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

Benchmakring III without the comparison

Options
1…456810

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,639 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Pay should be reduced to around 2002 levels.

    This is where your creditability had taken a nose dive into 2002. At least if you are a spiteful PS basher, have a decent argument.

    are any other countries PS pay at 2002 levels?


  • Options
    #213
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    kceire wrote: »
    This is where your creditability had taken a nose dive into 2002. At least if you are a spiteful PS basher, have a decent argument.

    are any other countries PS pay at 2002 levels?

    I don't know much about other countries PS, but I suspect it is the reason for record levels of debt, which has reached unsustainable levels.


  • Options
    #214
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,639 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Rightwing wrote: »
    I don't know much about other countries PS, but I suspect it is the reason for record levels of debt, which has reached unsustainable levels.

    PS pay is the reason for record debt? Is that your stance now?


  • Options
    #215
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    kceire wrote: »
    PS pay is the reason for record debt? Is that your stance now?

    This isn't exactly rocket science we are dealing with. The correlation between national debt and government size is more than obvious i.e. both are upward sloping at a shocking rate.


  • Options
    #216
    Paulzx
    Registered Users Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭Paulzx


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Pay should be reduced to around 2002 levels.

    Why 2002 levels? I presume you have a valid argument. Why not 2001 or 1999 or maybe even 1989?

    Just because you have an absolutely fixed viewpoint on slashing public sector wages (again!!) doesn't mean it's correct.

    Randomly coming up with a figure off the top of your head is not sound debate. Neither is rhetoric


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Pay should be reduced to around 2002 levels.

    There are people in the PS who will be hoping that this deal will see their salaries recover their 2002 real value.
    Privatisation would be every PS workers' worst nightmare.

    Really? What does TCD or St Vincents hospital have to fear from privatisation except that venal politicians would no longer be able to fiddle about with people's salaries.


  • Options
    #218
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Privatisation would be every PS workers' worst nightmare. This indicates there's still a lot of room for hefty cuts.

    Spoken truly like someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about.

    You do realize that the public service has been out sourcing its services for a years now and are increasingly doing so?????

    Funnily enough the more services that are privatized the more it usually costs the government to have those services rather than keep public servants in those posts.


  • Options
    #219
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Spoken truly like someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about.

    You do realize that the public service has been out sourcing its services for a years now and are increasingly doing so?????

    Funnily enough the more services that are privatized the more it usually costs the government to have those services rather than keep public servants in those posts.

    And unfortunately they get absolutely milked as everyone knows they have no concept of value for money.


  • Options
    #220
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,871 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Rightwing wrote: »
    And unfortunately they get absolutely milked as everyone knows they have no concept of value for money.

    How long did it take you to make that up?

    Ask goods and professional service suppliers like me about that one.

    The procurement and efficiency drive in the PS is cut throat. The OGP is taking on more and more centralisation of supply and local tenders are bone bare competitive. The VFM in civils projects remains very high.


  • Options
    #221
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Rightwing wrote: »
    And unfortunately they get absolutely milked as everyone knows they have no concept of value for money.

    Again an off the cuff attempt at wit that shows you have no idea what your talking about.

    Most of not all PS procurement have a better understanding of categories and industries than the companies who operate in them


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Most of not all PS procurement have a better understanding of categories and industries than the companies who operate in them
    This may or may not be true, but I will give an example from my industry, which occurred several years ago... In which case the ignorance was either laughably bad or there was something dodgy going on, neither of which would surprise me. There are a few players in our field, so one year the tender has the criteria that you have to have X turnover, and have had at least 3 contracts valued at over X euro over the past 3 years.

    There was only one contract possibly worth that amount, for the same organisation that were seeking the tenders and that ruled out anyone else from bidding, as you couldn't meet the criteria. I rang up and asked to speak to the guy who was in charge of tendering and basically said "you mean to tell me, that he can effectively charge what he wants, as he is the only one who is allegedly able to meet the criteria" and yes was the response I received.

    The hilarious thing is, we are the only company in our field that a lot of other government departments have to and are happy to use, as they cant get the service any where else. If that particular department ever contacts us again, inviting us to tender, it will be going straight in the bin. Those tenders take serious amount of time and if they are simply looking for 2 or 3 to show that they are shopping around, as some smoke screen, I wont be cooperating any more. This worries me far more as a taxpayer far more than someone who has lost out on fairly little after all is done and paid for and our scandalous marginal income tax rate has been applied...

    I have proposed it before, get a private sector company in to do all of the PS tendering, give them a % of the savings, (also with clauses to make sure they are picking quality suppliers, not shopping just on cost) some Ryanair style operation with a relentless appetite for cost cutting and efficiency.


  • Options
    #223
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    This may or may not be true, but I will give an example from my industry, which occurred several years ago... In which case the ignorance was either laughably bad or there was something dodgy going on, neither of which would surprise me. There are a few players in our field, so one year the tender has the criteria that you have to have X turnover, and have had at least 3 contracts valued at over X euro over the past 3 years.

    There was only one contract possibly worth that amount, for the same organisation that were seeking the tenders and that ruled out anyone else from bidding, as you couldn't meet the criteria. I rang up and asked to speak to the guy who was in charge of tendering and basically said "you mean to tell me, that he can effectively charge what he wants, as he is the only one who is allegedly able to meet the criteria" and yes was the response I received.

    The hilarious thing is, we are the only company in our field that a lot of other government departments have to and are happy to use, as they cant get the service any where else. If that particular department ever contacts us again, inviting us to tender, it will be going straight in the bin. Those tenders take serious amount of time and if they are simply looking for 2 or 3 to show that they are shopping around, as some smoke screen, I wont be cooperating any more. This worries me far more as a taxpayer far more than someone who has lost out on fairly little after all is done and paid for and our scandalous marginal income tax rate has been applied...

    I have proposed it before, get a private sector company in to do all of the PS tendering, give them a % of the savings, (also with clauses to make sure they are picking quality suppliers, not shopping just on cost) some Ryanair style operation with a relentless appetite for cost cutting and efficiency.

    That was a few years ago, pre OGP.
    They now have the specialists with the knowledge and it is all becoming centralised.


  • Options
    #224
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭Icepick


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    We're in a current account surplus, a lot of which is thanks to huge sacrifices made by PS workers.
    :rolleyes:
    How many people were laid off or fired again?
    Meanwhile hundreds of thousand people lost jobs in the private sector.


  • Options
    #225
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Icepick wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    How many people were laid off or fired again?
    Meanwhile hundreds of thousand people lost jobs in the private sector.

    So what?
    These people were not in demand.


  • Options
    #226
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭Icepick


    ardmacha wrote: »
    So what?
    These people were not in demand.
    neither are a lot of public servants


  • Options
    #227
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    So what?
    These people were not in demand.

    harsh but true, but unfortunately for them, they have no political clout, unlike public servants, due to their effectively unified vote... Icepicks point above is bang on, even more so in the past, before the natural wastage and recruitment embargo...
    That was a few years ago, pre OGP.
    They now have the specialists with the knowledge and it is all becoming centralised.

    about time and I honestly hope so, took them long enough...


  • Options
    #228
    Vizzy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,529 ✭✭✭Vizzy


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    about time and I honestly hope so, took them long enough...

    Sad thing about this is that the main losers are going to be the "local supplier" like stationary supplies, hardware shops etc.
    The very people that all the anti-ps brigade want to protect are the very ones who will be driven out of business.
    Be careful what you wish for !!!


  • Options
    #229
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    There are a few players in our field, so one year the tender has the criteria that you have to have X turnover, and have had at least 3 contracts valued at over X euro over the past 3 years.

    Standard in all tenders for obvious reasons.
    Idbatterim wrote: »
    There was only one contract possibly worth that amount, for the same organisation that were seeking the tenders and that ruled out anyone else from bidding, as you couldn't meet the criteria. I rang up and asked to speak to the guy who was in charge of tendering and basically said "you mean to tell me, that he can effectively charge what he wants, as he is the only one who is allegedly able to meet the criteria" and yes was the response I received

    Free market and despite what you may think the percentage of incumbents who hold onto a tender successfully isn't as high as you might think.
    Idbatterim wrote: »
    The hilarious thing is, we are the only company in our field that a lot of other government departments have to and are happy to use, as they cant get the service any where else. If that particular department ever contacts us again, inviting us to tender, it will be going straight in the bin. Those tenders take serious amount of time and if they are simply looking for 2 or 3 to show that they are shopping around, as some smoke screen, I wont be cooperating any more. This worries me far more as a taxpayer far more than someone who has lost out on fairly little after all is done and paid for and our scandalous marginal income tax rate has been applied...

    Then you should have had the turnover to deal with the tender and if you didnt you should be rightly excluded. Would you give a 10 million contract to a company whose biggest contract to date was a hundred thousand????

    It's not all just monetary but private sector do not see this alot of the time.

    Idbatterim wrote: »
    I have proposed it before, get a private sector company in to do all of the PS tendering, give them a % of the savings, (also with clauses to make sure they are picking quality suppliers, not shopping just on cost) some Ryanair style operation with a relentless appetite for cost cutting and efficiency.

    You do realize how ridiculous that sounds right? Have private sector companies looking after public sector spends I can just imagine the backhanders that would go on then.

    The simple fact of the matter is that even the so called private procurement expert companies have been given a public tender process to run they have made such a balls up of the process that its not only fully open to challenge but not even remotely decent state to audit as they haven't a clue about EU Directives or Finance Circulars despite claiming the contrary.

    Public Procurement is a very complex process due to EU and Irish legislation and the process gets more complex the higher the value of the tender and simply private companies have zero business going near public tenders in terms of running them.


  • Options
    #230
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Icepick wrote: »
    neither are a lot of public servants

    The vast majority of public servants are very much demand, people still expect education, law enforcement etc in a recession. People are literally queuing up at hospitals while the media over the next few weeks will be full of accounts of youths trying to get into third level education.
    Idbatterim wrote: »
    harsh but true, but unfortunately for them, they have no political clout, unlike public servants, due to their effectively unified vote....

    What unified vote? Do local authority roadsweepers and hospital consultants meet up and decide who to vote for.


  • Options
    #231
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,871 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    ardmacha wrote: »

    What unified vote? Do local authority roadsweepers and hospital consultants meet up and decide who to vote for.

    Effectively yes.

    http://www.ictu.ie/about/committees/14/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,871 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    about time and I honestly hope so, took them long enough...

    No, it took political will long enough. Politicians never want more competitive procurement because it sidelines the mom and pop operations in their local areas who have been supplying to their local Council or OPW or state agency for years.

    It took the troika intervention to really push this and now the politicians can point the finger of blame at them and move on.

    Its just a pity the will to tackle extortionate professional costs and legal fees seemed to ebb away in Fine Gael. How very strange indeed.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #233
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Then you should have had the turnover to deal with the tender and if you didnt you should be rightly excluded. Would you give a 10 million contract to a company whose biggest contract to date was a hundred thousand????

    It's not all just monetary but private sector do not see this alot of the time.


    we had a multiple of the required turnover, that wasn't the issue. We are the biggest in the country by turn over, by a long way, thanks for the concern though. The turn over clause had always been in place and makes perfect sense. It was the new one which was a joke... I haven't even gone in to the full extent of the joke it was, it is too long winded...

    Another field I am closely related to is now bringing legal proceedings against the Garda commissioner's office, an extract from the article. Ireland has also been warned that is it breaching EU tendering guidelines, I will dig the link out for that later, if I can find it...

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/translation-service-brings-legal-action-against-garda-commisioners-after-interpreter-contract-awarded-to-rivals-31138930.html

    Gardai require interpreters when dealing with non-English speaking people and has used Word Perfect Translation Services since 2007 including under a Department of Justice and Law Reform framework agreement for such services.


    Word Perfect says earlier this year, following a tendering process, the Garda Commissioner awarded the contract for translation services to Forbidden City, trading as Translation.ie, Upper Ormond Quay, Dublin; Language Training and Translating Ltd, t/a Context, Oranmore, Co Galway; and to Natalia Cotov, t/a Accord Translations, Oldtown, Co Dublin.


    Word Perfect says this has been done in breach of EU public procurement regulations.


    It also claims conflict of interest in Ms Cotov's Accord Translations getting the contract because she is married to, or is the civil partner of, a Garda Mick Byrne who is the son of former Garda Commissioner Pat Byrne.


    Word Perfect says the current Commissioner failed to exclude Ms Cotov's company from the competition or, at a minimum, failed to ensure the alleged conflict or potential conflict was removed. Alternatively, there was a failure to explain how the conflict was removed.


    Word Perfect is seeking orders under EU public procurement regulations that the award of the contract be set aside and/or permanently suspended. It seeks that Word Perfect instead be appointed or alternatively a new tendering process should take place.
    What unified vote? Do local authority roadsweepers and hospital consultants meet up and decide who to vote for.
    But but last time round, it was fairly obvious, that the vast majority were going to vote for Labour. Who else would they go for? waste a vote on an independent, that wasn't going to be needed last time round, FF, SF? FG some might have voted for them, but I am assuming the majority voted Labour...


  • Options
    #234
    Celticfire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,702 ✭✭✭Celticfire


    Idbatterim wrote: »


    But but last time round, it was fairly obvious, that the vast majority were going to vote for Labour. Who else would they go for? waste a vote on an independent, that wasn't going to be needed last time round, FF, SF? FG some might have voted for them, but I am assuming the majority voted Labour...

    So by the fact that you assume that the majority of public sector workers voted Labour can I then assume that Private Sector voters also were also unified and voted for FG?


  • Options
    #235
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    So by the fact that you assume that the majority of public sector workers voted Labour can I then assume that Private Sector voters also were also unified and voted for FG?

    my mother laughably voted for Labour because she liked some of their candidates, she is self employed LOL. So we cant make blanket assumptions, but I would say that yes, the majority of private sector would vote FG... My mate voted for Labour due to college fees, looking for a job now, he maybe should have thought two steps ahead instead of looking no further than the end of his nose & figured putting an anti jobs, anti reform, anti enterprise and prolonging the austerity budgets, mightn't be in his best interest when he graduated :rolleyes:

    I may vote for FG begrudgingly, if Renua appear credible I will be definitely be voting for them, I would also strongly consider not voting, after the years of sh*t and alleged lessons learned, it looks like we are heading right back down many of the same paths, that led to our downfall. Literally in the blink of an eye, its incredible...


  • Options
    #236
    Celticfire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,702 ✭✭✭Celticfire


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    harsh but true, but unfortunately for them, they have no political clout, unlike public servants, due to their effectively unified vote... .

    But they have even more clout than the Public Sector with their bigger effectively unified vote.


  • Options
    #237
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,467 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    we had a multiple of the required turnover, that wasn't the issue. We are the biggest in the country by turn over, by a long way, thanks for the concern though. The turn over clause had always been in place and makes perfect sense. It was the new one which was a joke... I haven't even gone in to the full extent of the joke it was, it is too long winded...

    Another field I am closely related to is now bringing legal proceedings against the Garda commissioner's office, an extract from the article. Ireland has also been warned that is it breaching EU tendering guidelines, I will dig the link out for that later, if I can find it...

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/translation-service-brings-legal-action-against-garda-commisioners-after-interpreter-contract-awarded-to-rivals-31138930.html




    But but last time round, it was fairly obvious, that the vast majority were going to vote for Labour. Who else would they go for? waste a vote on an independent, that wasn't going to be needed last time round, FF, SF? FG some might have voted for them, but I am assuming the majority voted Labour...
    Anyone who believes that entire tranches of Irish society vote for a party en masse based on their occupation needs to look at the logic and see that this notion is complete nonsense.


  • Options
    #238
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Anyone who believes that entire tranches of Irish society vote for a party en masse based on their occupation needs to look at the logic and see that this notion is complete nonsense.

    of course they do, those on welfare would most likely vote SF or Labour. Those in PS for FF or Labour. Those in private sector or self employed FG. Of course they are generalisations, there could be multiple reasons you may be one of the aforementioned and not vote for them. But mostly people here vote for how much more can go in their pockets. Is there another party saying, stop! we will sort out infrastructure, housing, HSE before spuriously throwing money on the bonfire to win more votes?
    Anyone who believes that entire tranches of Irish society vote for a party en masse based on their occupation needs to look at the logic and see that this notion is complete nonsense.
    well put it this way, pretty much everyone that is close to me family and friend wise, is voting Renua or FG, private sector, what a surprise...


  • Options
    #239
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,467 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    of course they do, those on welfare would most likely vote SF or Labour. Those in PS for FF or Labour. Those in private sector or self employed FG. Of course they are generalisations, there could be multiple reasons you may be one of the aforementioned and not vote for them. But mostly people here vote for how much more can go in their pockets. Is there another party saying, stop! we will sort out infrastructure, housing, HSE before spuriously throwing money on the bonfire to win more votes?

    well put it this way, pretty much everyone that is close to me family and friend wise, is voting Renua or FG, private sector, what a surprise...

    They don't. Simple as that -it's way to easy to stick generalisations on groups of people.

    Most people that are close to make make their mind up closer to election time, after reviewing the various candidates that are available for them to vote on.

    One would wonder why even try running as an independent or party outside of the ones you mention above if, as you suggest above, no one is going to vote for you..........


  • Options
    #240
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,871 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    kippy wrote: »
    Anyone who believes that entire tranches of Irish society vote for a party en masse based on their occupation needs to look at the logic and see that this notion is complete nonsense.

    Its not a question of occupation, its one of affiliation and sympathetic disposition.

    Do you not think the Labour Party, with all its research and polling and experience would try to court a public sector vote if they didn't believe such a thing existed? Or indeed a wider union vote in general? Same goes for Labour in Britain.

    Even if they only get through to half or less of public servants / union members, thats still hundreds of thousands of votes, enough to swing 4th or 5th seats....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    They don't. Simple as that -it's way to easy to stick generalisations on groups of people.

    Most people that are close to make make their mind up closer to election time, after reviewing the various candidates that are available for them to vote on.

    One would wonder why even try running as an independent or party outside of the ones you mention above if, as you suggest above, no one is going to vote for you..........

    You are right, but I find it laughable. At this stage I know where all of our bloody established parties stand, I am not going to vote for single issue independents as I think its madness. The electorate voting for "people" rather than policies is absurd IMO...

    To be honest, the vast majority of people I know, the friends I went to school with, private sector, most have 3rd level, have only an unbelievably basic level of understanding, when it comes to politics. And this is the endless information at the touch of a button generation... I think to become properly informed, you actually have to have an interest on it and actively research it and get various opinions and view points.

    The 5 yearly, election manifesto leaflet reader and being bombarded with smiling politicians looking down from you at height from a lamppost smiling, spouting propaganda, doesnt hold much weight IMO...
    But they have even more clout than the Public Sector with their bigger effectively unified vote.
    yeah this is an interesting one, FG will have Labour as their current preferred coalition partner, they need to throw them a bone i.e. public sector pay rises, it also helps that their own pay is linked to the PS or CS pay? to try and get both parties enough votes to be a repeat of the same again in 2016. The junior party IMO has nearly as much influence as the senior party when they are both dependent on one another to maintain power and their agenda is the same...


Advertisement