private sector for the work he was trained in.

To anyone reasonable, he earned that role. But carry on, rabble-rousing and drama is more fun.

I'm sparing with this word as I generally hate it, but... begrudgery definitely seems to be at the root of the public sector hate.

Immaculate Pasta · 10-04-2012 05:21PM

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I find it bemusing that someone who constantly places words in bold and uses smiley faces beyond any normal 'need' to use smiley faces criticises my use of italics. Especially when I didn't use italics. Here's a confused face for you:

You've also missed the entire point of my post in order to harp on about your original point. I actually argued against their pay being so high, and offered a way in which to cut that pay.

You really do seem to miss the entire point of peoples' posts in order to give the impression of responding while simply repeating what you say in the numerous threads you start, which are all about the same thing.

Couldn't agree more. The time I've attempted to debate with him he's ignored me and he's ignored my answer in this thread. He's ignored me TWO times :mad::rolleyes::mad::rolleyes::mad::rolleyes:

TwoShedsJackson · 10-04-2012 05:26PM

A tax on 'the PS will destroy us all' threads started by Freddie, and an extra tax every time he uses the 'rolleyes' smiley as a devestating respone to someone who doesn't agree with him would have us out of austerity in no time.

admiralofthefleet · 10-04-2012 05:27PM

glad i didnt pay the household charge

Freddie59 · 10-04-2012 06:06PM

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

glad i didnt pay the household charge

Interesting to see the usual suspects go on about rabble, rabble, "entitlements" blah blah. Nothing changes the stark economic realities which face us. For all your posturing.:P

Freddie59 · 10-04-2012 06:16PM

Dudess wrote: »

Close relative of mine became a director of services in 2001, salary was nothing near the one in that piece - don't believe everything you read. He had been employed by that local authority for 25 years, working his way up the ranks. Prior to securing employment there, he had spent 10 years working various contracts - some public sector, some private. He started off as an entry-level technician. Despite opportunities and experience in both public and private, he ultimately chose public because of the security - the money was FAR higher in the private sector for the work he was trained in.

To anyone reasonable, he earned that role. But carry on, rabble-rousing and drama is more fun.

Reasonable would be appreciating that the country can no longer sustain the huge salaries and "entitlements" of public sector workers.

Reasonable would be the same workers realising the position their employer is in.

Reasonable would be the Public Sector operating under the same financial constraints as the private Sector.

Reasonable would be the government and Senior Civil Servants realising that the game is well and truly up.

But hey - reason seems to have taken a holiday in this fair isle of ours. As is evidenced by the few posts from the usual suspects above.

We cannot sustain our current level of debt.

We cannot continue to keep the same staffing levels or costs of the PS.

This is economics folks. Live with it. There is no avoiding it.

For begrudgery write reality and you're just about right.

Freddie59 · 10-04-2012 06:18PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

A tax on 'the PS will destroy us all' threads started by Freddie, and an extra tax every time he uses the 'rolleyes' smiley as a devestating respone to someone who doesn't agree with him would have us out of austerity in no time.

By PS you mean Private Sector?

Freddie59 · 10-04-2012 06:27PM

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

which are all about the same thing.

Indeed. Which is the absence of money to continue paying artificially high Public Sector salaries and "entitlements". And I make no apologies for it. Ever.

Francie Barrett · 10-04-2012 06:28PM

Blast them with..

No wait.

micropig · 10-04-2012 07:02PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

By PS you mean Private Sector?

Of course any taxes mention are in relation to the private sector.....we couldn't be going touching the public sector, after all they're entitled to it, Unlike the private sector, they need petrol in their cars to get to work:D

Freddie59 · 10-04-2012 07:47PM

micropig wrote: »

Of course any taxes mention are in relation to the private sector.....we couldn't be going touching the public sector, after all they're entitled to it, Unlike the private sector, they need petrol in their cars to get to work:D

Yep. As usual.

Dudess · 10-04-2012 07:55PM

Perhaps address all points put to you instead of the ones that are easy to answer. In order to be taken seriously like.

AskMyChocolate · 10-04-2012 08:28PM

Heh Freddie. Just a couple of points that I feel are worth making. Any independent study that has ever been done has concluded that senior staff in the public service are poorly paid when compared with their private sector counterparts. In the same way as they have always concluded that junior staff are better remunerated than their counterparts in the private sector.

Now,personally, I have no problem with this, as I think it's deplorable the way the disparity between senior staff and junior staff in the private sector has been allowed to balloon over the last forty years, but that's just a matter of personal ideology.

Simply put Freddie; you can't have it both ways. You have asked in several threads before for PS wages to be pegged to those in the private sector, and while this would certainly reduce pay at lower levels it would increase pay for senior PS workers, which this thread is about.

On the subject of senior librarians, do you imagine that the senior executives in BoI, AIB, VHI, ESB, O2 etc. in charge of account archival and records are on less than 80k a year. They aren't.

Choco.

Doc Ruby · 10-04-2012 08:35PM

This is how the game is played folks, here and everywhere else. They close garda stations, shut down schools and let people rot on trolleys in hospital corridors to scare citizens into paying higher taxes, while the enormous middle management rump and "change of job title means extra everything" crowd carries on in the airy back offices without a bother.

This is how the game is played, and they know very well how to play it.

Dudess · 10-04-2012 08:43PM

Too many administrators for too much paperwork in the public sector I think - not that I know for certain, but it does look that way to me, especially in Health. The person I'm related to who was a director of services though had to work his ass off and was badly needed to manage things efficiently. If there are surplus personnel, we should at least know which ones before lynching.

Choco, you won't get a response - perhaps just a rolleyes - as you pose points that are too inconvenient to acknowledge.

micropig · 10-04-2012 09:00PM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Heh Freddie. Just a couple of points that I feel are worth making. Any independent study that has ever been done has concluded that senior staff in the public service are poorly paid when compared with their private sector counterparts. In the same way as they have always concluded that junior staff are better remunerated than their counterparts in the private sector.

Any links?

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Now,personally, I have no problem with this, as I think it's deplorable the way the disparity between senior staff and junior staff in the private sector has been allowed to balloon over the last forty years, but that's just a matter of personal ideology.

Private sector can do what they like, within the law. If people don't like it they leave. Taxpayers are not paying their wages.

If you meant

disparity disparity between senior staff and junior staff in the private public sector has been allowed to balloon over the last forty years

Yes it is

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Simply put Freddie; you can't have it both ways. You have asked in several threads before for PS wages to be pegged to those in the private sector, and while this would certainly reduce pay at lower levels it would increase pay for senior PS workers, which this thread is about.

Senior level salaries should be capped at a reasonable level. You get job security instead. Taxpayers are paying your salaries

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

On the subject of senior librarians, do you imagine that the senior executives in BoI, AIB, VHI, ESB, O2 etc. in charge of account archival and records are on less than 80k a year. They aren't.

Choco.

All are being paid too much, one does not justify the other. If we had to have capped the whole lot of them years ago and not let it get out of hand as we did, the country would be in a better position now. The celtic tiger has shown us that paying extremely high salaries does not attract the best people for the position, in fact we have a history of putting morons in extremely well paid and responsible positions.

Toby Take a Bow · 10-04-2012 10:00PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Indeed. Which is the absence of money to continue paying artificially high Public Sector salaries and "entitlements". And I make no apologies for it. Ever.

Yeah. Nice skirting of how you completely missed the whole point of my post. Interestingly, though, you proved my point by reverting back to the same idea you have at the beginning of every thread. There are a good few posts you missed when you cherry picked the parts you responded to. Maybe have a look through them and answer the points.

micropig wrote: »

Of course any taxes mention are in relation to the private sector.....we couldn't be going touching the public sector, after all they're entitled to it, Unlike the private sector, they need petrol in their cars to get to work:D

How are the taxes referred to just in relation to the private sector? If you tax a private sector worker and a public sector worker the same rate, do they not pay the same tax?

micropig · 10-04-2012 10:21PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

A tax on 'the PS will destroy us all' threads started by Freddie, and an extra tax every time he uses the 'rolleyes' smiley as a devestating respone to someone who doesn't agree with him would have us out of austerity in no time.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

How are the taxes referred to just in relation to the private sector? If you tax a private sector worker and a public sector worker the same rate, do they not pay the same tax?

TJS referred to a tax on the PS. PS can stand for both public and private sector. It was not I who differentiated between more taxes for the PS, just trying to clarify the code being used and understand the comment as it was meant..

Now, keep up:p

AskMyChocolate · 10-04-2012 10:25PM

micropig wrote: »

Any links?

I'm afraid I don't know how to link things:o, however Google or a trip to the CSO website should do it. Btw, are you disputing the truth of these studies, and if so which part?

Private sector can do what they like, within the law. If people don't like it they leave. Taxpayers are not paying their wages.

On the contrary, they are, whether directly through the behaviour of senior bankers, senior industrialists, etc. or indirectly through the erosion of the tax base and the destruction of the domestic economy.

If you meant

Yes it is

Obviously, it's not what I meant, otherwise I would have said it. Why not address what I did type?

Senior level salaries should be capped at a reasonable level. You get job security instead. Taxpayers are paying your salaries.

All are being paid too much, one does not justify the other. If we had to have capped the whole lot of them years ago and not let it get out of hand as we did, the country would be in a better position now. The celtic tiger has shown us that paying extremely high salaries does not attract the best people for the position, in fact we have a history of putting morons in extremely well paid and responsible positions.

I agree, and as stated earlier, this could be addressed by a higher tax-rate for top earners, although, as a lot of top earners in the private sector are not PAYE workers, this leads to a lot of tax evasion/avoidance in the private sector.

micropig · 10-04-2012 10:43PM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't know how to link things, however Google or a trip to the CSO website should do it. Btw, are you disputing the truth of these studies, and if so which part?

Copy web address. press world icon with links.paste

From CSO 2011 Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.1% annually compared with a fall of
0.5% in the public sector over the year bringing average weekly earnings in Q4 2011 to €614.99 and €905.80 respectively.

The CSO figures can be interpreted in many ways

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I agree, and as stated earlier, this could be addressed by a higher tax-rate for top earners, although, as a lot of top earners in the private sector are not PAYE workers, this leads to a lot of tax evasion/avoidance in the private sector.

Why is it preferable to you to go down the route of higher tax instead of pay cut, especially if most of the higher paid private sector don't pay tax as you stated? Tax private business too much and it stifles free enterprise and entrepreneurship, Companies who can, will relocate elsewhere

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

On the contrary, they are, whether directly through the behaviour of senior bankers, senior industrialists, etc. or indirectly through the erosion of the tax base and the destruction of the domestic economy

How is money coming out of the exchequer if I sell a pack of biscuits I've produced to you?

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Obviously, it's not what I meant, otherwise I would have said it. Why not address what I did type?

OK, I quoted what you wrote below

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Now,personally, I have no problem with this, as I think it's deplorable the way the disparity between senior staff and junior staff in the private sector has been allowed to balloon over the last forty years, but that's just a matter of personal ideology.

I don;'t see the connection between this and the levels of senior pay in the public sector. The wages are not coming from the exchequer - yes bankers etc, but I class them as overpaid morons whose wages should also be cut, now that the state owns them.

Chuck Stone · 10-04-2012 11:21PM

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

How are the taxes referred to just in relation to the private sector? If you tax a private sector worker and a public sector worker the same rate, do they not pay the same tax?

The private sector generates revenue for the exchequer - the PS/CS is a cost to the tax payer.

So essentially taxes collected from private sector workers pays for the public sector/workers; I understand this is horribly reductive but on the whole it is more true than false.

sock puppet · 11-04-2012 12:14AM

micropig wrote: »

Any links?

I don't know of any reports into it however I do know that the civil service hire externally for senior positions such as PO, and anecdotally they aren't exactly getting the very best of what the private sector has to offer.

Dudess · 11-04-2012 12:23AM

Isn't there a freeze on recruitment for permanent positions? And isn't natural wastage in operation (i.e. non replacement of those who retire)?

sock puppet · 11-04-2012 12:33AM

Dudess wrote: »

Isn't there a freeze on recruitment for permanent positions? And isn't natural wastage in operation (i.e. non replacement of those who retire)?

Not entirely. Exceptions can be made if there's a need. This answer to a PQ in 2010 is pretty informative.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2010-05-25.889.0

Morlar · 11-04-2012 01:15AM

Dudess wrote: »

...I'm sparing with this word as I generally hate it, but... begrudgery definitely seems to be at the root of the public sector hate.

I think 'paying for it' is at the root of dissatisfaction with public sector expenditure.

If some Saudi trillionaire decided to fund our public sector for a laugh then you'd probably find criticism by the general public of Public sector expenditure would fall right off the radar. Begrudgery doesn't enter into it.

Milk & Honey · 11-04-2012 01:36AM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Seriously. Librarians? €106k a year? FFS.:mad:

You are talking about the top librarian in a county. Such a person must be qualified with degrees and have a considerable knowledge of the local history of the area they are working in. All county libraries have valuable heritage material which needs to be sourced and maintained. Many librarians are very pro active in the community. The Clare county library has made a massive amount of material available online for researchers. Librarians as a whole are underpaid. Someone who works their way up through the system will often be on a par with a university professor in terms of knowledge. In addition the Chief librarian will have to manage a large number of staff and a large budget. €106k is a pathetically small salary for this work.

Freddie59 · 11-04-2012 09:47AM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Heh Freddie. Just a couple of points that I feel are worth making. Any independent study that has ever been done has concluded that senior staff in the public service are poorly paid when compared with their private sector counterparts. In the same way as they have always concluded that junior staff are better remunerated than their counterparts in the private sector.

Now,personally, I have no problem with this, as I think it's deplorable the way the disparity between senior staff and junior staff in the private sector has been allowed to balloon over the last forty years, but that's just a matter of personal ideology.

Simply put Freddie; you can't have it both ways. You have asked in several threads before for PS wages to be pegged to those in the private sector, and while this would certainly reduce pay at lower levels it would increase pay for senior PS workers, which this thread is about.

On the subject of senior librarians, do you imagine that the senior executives in BoI, AIB, VHI, ESB, O2 etc. in charge of account archival and records are on less than 80k a year. They aren't.

Choco.

Hello Choco.

Regardless of D's inference that you won't get a reply, here it is (even though I've made a detailed reply to her earlier comments which she herself has chosen to ignore).:rolleyes::)

The point that I am making -- consistently -- is that we cannot afford to continue to fund PS wages/"entitlements" at their current level. The Minister For Education had to spell this out to teachers (of all people) yesterday. The same teachers that complain about young teacers not getting work, while doing nothing about retired teachers (on a full pension) preventing this from happening by being allowed return to work. It is a complete farce.

I am also on record as being very vocal in my criticisms of the pay in the Baking Sector, 90% of which should not be trading today.

The two groups that you mention are the ones costing the State horrific amounts of money (€400m being borrowed WEEKLY to fund PS/CS/SW alone).

People in the Private Sector (myself included) are truly aghast at the deplorable positive discrimination being practiced with the aforementioned groups.

And as for Librarians being paid €106k per year? A Hospital Consultant in Germany is allowed earn a maximum of €96k per year. This person has people's lives in his/her hand. And we pay a LIBRARIAN €106k per year?:eek:

All that people are looking for is a fair crack of the whip. And that Government - and their employees - wake up to the financial Armageddon that is taking place around them - and us.

TwoShedsJackson · 11-04-2012 10:18AM

Freddie59 wrote: »

I am also on record as being very vocal in my criticisms of the pay in the Baking Sector, 90% of which should not be trading today.

Now it's not just the Public Sector getting it in the neck from Freddie, but the confectioners too!! :eek:

billybudd · 11-04-2012 11:10AM

Id hate be a ordinary decent and hardworking cc these days.

2ndcoming · 11-04-2012 11:55AM

Morlar wrote: »

I think 'paying for it' is at the root of dissatisfaction with public sector expenditure.

If some Saudi trillionaire decided to fund our public sector for a laugh then you'd probably find criticism by the general public of Public sector expenditure would fall right off the radar. Begrudgery doesn't enter into it.

I think you'll find that if the construction/banking sectors hadn't been allowed to bring the country to the brink of ruin nobody would be bothered recycling Sindo/Daily Mail articles with the same anti public service guff on a weekly basis around here anyway.

Directors Of Services Costing €1m annually in Local Authorities

Comments