Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Sinn Fein - looming health service disaster?

1…3233353738…51

Comments

  • #1022
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The HSE are incompetent, look at the shambles of a service they run for evidence of that and it is in their interests not to fill positions when they are in wage negotiations and defence of the ott salaries that are paid in the PS.

    Sorry, are you suggesting it's in the HSE's interest to imply they aren't paying their staff enough?

    Seriously?

    Even the most incompetent employer isn't that detached from reality.


  • #1023
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    So 'anecdotal' trumps what doctors are saying in a comprehensive survey published last week?
    Well there is no countering any argument if that is the case. I can attribute anything I want to 'anecdotal evidence'.

    In that survey doctors said that 'working conditions and work life balance' are the reasons for leaving. Doesn't 'anecdotal' evidence support this? The Health Service has been in a downward spiral for both consumers of it and workers in it for the past 10 and more years. How many on trollies today I wonder?
    If these doctors are all liars and all they're really after is cash, as the antishinners are proposing, why should we trust anything else they say about OECD reports etc. being incorrect? They are known liars, right?


  • #1024
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Calina wrote: »
    Sorry, are you suggesting it's in the HSE's interest to imply they aren't paying their staff enough?

    Seriously?

    Even the most incompetent employer isn't that detached from reality.

    Saying they 'can't fill positions' because the salaries are not high enough is very convenient.
    If they are incompetent at running the service it is quite possible they are incompetent at filling positions or playing a game in salary negotiations.
    But sure that would never happen in Ireland would it?


  • #1025
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    And it's been pointed out to you and others time and time again that salary cuts aren't the main reason for doctors leaving the Irish health system.

    You obviously aren't interested in why people are leaving, but I'll just remind you of this. SINN FEIN AREN'T IN GOVERNMENT HERE - FG & LABOUR ARE!

    Stop yelling at me.

    I've already written a post which you agreed with which highlighted that a premium on pay is required when all the other things are wrong.

    I've also suggested you read the SF health policy. They are doing very little to address the non-tangible costs in terms of attracting staff.

    It is plain to see you cannot deal with a nuanced position on something. In the meantime, there is data which makes it clear that there is an issue between keeping doctors in the Irish health system and cutting their pay.

    As support for your position you are presenting a survey of attitudes. I've given you the data on actions.

    The difference is between asking people what they think about something and looking at what they actually did when that something happened.


  • #1026
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Saying they 'can't fill positions' because the salaries are not high enough is very convenient.
    If they are incompetent at running the service it is quite possible they are incompetent at filling positions or playing a game in salary negotiations.
    But sure that would never happen in Ireland would it?

    It looks like they can't fill positions because of the working conditions, long hours, lack of a defined career path and a general discontentment with the HSE.


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Saying they 'can't fill positions' because the salaries are not high enough is very convenient.
    If they are incompetent at running the service it is quite possible they are incompetent at filling positions or playing a game in salary negotiations.
    But sure that would never happen in Ireland would it?

    I see.

    Let me explain something to you.

    If you want to play a game in salary negotiations - which happens a lot in Ireland - what you do is you make it abundantly clear to the staff that they can be comparatively easily replaced. You don't imply that you can't hire more because you're paying them too little. Not if you want to win the game anyway.


  • #1028
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    It looks like they can't fill positions because of the working conditions, long hours, lack of a defined career path and a general discontentment with the HSE.

    This is completely correct . Now can you explain how cutting their salary on top of this is going to help ?

    Can someone answer this time please ?


  • #1029
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Calina wrote: »
    Stop yelling at me.

    I've already written a post which you agreed with which highlighted that a premium on pay is required when all the other things are wrong.

    I've also suggested you read the SF health policy. They are doing very little to address the non-tangible costs in terms of attracting staff.

    It is plain to see you cannot deal with a nuanced position on something. In the meantime, there is data which makes it clear that there is an issue between keeping doctors in the Irish health system and cutting their pay.

    As support for your position you are presenting a survey of attitudes. I've given you the data on actions.

    The difference is between asking people what they think about something and looking at what they actually did when that something happened.

    I understand your position and indeed maybe we're not that far apart.

    However, if we learned anything in this country over the last decade or so, it's that throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it.

    SF may be working on a policy that will fix the other conditions of employment in the health service, I don't know.

    As it is, the number of doctors per 1,000 in out health service has fallen under the watch of FFail/FG and Labour, not under Sinn Fein.

    Those are the facts of the matter.


  • #1030
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Calina wrote: »
    I see.

    Let me explain something to you.

    If you want to play a game in salary negotiations - which happens a lot in Ireland - what you do is you make it abundantly clear to the staff that they can be comparatively easily replaced. You don't imply that you can't hire more because you're paying them too little. Not if you want to win the game anyway.

    You would imply that doctors are leaving because you are not paying them enough.


  • #1031
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    marienbad wrote: »
    This is completely correct . Now can you explain how cutting their salary on top of this is going to help ?

    Can someone answer this time please ?

    Lets start again.

    Show us the SF policy paper that states doctors and consultant doctors are included in the €100,000 proposed public sector pay cap.

    It might be easier that way.


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    I understand your position and indeed maybe we're not that far apart.

    However, if we learned anything in this country over the last decade or so, it's that throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it.

    No one is suggesting that we throw money at a problem. However, under discussion is a SF policy to remove money. I personally wouldn't be happy with a significant salary cut and it is entirely possible that a salary cut of that nature unilaterally is illegal under employment law.
    LeeMajors wrote: »
    SF may be working on a policy that will fix the other conditions of employment in the health service, I don't know.

    I can only discuss what they are willing to put on their website. I'm not willing to discuss the realms of what they may be working on. I don't know what it is and since I've spent the last page of this thread reading demands for data that I provided, I'm not commenting on a fantasy SF health policy which I can't support. The key content of their current policy in terms of conditions of employment in the health and public service is salary cuts.
    LeeMajors wrote: »
    As it is, the number of doctors per 1,000 in out health service has fallen under the watch of FFail/FG and Labour.

    Correlated with a major pay cut. This is the fact of the matter which is under discussion.


  • #1033
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Sinn Fein's Budget 2014 proposals included the following,

    » Reduce consultants’ pay by 15% on income between €150,000 and €200,000; and 30% on income of over €200,000 per annum: saves €9 million

    and for the rest of the public sector,

    Reductions in public sector pay & pensions, including 15% reduction in public sector salary between €100,000 & €150,000 and 30% on income over €150,000: saves €31.5 million

    That was the proposal.
    Not exactly what the OP claims, is it?


  • #1034
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Lets start again.

    Show us the SF policy paper that states doctors and consultant doctors are included in the €100,000 proposed public sector pay cap.

    It might be easier that way.

    http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2013/Healthcare_in_Ireland_2011.pdf

    Page 4

    Cap salaries in the public service, including the health services, at €100,000 per annum. Latest
    figures show over 110 HSE staff receive more than €100,000 per year. The CEO of the HSE is
    on a salary of €332,113 per annum, with National Directors on sums ranging from €145,949 to
    €192,492.


    Page 12
    » The introduction of a new public-only consultant contract – capping the salaries of medical
    consultants at €150,000.
    » The introduction of a public-only contract for GPs – capping salaries at €150,000.

    The problem Lee is if you have public only contracts of €150000 and a public service cap of €100,000, it's not clear what the consultant and GP salaries will be if they are technically public servants courtesy of a public only contract. The two details in the policy are mutually contradictory.


  • #1035
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Sinn Fein's Budget 2014 proposals included the following,

    » Reduce consultants’ pay by 15% on income between €150,000 and €200,000; and 30% on income of over €200,000 per annum: saves €9 million

    and for the rest of the public sector,

    Reductions in public sector pay & pensions, including 15% reduction in public sector salary between €100,000 & €150,000 and 30% on income over €150,000: saves €31.5 million

    That was the proposal.
    Not exactly what the OP claims, is it?

    But this is not what is in their health policy Lee.


  • #1036
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Calina wrote: »
    No one is suggesting that we throw money at a problem. However, under discussion is a SF policy to remove money. I personally wouldn't be happy with a significant salary cut and it is entirely possible that a salary cut of that nature unilaterally is illegal under employment law.



    I can only discuss what they are willing to put on their website. I'm not willing to discuss the realms of what they may be working on. I don't know what it is and since I've spent the last page of this thread reading demands for data that I provided, I'm not commenting on a fantasy SF health policy which I can't support. The key content of their current policy in terms of conditions of employment in the health and public service is salary cuts.



    Correlated with a major pay cut. This is the fact of the matter which is under discussion.

    If you're a consultant earning under €150k, there's no change.
    If you're a consultant on between €150 and €200k, there's a 15% cut.
    Over €200k and the cut is 30%.
    That's on their 'public' work.

    The 'average' in Ireland is €171k.

    Average GP salary is €119,000.


  • #1037
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Calina wrote: »
    But this is not what is in their health policy Lee.

    You asked for a more up to date set of figures than what's in a 2011 health document.
    I'm giving you their figures from their budget 2014 proposals.:confused:


  • #1038
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    If you're a consultant earning under €150k, there's no change.
    If you're a consultant on between €150 and €200k, there's a 15% cut.
    Over €200k and the cut is 30%.
    That's on their 'public' work.

    The 'average' in Ireland is €171k.

    Average GP salary is €119,000.

    If you cut the salary of a consultant on 171K by 15% and the salary of a consultant on 200K by 30%, the consultant who was previously earning less will end up earning more than the consultant who was earning 200KE.

    Figures:

    200,000*70% = 140,000
    171,000*85% = 145,350

    Given that the salary differential is usually seniority/competency based, do you think this is a fair policy?


  • #1039
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Calina wrote: »
    If you cut the salary of a consultant on 171K by 15% and the salary of a consultant on 200K by 30%, the consultant who was previously earning less will end up earning more than the consultant who was earning 200KE.

    Figures:

    200,000*70% = 140,000
    171,000*85% = 145,350

    Given that the salary differential is usually seniority/competency based, do you think this is a fair policy?
    The HRA cut was implemented as a percentage cut but couldn't bring you below the threshold. This would be the same.


  • #1040
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Calina wrote: »
    If you cut the salary of a consultant on 171K by 15% and the salary of a consultant on 200K by 30%, the consultant who was previously earning less will end up earning more than the consultant who was earning 200KE.

    Figures:

    200,000*70% = 140,000
    171,000*85% = 145,350

    Given that the salary differential is usually seniority/competency based, do you think this is a fair policy?

    AFAIK, and I could be wrong on this (wouldn't be the first time) it's 30% on the portion over €200k and 15% on the portion over €150k.

    This would be in line with the 3rd rate of tax being applicable to earnings over €100k elsewhere.


  • #1041
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    You asked for a more up to date set of figures than what's in a 2011 health document.
    I'm giving you their figures from their budget 2014 proposals.:confused:
    No, you have to phone up SF and get today's health policy proposals or they are apparently out of date and irrelevant...
    "Those are hours old! Get up some real data!"


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Mine?
    I'll remind you that I am the only one as yet to have posted what doctors themselves are saying, and it has been totally ignored by the antiSFbots.
    So far this is what has been contributed by my 'intellectual superiors' ''Working conditions' are a euphemism for money' when the doctors explicitly state elsewhere in the survey that 'money is not the primary reason for leaving'.
    And the other 'erudite' and 'intelligent' answer seems to be 'I believe there will be a 'mass exodus' because I believe it'. :rolleyes:

    As you are not an expert in social research, it might be helpful if you read and analysed the following:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias#Social_desirability_bias

    Now think about this. You are a doctor in a caring profession in an Irish culture of begrudgery where those that say they want more money at a time of recession are frowned upon. Now consider what type of social desirability bias would you expect from that survey?

    Then you will realise why some of us are looking at empirical evidence of behaviour rather than what some survey says.


  • #1043
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    AFAIK, and I could be wrong on this (wouldn't be the first time) it's 30% on the portion over €200k and 15% on the portion over €150k.

    This would be in line with the 3rd rate of tax being applicable to earnings over €100k elsewhere.

    It's the kind of thing that needs to be clarified. Precision in matters like this is important.


  • #1044
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Calina wrote: »
    It's the kind of thing that needs to be clarified. Precision in matters lie this is important.

    Absolutely.

    I'm sure you'll agree that if what's outlined above is the case, then the howling in the OP was way off the mark though?


  • #1045
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Lets start again.

    Show us the SF policy paper that states doctors and consultant doctors are included in the €100,000 proposed public sector pay cap.

    It might be easier that way.

    Are you saying doctors and consultants are not to be subject to any pay cuts ?
    Then what are we all discussing ?


  • #1046
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Calina wrote: »
    If you cut the salary of a consultant on 171K by 15% and the salary of a consultant on 200K by 30%, the consultant who was previously earning less will end up earning more than the consultant who was earning 200KE.

    Figures:

    200,000*70% = 140,000
    171,000*85% = 145,350

    Given that the salary differential is usually seniority/competency based, do you think this is a fair policy?
    LeeMajors wrote: »
    AFAIK, and I could be wrong on this (wouldn't be the first time) it's 30% on the portion over €200k and 15% on the portion over €150k.

    This would be in line with the 3rd rate of tax being applicable to earnings over €100k elsewhere.

    If Calina is right, SF don't know what they are doing and haven't a clue.

    If Lee is right, then they are being very misleading in their policy in an attempt to be populist.

    You pays your money and you take your pick.


  • #1047
    JacquesDeLad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 969 ✭✭✭JacquesDeLad


    Somebody who pulls up Budget proposal figures to counter analysis of a policy of the same party is taking the absolute piss out of you all. It takes some basic literacy skills to make a connection between the two so they're not as confused as they're letting on to be.


  • #1048
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    Then you will realise why some of us are looking at empirical evidence of behaviour rather than what some survey says.
    That's you calling Irish doctors liars. I'll defer to your expert knowledge on that.


  • #1049
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    marienbad wrote: »
    Are you saying doctors and consultants are not to be subject to any pay cuts ?
    Then what are we all discussing ?

    The OP would have you believe that consultants and GP's would be cut to €100K.

    Some pay cuts would be in order ok as outlined above.

    Average consultant pay here is €171k, for their public work, that's without the real lucrative part of their annual take home.

    Average pay for a GP is €119k, well under the €150k mark where SF propose their cuts to start.


  • #1050
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    The OP would have you believe that consultants and GP's would be cut to €100K.

    Some pay cuts would be in order ok as outlined above.

    Average consultant pay here is €171k, for their public work, that's without the real lucrative part of their annual take home.

    Average pay for a GP is €119k, well under the €150k mark where SF propose their cuts to start.

    ......and the €100k salary cap also proposed in the S F health policy?


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    The OP would have you believe that consultants and GP's would be cut to €100K.

    Some pay cuts would be in order ok as outlined above.

    Average consultant pay here is €171k, for their public work, that's without the real lucrative part of their annual take home.

    Average pay for a GP is €119k, well under the €150k mark where SF propose their cuts to start.

    Yeah , so pay cuts would happen - why the dissembling .

    So now will you answer my question . Why on top of all the valid reasons you have given for doctors leaving the health service you think cutting their wages will improve the situation ?

    Does anyone give a straight answer around here ?


Advertisement