Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Godge · 31-01-2013 09:22PM

sarumite wrote: »

Unless you are suggesting the government should put a cap on the numbers in receipt of social welfare or should deny people healthcare, I am not entirely sure how valid your point is. This idea that we can compare the rising cost of social welfare to the decreasing cost of the public sector bill without providing any context for this increase or decrease is a fallacy that is usedAd nauseam by too many people on boards. If the government is paying too high a price for a particular service it owes it to the taxpayer to reduce the cost of providing that service. If it is paying too little, it owes it to the employee to properly renumerate them. Whats happening (and equally why its happening) in the social welfare bill is an irrelevant red herring.

You see the easy answer is to just say cut all the public service workers but there are many other options to cut the costs and no element of expenditure should be exempt.

Around one-third of the population have access to a medical card, that is way more than required. Money can be saved there.

In other European countries you lose the entitlement to any unemployment payment after two/three years and you get a subsistence payment well below €188.

In other European countries, the single parent payment stops when a child gets to 6 or 7, others have restrictions on second and subsequent children.

In other European countries, child benefit is taxed, means tested, is only paid until age 11, or not paid for later children.

sarumite · 31-01-2013 09:28PM

Godge wrote: »

You see the easy answer is to just say cut all the public service workers but there are many other options to cut the costs and no element of expenditure should be exempt.

Around one-third of the population have access to a medical card, that is way more than required. Money can be saved there.

In other European countries you lose the entitlement to any unemployment payment after two/three years and you get a subsistence payment well below €188.

In other European countries, the single parent payment stops when a child gets to 6 or 7, others have restrictions on second and subsequent children.

In other European countries, child benefit is taxed, means tested, is only paid until age 11, or not paid for later children.

This is a textbook strawman response to my post. Set up a position I don't necessarily hold so you can argue against it.

kippy · 31-01-2013 09:34PM

sarumite wrote: »

Unless you are suggesting the government should put a cap on the numbers in receipt of social welfare or should deny people healthcare, I am not entirely sure how valid your point is. This idea that we can compare the rising cost of social welfare to the decreasing cost of the public sector bill without providing any context for this increase or decrease is a fallacy that is usedAd nauseam by too many people on boards. If the government is paying too high a price for a particular service it owes it to the taxpayer to reduce the cost of providing that service. If it is paying too little, it owes it to the employee to properly renumerate them. Whats happening (and equally why its happening) in the social welfare bill is an irrelevant red herring.

Really, you reckon the social welfare bill is a red herring and an irrelevant on at that?

From my perspective it is rather grating to see certain posters imply that the main reason that the public sector pay and pensions bill is that people are leaving the service there wages haven't really been effected at all. Going as fare to dismiss any savings as being purely down to headcount. Yet on the other hand the excuse for the social welfare bill getting higher is simply because more people are going onto it, nothing at all do do with the rates.....

Also, many are very quick to point out the ballooning of public sector pay and pensions during the "boom" yet don't acknowledge the fact that the same happened for social welfare rates and indeed the bust completely blew social welfare spending out of control.

Again, many are very quick to point of the differentials in public sector wages in this country versus those "just across the border" or indeed elsewhere in Europe, without also acknowledging that the same can be said for social welfare and indeed other costs.

At least the state has attempted to tackle wages and pensions for current and future public sector workers and indeed is now attempting to garner further change (which I am in agreement with to a point)

The social welfare side of it however remains relatively unscathed.

And again, I would make the point that the social welfare bill hits on two fronts - the direct payments made to the individuals and the loss of tax take from the individuals.

To blame the public sector and only the public sector on the woes of this country is unfair to say the least and that, is what irks me.

sarumite · 31-01-2013 09:39PM

kippy wrote: »

From my perspective it is rather grating to see posters like yourself and others imply that the main reason that the public sector pay and pensions bill is that people are leaving the service there wages haven't really been effected at all.

Could you quote me where I said that?

kippy · 31-01-2013 09:51PM

sarumite wrote: »

Could you quote me where I said that?

Sarumite, I may have mistaken you for another poster, apologies. I will edit the post to reflect that.

Farmer Pudsey · 31-01-2013 10:07PM

Godge wrote: »

You see the easy answer is to just say cut all the public service workers but there are many other options to cut the costs and no element of expenditure should be exempt.

Around one-third of the population have access to a medical card, that is way more than required. Money can be saved there.

In other European countries you lose the entitlement to any unemployment payment after two/three years and you get a subsistence payment well below €188.

In other European countries, the single parent payment stops when a child gets to 6 or 7, others have restrictions on second and subsequent children.

In other European countries, child benefit is taxed, means tested, is only paid until age 11, or not paid for later children.

kippy wrote: »

Really, you reckon the social welfare bill is a red herring and an irrelevant on at that?

From my perspective it is rather grating to see certain posters imply that the main reason that the public sector pay and pensions bill is that people are leaving the service there wages haven't really been effected at all. Going as fare to dismiss any savings as being purely down to headcount. Yet on the other hand the excuse for the social welfare bill getting higher is simply because more people are going onto it, nothing at all do do with the rates.....

Also, many are very quick to point out the ballooning of public sector pay and pensions during the "boom" yet don't acknowledge the fact that the same happened for social welfare rates and indeed the bust completely blew social welfare spending out of control.

Again, many are very quick to point of the differentials in public sector wages in this country versus those "just across the border" or indeed elsewhere in Europe, without also acknowledging that the same can be said for social welfare and indeed other costs.

At least the state has attempted to tackle wages and pensions for current and future public sector workers and indeed is now attempting to garner further change (which I am in agreement with to a point)

The social welfare side of it however remains relatively unscathed.

And again, I would make the point that the social welfare bill hits on two fronts - the direct payments made to the individuals and the loss of tax take from the individuals.

To blame the public sector and only the public sector on the woes of this country is unfair to say the least and that, is what irks me.

First of all there is another thread where Social Welfare is discussed Godge I believe that you have contributed there Kippy I am not sure about. In reality compare to other EU countries our welfare system is quite generous. It is not just the headline rates but also the other benifits such as rent allowance, back to school and supplementry benfit etc. along with Single Parenthood and it has become a Lifestyle choice. Disability Allowance is abused by those with a light disability if you look at the welfare thread all this is discussed please contribute there.

Children allowance is very delicate area. There is a certain section that wish it to be means tested and taxed the issue being that this would again see workers losing out as against welfare reciepents the same as the last budgets PRSI reforms. Unlike other countries we have creshe and childminding faculities are not subidised so the full cost falls on the parent neither like the UK and opthers have we a tax allowance for childcare so any reform of CA has to allow for this.

However all of these are a discussion for another thread the reality is that yes we must reduce welfare raise taxes and reduce PS costs and wages.

kippy · 31-01-2013 10:33PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

However all of these are a discussion for another thread the reality is that yes we must reduce welfare raise taxes and reduce PS costs and wages.

Really, we much reduce welfare, raise taxes and reduce PS costs and wages. I think you forgot re-negotiate interest rates and terms on our debts as well......

Talk about stating the obvious.

The unions may be going into the CP2 talk with the same mindset as is being displayed here by myself and Godge, amongst others, so I dont believe it's something for "another thread".

While there can and will be some more movement on the public sector, there HAS to be some level of reductions in the social welfare bill.

noodler · 31-01-2013 10:59PM

Of the 25bn adjustments so far, only what? Two billion have been on the pay bill via the cuts and pension levy?

Theres been some savings through reduced headcounts as well but how anybody can argue that PS pay has felt the same brunt as other areas of expenditure certainly puzzles me.

Where did the other 20bn worth of adjustments come from?

The ESRI reiterated once more this morning the unexplained the PS premium pay gap over the private sector.

NAP123 · 01-02-2013 12:22AM

kippy wrote: »

So pre 1997 PS workers get 3% additional salary (on top of increments) every year for life?

I'd like to see the evidence for that one.

Who said it was on top of increments?

NAP123 · 01-02-2013 12:26AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is the latest in a long series of claims you've made throughout the forum, for which you offer no proof at all. This needs to stop, because it's a waste of everybody's time and energy.

The next unfounded, unreferenced claim you make will result in sanctions, because it's evidently your m.o.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Proof is that my wife worked in the PS for 10 years and had a 3% increase on the date of her birthday every year for 10 years.

Prove she did,nt.

sarumite · 01-02-2013 12:36AM

kippy wrote: »

Really, we much reduce welfare, raise taxes and reduce PS costs and wages. I think you forgot re-negotiate interest rates and terms on our debts as well......

Talk about stating the obvious.

The unions may be going into the CP2 talk with the same mindset as is being displayed here by myself and Godge, amongst others, so I dont believe it's something for "another thread".

While there can and will be some more movement on the public sector, there HAS to be some level of reductions in the social welfare bill.

I don't necessarily disagree that there has to be a reduction in the social welfare bill. However, that is not necessarily the governments job (nor ability) to do so. The government can reduce social welfate rates, however this will not necessarily reduce the SW bill if more people join SW.

This is the problem I have with people who look at SW bill without putting it in context. There has been a reduction in some social welfare payments. Could there be greater reduction, personally I think yes. However the overall SW bill could go down or up without any action by the government depending on the availability of jobs etc.

Godge · 01-02-2013 12:39AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Proof is that my wife worked in the PS for 10 years and had a 3% increase on the date of her birthday every year for 10 years.

Prove she did,nt.

There is no possible way that this is true.

Name the grade and the years she worked in the public service and I will find the payscale and prove you wrong.

I am taking up your challenge, all you have to do is provide the information I ask.

Idbatterim · 01-02-2013 12:40AM

I would say government procurement is one area where there is massive waste and it would be a very easy area to target!

Godge · 01-02-2013 12:45AM

sarumite wrote: »

I don't necessarily disagree that there has to be a reduction in the social welfare bill. However, that is not necessarily the governments job (nor ability) to do so. The government can reduce social welfate rates, however this will not necessarily reduce the SW bill if more people join SW.

This is the problem I have with people who look at SW bill without putting it in context. There has been a reduction in some social welfare payments. Could there be greater reduction, personally I think yes. However the overall SW bill could go down or up without any action by the government depending on the availability of jobs etc.

They can also change the eligibility rules.

Whether it is for medical cards, FIS, disability allowance, unemployment assistance for part-timers, etc. there is plenty of room for change in the eligibility rules.

Paulzx · 01-02-2013 12:48AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Proof is that my wife worked in the PS for 10 years and had a 3% increase on the date of her birthday every year for 10 years.

Prove she did,nt.

Did she get a birthday cake with candles as well?............

The taoiseach of the day arrived with a nicely wrapped present for her?

What are you?. The Irish Economy comedy show?:D

K-9 · 01-02-2013 12:48AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Proof is that my wife worked in the PS for 10 years and had a 3% increase on the date of her birthday every year for 10 years.

Prove she did,nt.

Banned for a week and it will escalate quickly to a permaban if you don't change your posting style.

Also thread banned from replying to this thread ever again!

Vizzy · 01-02-2013 12:48AM

Idbatterim wrote: »

I would say government procurement is one area where there is massive waste and it would be a very easy area to target!

Whilst I'd agree that this was a major problem going back 3 or 4 years it is now being addessed in a big way across the Public sector through things like eTenders,LAQuotes and other central procurement services.

Godge · 01-02-2013 12:53AM

Idbatterim wrote: »

I would say government procurement is one area where there is massive waste and it would be a very easy area to target!

Is this conclusion based on your verifiable experiences, extensive research on the internet, independent reports or just making it up.

Have a read of the following website.

http://www.procurement.ie/

Farmer Pudsey · 01-02-2013 01:24AM

Godge wrote: »

They can also change the eligibility rules.

Whether it is for medical cards, FIS, disability allowance, unemployment assistance for part-timers, etc. there is plenty of room for change in the eligibility rules.

Savings are limited on first two unless there are cuts in social welfare rates. As most social welfare reciepants recieve medical cards if eligibility rules are changed then low incom workers will be first effected then you again giscourage the incentive to work. FIS is the same . Now maybe there can be saving that would have little economic effect if over 70's medical cards rules were changed however the political will to do it might not be there. Unemployment assistance for part timers again might hit low income workers so in a headcount reduction process workers might prefer to be unemployed than work 3 day weeks and employers might finf it hard to recruit part time workers. This already is an issue

I cannot see any Golden Goose in these suggestions. We need a total root and branch reform in government spending and pay area's. What we have so far is protection of sectional intrests.

kippy · 01-02-2013 08:33AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Who said it was on top of increments?

again where is your evidence?

kippy · 01-02-2013 10:43AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

. What we have so far is protection of sectional intrests.

Can you clarify that?

Farmer Pudsey · 01-02-2013 11:15AM

kippy wrote: »

Can you clarify that?

THe Labour Party has decided that Headline social welfare cannot be touched as well as PS pay. FG has decided taht there can be no extra work taxes( however they have allowed changes in PRSI and USC).

The State in general has decided that the bamks must be protected at all cost and while it is changing the bankrupty/insolvency laws we still have amoung the longest insolvency period in the EU as well as that even if an agreement is reached towards the end the banks can come back and look for more. You will continue seeing those that can afford it heading to England to declare themselves insolvent while ordinary people with debt issue will still be caught in an Irish solution to an Irish Problem

The unions have decided to protect existing PS workers and pensioners to the detriment of new workers and PS workers that are employed in the service a short time.

Idbatterim · 01-02-2013 01:51PM

Is this conclusion based on your verifiable experiences, extensive research on the internet, independent reports or just making it up.

Have a read of the following website.

yes it is actually based on direct experience! There are only 2/3 main players in the area I work. Several years ago the stipulations were changed when awarding the state contract, you had to have had 2 or 3 similar contracts valued at over X, now this meant only one company could win the contract, as only one contract in the state was valued at this amount ever and it was the government one! I queried this with the relevant person at the time and just asked straight out " so what your telling me is, that once one company meets the criteria, they will be awarded the contract no matter what the cost? - Yes" Being honest there wasnt an iota of difference between any of us, except on price, we were all using the same employees! There was either something dodgy going on or the person who amended the criteria simply had no idea of the market in my industry - which is what i suspect.

Is this conclusion based on your verifiable experiences

would you deem that to be verifiable experience ? pm me your email address and I can send you over the offer to tender and non award of contract letter if you wish...

Farmer Pudsey · 01-02-2013 03:49PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

yes it is actually based on direct experience! There are only 2/3 main players in the area I work. Several years ago the stipulations were changed when awarding the state contract, you had to have had 2 or 3 similar contracts valued at over X, now this meant only one company could win the contract, as only one contract in the state was valued at this amount ever and it was the government one! I queried this with the relevant person at the time and just asked straight out " so what your telling me is, that once one company meets the criteria, they will be awarded the contract no matter what the cost? - Yes" Being honest there wasnt an iota of difference between any of us, except on price, we were all using the same employees! There was either something dodgy going on or the person who amended the criteria simply had no idea of the market in my industry - which is what i suspect.

would you deem that to be verifiable experience ? pm me your email address and I can send you over the offer to tender and non award of contract letter if you wish...

This is commonplace accross most government and Local Authority tendering for a contract say amounting to approx 150K you will be required to have completed 3 or more timers than in this type of work in the previously three years. This could be in water/sewage, road. electrical etc. Now in certain area's Building etc this can be public or private. However in road building or water/sewage more than likly you will have to have won substancial tenders either within Ireland or accross the EU to get this type of work. It is a virtual closed shop.

Most of these projects there will only 2-3 tenders for so it could be a case it is your turn this time next time it is mine.

Idbatterim · 01-02-2013 05:00PM

farmer pudsy, i appreciate that and that is exactly why I said the person who came up with the criteria probably has no clue about our market, I appreciate in construction etc, 150k is pocket change but in our industry, the conditions they came up with was akin to a council seeking traders for a market square and telling them only bother applying if your other stall turns over 1 million p.a etc!!!

the thing is that contract was awarded for several years and they ceased the service several years ago, I couldnt really care less, just highlighting first hand experience at the waste. Im sure its a hell of a lot more palatable to cut waste to private sector firms than it is to go back and touch pay, pensions etc...

ill just reiterate what happened, the tender was sought and a contract awarded on a yearly basis. the competing company has contract for 3 years, then new clause is inserted stating you must have had 3 similar contracts valued at over X thousand euro in the last 3 years! There was only contract worth that amount ever, and that was the government gig! so of course ourselves and the other competing company could never get it, unless the terms of the tender were changed... sorry i probably didnt make the original post clear enough.

Farmer Pudsey · 01-02-2013 11:34PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

farmer pudsy, i appreciate that and that is exactly why I said the person who came up with the criteria probably has no clue about our market, I appreciate in construction etc, 150k is pocket change but in our industry, the conditions they came up with was akin to a council seeking traders for a market square and telling them only bother applying if your other stall turns over 1 million p.a etc!!!

the thing is that contract was awarded for several years and they ceased the service several years ago, I couldnt really care less, just highlighting first hand experience at the waste. Im sure its a hell of a lot more palatable to cut waste to private sector firms than it is to go back and touch pay, pensions etc...

ill just reiterate what happened, the tender was sought and a contract awarded on a yearly basis. the competing company has contract for 3 years, then new clause is inserted stating you must have had 3 similar contracts valued at over X thousand euro in the last 3 years! There was only contract worth that amount ever, and that was the government gig! so of course ourselves and the other competing company could never get it, unless the terms of the tender were changed... sorry i probably didnt make the original post clear enough.

I agre with you like I said that the government tendering process can tend to be a closed shop. Even the way you have to lodge around 10% as a gaurantee that you will do the project this is a cost as well.

The three year continous work clause means that it is impossible to get a start in the government contracting game

sock puppet · 03-02-2013 03:41AM

My only experience in procurement really is IT but it can be difficult to switch supplier when it comes to putting the contract out for tender again. It's exacerbated by the fact that many of the large players don't really bother with the Irish market. In the UK it's a bit different and for some contracts you'll get pretty much every big competitor bidding.

tayto lover · 03-02-2013 05:15PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

THe Labour Party has decided that Headline social welfare cannot be touched as well as PS pay. FG has decided taht there can be no extra work taxes( however they have allowed changes in PRSI and USC).

The State in general has decided that the bamks must be protected at all cost and while it is changing the bankrupty/insolvency laws we still have amoung the longest insolvency period in the EU as well as that even if an agreement is reached towards the end the banks can come back and look for more. You will continue seeing those that can afford it heading to England to declare themselves insolvent while ordinary people with debt issue will still be caught in an Irish solution to an Irish Problem

The unions have decided to protect existing PS workers and pensioners to the detriment of new workers and PS workers that are employed in the service a short time.

Blaming the Unions is the popular thing and what the Govt want you to do.
The nurses didn't bite for the 80% and if the other PS workers do the same then the Govt is in trouble trying to fill positions.
The Unions are right.
Blame the Government.

majimbo · 03-02-2013 06:31PM

I am a local authority employee employed since 1978. I currently earn E692 gross. I am contracted to provide 39 hour 7 day cover. If I retired/resigned last February I would have a retirement pension from my "super Public service" job of E129 per week.

This equates to E6,500 per year.
Look for your savings elsewhere mainly Dail Eireann and the higher echelons of the public service.

PS I paid pension contributions since 1979 and will not gain 1cent from the Pension Levy imposed by Brian Lenihan despite reducing my takehome pay substantially. My takehome will probably be in the region of E24000 for 2012.
Lucky my wife works for a private compan, part time in a job that insists giving her 16 hours over 4 days to prevent her signing on.

majimbo · 03-02-2013 06:42PM

in relation to tenders and providing services to the government dept and local authorities. A number of points for me to make.

Central Procurement- results in many small local business no longer supplying such things as stationary requirements etc. (Lost local income and jobs)

It allows the multiples esp those outside Ireland to now have an interest in supplying big orders.

A problem that is now occurring is their requirement for minimum order levels and storage problems when the goods arrive. (resultant extra storage costs and possible expiry dates on goods leading to more costs).

Minister Howlin will have to reconsider his savings methodology.

Some contracts are also wrote to prevent certain suppliers from tendering eg I want a 10 ton lorry but i dont want a X type, I want the Y type supplied by Z so write down extras or conditions that X can't supply.

How do you think the higher echelons got rich!

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments