Nim wrote: » If it's not true in every case then it's not a fact.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » That... doesn't make any sense. Statistics don't have to be true for every case in order to be a fact. If I say the fertility rate in Ireland is 1.99 that is a fact but not only is it not true for every woman, it's not true for any woman. Similarly public sector wages in Ireland are higher than they are in the private sector taking into account education and training needed to carry out the job. But that doesn't mean it's true for every case. Get it now?
Jawgap wrote: » There are a lot of public service jobs in health, policing, defence, the emergency services that are woefully underpaid if the metric is 'stress.'
And I still remember interviewing people for entry level and not so entry level jobs in the place I worked and them turning their noses up at the salaries on offer - including one girl who burst out laughing when we confirmed the money on offer.
dxhound2005 wrote: » And the highest salary in the Public Service would be only 5% or 10% of the highest salary in the private sector. And as per my other post 80% of workers are in the private sector, many of them part time, thus skewing the statistics on average pay.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Public sector workers, when you take into consideration the level of education and training needed for the job and the level of stress the job implies still get paid more than their private sector counterparts.
dxhound2005 wrote: PS jobs are mostly full time.
ShoulderChip wrote: » that doesnt make sense though, if they did have equal jobs paid higher with less qualifications needed, then better people would apply, people with higher qualifications and that would become the norm for that sector. unless you think that highly qualified people are not clever enough to apply for public sector jobs
KomradeBishop wrote: » Meanwhile, the rest of us judge the efficiency of the public sector, based on the benefit they provide to society - which costs more money to improve, not less - and not on minimizing the amount of expenditure (as people tend to regard efficiency, as quality of service, not on mere monetary cost).
KomradeBishop wrote: » Meanwhile, the rest of us judge the efficiency of the public sector, based on the benefit they provide to society
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Throwing money at an inefficient system doesn't make the system more efficient, you know that.
stimpson wrote: » That would explain the outrage over pay rises.
KomradeBishop wrote: » Your idea of 'efficient' for public services, is different to everyone elses - bar other die-hard free marketeers.
Bacchus wrote: » I've no objection to a 2% bump in a person's salary if they deserve it. Not everyone in the public sector is on a 6 figure salary for a cushy desk job. What I don't like about this is that it looks like it's just a blanket increase of 2% whether you're a lazy, overpaid leech or a hardworking, front line staff member making just enough to get by. It should be done like in the private sector, yearly increments based on performance goals. You don't meet your goals, you don't get a pay increase. No system is perfect but a universal bump of 2% is lazy, unfair and, as pointed out, just ticking another box in the run up to the election.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » My idea of efficient is to maximize service and minimize costs. Once again throwing money at an inefficient system does not make it more efficient.
KomradeBishop wrote: » It's quite simple really: You cut the money going to public services, as has been happening the past number of years, you get worse quality service. Want better quality public services? Send more money to the public services.
KomradeBishop wrote: » I doubt it. When it comes to the public sector, I'd say you'd rather see it defunded and have the service worsen, to set it on the path towards privatization - I doubt you give a toss about having better quality public services. You're arguing indirectly for privatization, not on the merits/demerits of public sector wages.
dxhound2005 wrote: » What performance goals would you set for firemen? Or nurses?
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Thank you for that insight Komrade but I'm more aware of what I'm arguing for than you are.
kupus wrote: » I'd rather see all the money being put into a huge bundle and lit up for bonfires night. At least then people would have some form of payback in the form of heat and a bit of entertainment for the night instead of endless money pit that the ps is. Useless good for nothing workshy hypocrites is all they are. And that's me putting it mildly.
To Elland Back wrote: » Total nonsense. Giving more money to a lazy inefficient worker, who cannot be fired,
KomradeBishop wrote: » Great so lets throw the baby out with the bathwater - withhold money from, defund, get rid of all the public services, rather than root out the workers who take this piss - great.
To Elland Back wrote: » Total nonsense. Giving more money to a lazy inefficient worker, who cannot be fired, is not going improve public services. Give every PS worker a pay increase and make individuals accountable with the prospect of redundancy for under performance. That's the way
KomradeBishop wrote: » It's more about how credible your claim is about what you're arguing for - given past posts, I'm not convinced that your argument is anything other than an indirect one in general support of privatization, and bigging up the private sector while playing down the public sector.
ShoulderChip wrote: » would that include getting rid of the tax on plastic bags?
KomradeBishop wrote: » Mmm? Sure, yes - lets be rid of this tyrannical plastic bag tax, inflating bloated/lazy public sector wages - free plastic bags for all :pac:
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Continious assesments, constant grading on various aspects of their work, if a fireman is late for a drill it goes on his record. If a nurse doesn't organize his files correctly it goes on his record.
