Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Godge · 16-01-2013 12:11AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Godge I am just analysing a post from another contributor. And as i refered to in my post it is nearly impossible to get decent data out of the Irish PS. Personnlly I do not have hours to spend reserching every detail. However I am able to look at figure and analysis them. If the figure Squod gives are right it is hard to believe that 35K/head over the average PS pay is spend adminstrating social welfare. I just looked at the figure and analysed them I did not investigate them rather I commented on them

Take the HSE or Education both big spending departments it is impossible to get a decent breakdown of figure that include wages, administration costs, teachers/nurses/doctors costs etc. For instance in the HEs there seems to be a choice by managment to use agencies to fill gaps in service where twenty years ago the used tempory staff which they managed themselves to fill the gaps. However they now seemed to have outsourced this and still have large amounts of management in place.

And yes I am no fan of insurance companies wheather it is health, car or life insurance companies as well as the pension industry which require a big shake up but that is another thread sometime. As far as I know thecost of admin in the health service is on par with insurance companies however it is nearly impossible to get correct figures.

The figure is for total administrative costs out of total budget.

That must include rent, heat, light, paper, computers etc.

Dividing it by the number of employees is meaningless.

Scofflaw · 16-01-2013 02:50AM

squod wrote: »

Better link here. A 10% cut in the administration budget would of course cause ''uproar'' and ''mass strike action''. An 11% cut in administration might cause some kind of stroke among union leaders.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/2010stats.pdf

squod, about this point you jumped the shark very spectacularly, and you've been on a hiding to nothing since.

I don't know whether you're defending your original mistake of believing that the Social Welfare Budget primarily consisted of administration charges out of an inability to understand the relevant figures, out of an inability to admit you were entirely wrong, or in order to wind people up. Luckily for you, it looks like a combination of the first two to me.

Please don't continue your dogged defence of your mistake. It's probably better if you don't continue to post in this thread at all, since any reprise of the last few pages will result in a ban.

For those who reported this thread in various ways, thank you, as ever, for attempting to communicate that there was a problem with the thread, but had the post reports more accurately reflected the fact that squod had been shown correct figures and was refusing to take them on board, action would have been taken sooner.

moderately,
Scofflaw

OMD · 16-01-2013 06:27AM

Godge wrote: »

Administrative costs are 2.8% of the total in 2011. I have done a quick check internationally and looked at a number of papers that cover insurance companies and their administrative costs as a percentage of claims.

Some of them have admin costs as high as 20-25% of claims. Other systems like Medicare are around 3-5%. The 2.8% seems reasonable by international standards.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/douglas-kellogg/not-so-fast-obamas-every-study-has-shown-medicare-claim-leaves-out-key-details

The above reference is one that would be critical of costs of public services but still has our percentage cost looking good.

I wish people would do some research rather than spouting the last idea that came into their head.

Social welfare administration costs are not comparable to insurance or Medicare costs though are they? I am not saying the social welfare admin costs are too high, I don't know but you cannot simply compare to insurance companies costs.

Farmer Pudsey · 16-01-2013 09:25AM

Godge wrote: »

The figure is for total administrative costs out of total budget.

That must include rent, heat, light, paper, computers etc.

Dividing it by the number of employees is meaningless.

It looks very high also most department buildings(not all) are owned by the state so rent would not be a largre factor. However the point I was making is that as tax payers we do not get a breakdown of costs that are easily available.It is the same with all government , local authorities and quango's. So we are often looking at raw data that may be misleading. Also it would not be the first time either in the public or private sector that managers moved costs from one budget to another to hide costs.

From the figures we cannot assertain wheather there are high staff costs or high admin costs or even if either are high. The reason I divided it by the number of employees to put a perpective on it.

Godge · 16-01-2013 11:12AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

It looks very high also most department buildings(not all) are owned by the state so rent would not be a largre factor. However the point I was making is that as tax payers we do not get a breakdown of costs that are easily available.It is the same with all government , local authorities and quango's. So we are often looking at raw data that may be misleading. Also it would not be the first time either in the public or private sector that managers moved costs from one budget to another to hide costs.

From the figures we cannot assertain wheather there are high staff costs or high admin costs or even if either are high. The reason I divided it by the number of employees to put a perpective on it.

I disagree, there is plenty of infromation available but I seem to be the only one around here able to do a bit of internet digging.

I go to the Comptroller and Auditor General website and find this.

http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2011/appaccs/eng/Vote38.pdf

This gives a clear breakdown of the administrative costs.

Salaries, wages and allowances in 2011 were €247,664,000. If you are right about the 7,000 employees, that results in an average salary of €35,380.

If people are serious about posting here, they really should do a little research and back up their posts with hard figures and then deal rationally with discussions about these. For example, I am happy to discuss whether the €247m is accurate and to consider other sources than Farmer Pudsey for the 7,000 employees figure.

Rather than just quoting the latest sound-bite from an economist, politician or trade union, we should be aiming to analyse what they say and whether it is correct. An example of this is the discussion on the €116bn pension "hole". Rather than sheepishly saying if all the experts quote it, it must be right, we should be aiming to examine and critically analyse whether it is factually correct and what the implications are for government finances. Otherwise this forum is just like a late-night pub.

Actually reading the report further down I see that there is a further breakdown of the pay figures. Pay is 229,238 and employee numbers are 6,174 in 2011, giving an accurate average salary of €37,129.

not yet · 16-01-2013 11:12AM

Just a quick appendage to the debate.

PS average pay includes each and every member of government, Including Kenny etc,College professors-Consultants and so on, This is the reason the average PS pay is 45-50 k

The private sector does not include Bank managers, heads of multi-nationals etc. So it is easy to see why the average pay of both is distorted.

JusT saying like...........

antoobrien · 16-01-2013 11:13AM

Godge wrote: »

Administrative costs are 2.8% of the total in 2011. I have done a quick check internationally and looked at a number of papers that cover insurance companies and their administrative costs as a percentage of claims.

Some of them have admin costs as high as 20-25% of claims. Other systems like Medicare are around 3-5%. The 2.8% seems reasonable by international standards.

You can't really compare DSP to medicare (the US equivalent of the VHI, except it is part funded from payroll taxes) or any other insurance organisation because there is a fundamental difference in purpose.

The purpose of insurers is to provide cover for a risk of something happening, and pay (at least part of) the cost incurred if that risk occurs.

The function of DSP is to make payments given certain social criteria e.g. child benefit, widows pension, unemployment etc. The sheer scale of payments of a social payments system will dwarf relative administrative costs (this is why the ratio for medicare is low, it covers 48m people).

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 11:18AM

daveyeh wrote: »

Ok, so you're saying these guards and hospital employees who do a good job and work very hard should be left alone in the cpa2, but also should have their wages cut to hire more of them??? :rolleyes: Some reward for their efforts.

What I am saying is this is the bind the government find itself in. It has hammered the hell out of the tax payer over the last half a decade and in the last 3 years it has not been able to cut wages to the public sector forcing it to make ridiculous decisions such as cuts to the home care grants and many other crazy cuts. The people on the front line continuously say they are over worked and I dont doubt it and as I say if they took a cut in wage more gaurds, nurses etc could be hired by using this money. The fact is I do a good job and I had a pay cut and have not had a pay rise in years and the 2 different companies I worked for the first went bust and to the wall. Fortunately I got out at the right time. The 2nd is going well but at the same time the mear mention of pay rise is laughed at. The unfortunate truth is we can no longer afford the ps pay pensions and social welfare rates in this country. By all means when we are on the uppers bring the front line back up but while we are in a hole we need more from the public servants and the social welfare, this hole will not be bridged on taxation alone.

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 11:19AM

daveyeh wrote: »

Its automatic. You don't claim it.

once again what has this got to do with the thread?

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 11:20AM

daveyeh wrote: »

Not true. There is no entitlement.

Eh sorry there is an entitlement in the VHI package I am on he is entitled to a private bed, its a payment to jump the queue

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 11:22AM

Godge wrote: »

You are talking about a few talking heads on tv and radio (the constantins and mcwilliams type economists, and others who know even less) as so-called experts. If you want to be a sheep following them, go ahead. Otherwise, read my post again below.

It takes the important parts of the out-of-date 2009 report and shows and explains in simple language how the assumptions and calculations are wrong. You do not need to be an expert to follow my reasoning, you just need to have a bit of common sense.

I mean really. The report is based on an assumption that public service numbers will increase by 23% over 2008 figures by 2018. That means it assumes an increase to 392,370. The current target for the Government is 282,000 by 2015 plus another chunk taken out by Croke Park 2 by 2018, let us say, 270,000. At the very least that means the numbers will be 31% less and the cost as well so any figure in that report for the cost of pensions in 30, 40 years time is grossly overexaggerated. If you want to argue the point, please show how my analysis is wrong.

Godge these so called talking heads were being cross examined by union leaders such as Doran, I would hazard a guess if the figure was wildly out of kilter they would of seized on it?

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 11:23AM

waster81 wrote: »

Or the €1billion we spent to ensure AIB bank employees have their pension hole filled

And who is in charge of AIB the politicians last I heard they are considered public servants. I am no more happy about the banks then you are. But to continously point at them and say it was all their fault is a falacy we would of been in this situation sooner or later even if banks didnt falter

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 11:25AM

creedp wrote: »

He would only get a private bed if one is available, otherwise he would lie in a trolley just like a public patient. The funny thing is the private patient is for the most part treated in the same hospital by the same nurses, radiologists, doctors as the public patient. In fact nearly 50% of all private patient admitted from A&E end up n a public bed as not enough private beds available. Only difference is the consultant gets paid twice to treat the private patient and so in the case of planned admissions fast tracks the private patient into the hospital over the heads of public patients who often have a higher clinical need for the same care. This is what you are paying private health insurance for in Ireland.

That is true but he would be at the top of the queue along with other private health insurance holders

Godge · 16-01-2013 11:26AM

fliball123 wrote: »

Godge these so called talking heads were being cross examined by union leaders such as Doran, I would hazard a guess if the figure was wildly out of kilter they would of seized on it?

No because they have been consistently wrong.

The TV economists have talked for two to three years non-stop about how the country was about to default that week or that month. It is now clear that a default is extremely unlikely (which is what I and some others were saying all along) and that those fools were talking out of their arse.

The union leaders are not interested in deep analysis either because they are focussed on the here and now. Neither would it make good TV and would look like they were nitpicking. The place for examining the figures is away from the limelight.

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 11:31AM

Godge wrote: »

No because they have been consistently wrong.

The TV economists have talked for two to three years non-stop about how the country was about to default that week or that month. It is now clear that a default is extremely unlikely (which is what I and some others were saying all along) and that those fools were talking out of their arse.

The union leaders are not interested in deep analysis either because they are focussed on the here and now. Neither would it make good TV and would look like they were nitpicking. The place for examining the figures is away from the limelight.

Well proof is in the pudding sure we will see how it plays out over the next 30 years I guess.

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 11:34AM

by the way has anyone any updates on how the talks have gone thus far?

Paulzx · 16-01-2013 11:39AM

fliball123 wrote: »

and as I say if they took a cut in wage more gaurds, nurses etc could be hired by using this money. .

If you actually believe this you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Any money taken off staff will be banked (literally) and the staff will just be working more for less again.

Government policy is to lower head count. More salary cuts will not change this.

antoobrien · 16-01-2013 11:39AM

Godge wrote: »

Salaries, wages and allowances in 2011 were €247,664,000. If you are right about the 7,000 employees, that results in an average salary of €35,380.

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 11:43AM

Paulzx wrote: »

If you actually believe this you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Any money taken off staff will be banked (literally) and the staff will just be working more for less again.

Government policy is to lower head count. More salary cuts will not change this.

True for the the here and now but when we are on the uppers if we have a leaner and less expensive public service it would be easier to recruit more staff when the the country is back on the uppers. I dont know when that will be do

Gumbo · 16-01-2013 11:46AM

antoobrien wrote: »

It's interesting that DPER have a very different set of (much higher) figures quoted for (total) DSP pay & staffing levels in the the 2012 estimates. I'm at a loss to see the cause of the discrepancy.

2011 |CaAG|DPER
Gross Pay |€247.664m |€314.545m*
Staff levels** | 6,011 | 6,855
Average |41,201 |45,885

* Net pay €307.824m
** Full time equivalents.

This might be accounted by re-deployment. The DSP got more staff from other departments to allow for more inspections and investigations in fraud DSP payments. Also to allow for more back ground staff to deal with applications for social payments etc

antoobrien · 16-01-2013 11:50AM

kceire wrote: »

This might be accounted by re-deployment. The DSP got more staff from other departments to allow for more inspections and investigations in fraud DSP payments. Also to allow for more back ground staff to deal with applications for social payments etc

All true but aren't the CAG supposed to have the definitive figures? A 70m & 800 staff difference is a bit much to explain away in such a fashion even if it is a negative change.

Godge · 16-01-2013 11:59AM

antoobrien wrote: »

All true but aren't the CAG supposed to have the definitive figures? A 70m & 800 staff difference is a bit much to explain away in such a fashion even if it is a negative change.

There was a big transfer of community welfare officers from the HSE to Social Protection with a chunk of budget travelling with the staff, it was the biggest redeployment under Croke Park - I recall reading about it in one of the reports. It is possible that for accounting reasons they were not included in 2011 figures but for budgetary planning purposes they are included in 2012 estimates to ensure like with like comparison.

Godge · 16-01-2013 12:02PM

fliball123 wrote: »

by the way has anyone any updates on how the talks have gone thus far?

someone still working in the public service who has been kept informed by their union would be a possible source of information.

fliball123 · 16-01-2013 12:04PM

Godge wrote: »

someone still working in the public service who has been kept informed by their union would be a possible source of information.

True your usually on the pulse with info Godge, just wondering how far things have progressed?

Godge · 16-01-2013 12:48PM

fliball123 wrote: »

True your usually on the pulse with info Godge, just wondering how far things have progressed?

I am too long gone from the public service to have up-to-date info.

My guess (and this is a guess this time) is that increased hours, reduction in pay for higher earners only and some reduction in shift pay and overtime rates are the areas where this will be played out in the long run. But that is all in the papers.

I don't believe compulsory redundancy is a serious proposal (except maybe in limited circumstances where an individual refuses redeployment), neither do I believe widespread pay cuts are on the table especially as private sector pay is on the up again. Standing against those proposals will be the things that the unions can claim as victory - remember in every bargaining talks each side has to get something.

The real interesting one is increments. Do the government need something to make up the figures? Do they need it for PR reasons? Is it a step too far for the unions? It could well be the issue that causes a breakdown on either side.

daveyeh · 16-01-2013 01:52PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Eh sorry there is an entitlement in the VHI package I am on he is entitled to a private bed, its a payment to jump the queue

Wrong. Read your policy.

16-01-2013 01:55PM

Godge wrote: »

I am too long gone from the public service to have up-to-date info.

My guess (and this is a guess this time) is that increased hours, reduction in pay for higher earners only and some reduction in shift pay and overtime rates are the areas where this will be played out in the long run. But that is all in the papers.

I don't believe compulsory redundancy is a serious proposal (except maybe in limited circumstances where an individual refuses redeployment), neither do I believe widespread pay cuts are on the table especially as private sector pay is on the up again. Standing against those proposals will be the things that the unions can claim as victory - remember in every bargaining talks each side has to get something.

The real interesting one is increments. Do the government need something to make up the figures? Do they need it for PR reasons? Is it a step too far for the unions? It could well be the issue that causes a breakdown on either side.

The other issue is that those negotiating on behalf of the unions have to also get any deal ratified by the majority of members.
Would a deal involving increment freezes get the members backing and if not how much does the government value industrial peace.

sarumite · 16-01-2013 02:32PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

how much does the government value industrial peace.

Well apparently the value is €1 billion.

16-01-2013 02:37PM

sarumite wrote: »

Well apparently the value is €1 billion.

Increments cost 1 billion or industrial peace is worth 1 billion?

repsol · 16-01-2013 02:45PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

One thing I'd like them to address is the current arrangement whereby new entrants are going in on much lower pay scales.

Either bring everyone down to the new level or move both scales to meet in the middle. They're creating a two tier public sector, which is only going to build resentment between newer and older workers in the long run.

I really think the unions shot themselves in the foot over this one and have sacrificed long term unity for the short term gain of protecting existing members. I won't be at all surprised though if nothing happens.

On the issue of cutting high earners pay only, isn't it a case that relative to the private sector it's actually the lower paid public sector workers who have the bigger premium?

The notion of people resenting colleagues pay is irrelevant.If someone applies for a job paying X then X is what they get.If somebody else is getting paid Y,thats life.If I have to choose between a pay cut and working with someone with a chip on their shoulder over their pay,I 'll just ignore the guy and keep my current pay.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments