Benchmarking payments will sink economy, STOP now!

P

PoorPensioners

Guest
Looks like we will all suffer because of the billion wasted in benchmarking payments, to people who have no productivity metrics - 'job-for-life' r's are ruining our future .. anyone agree ?
 
Benchmarking payments will sink economy, STOP now

I think the Benchmarking process should be reviewed. I work in the private sector and salaries being offered to new employees have fallen from previous unsustainable levels. Some employees have had a cut in salaries in light of the current economic environment. No pensions and no job security ( obiviously within legal constraints). These factors do not appear to have been considered in matching salaries. Also, Parental leave and other leave, whilst it must be given is frowned upon in certain private companies.

I am not saying that public servants are not entitled to wage increases but feel that the inflexibility of the benchmarking process combined with its lack of transparency is wrong.

Private sector salaries are more responsive to the economic climate. I understand that it appears unfair that public secto miss out in a boom and this should be resolved but equally if the boom becomes a downturn cuts in salary should occur.
 
Re: Benchmarking payments will sink economy, STOP now

Of course I agree. Why should people get paid more just because they are with an organisation for a certain length of time? - this breeds mediocrity and bad value for money.
 
a much better idea

Why don't we cancel the pay increases under Sustaining Progress - this will cost us a lot more.
 
Job Losses

Diageo (Guinness),Tayto and Oran PreCast Concrete announced approx 400 job losses today.

How many public sector jobs were lost this week?

A report in today's Irish Times told about two Gardai in Tallaght who threatened a male suspect with potential rape in Mountjoy prison and also made very incorrect remarks about his solicitor. The solicitor complained. The two Gardai were fined two weeks wages and kept their jobs. A Garda spokesman said the matter was now closed.

To all in private sector employment, single out a co-worker next week and do something similar to that outlined above. How long would you last in your job?

Job security is worth a lot of money. Also, they're on a payscale - they get a payrise each year just for staying alive. If they stay alive long enough, they get promoted, based on their seniority. The public 'servants' didn't deserve their recent payrise.

Sluice
 
Re: Job Losses

Yes, the government should suspend benchmarking. Let them go on strike. Where are they going to go? The private sector. Ha! Civil servants should not have pay parity with their less secure private sector counterparts. Secure employment is a great asset, it allows for long term planning with a steady income. I'm considering trying to transfer into the civil service after a decade or two of good private sector pay. At that stage of my life I'll want out of the rat race and a nice moderately paying civil service job where I'll use all the available holiday time would suit just fine.
 
..

It's too easy to engage in public servant bashing, but as taxpayers, we are within our rights to ask where all the big increases in health spend, for example, went over the past five years when service improvements seem to have been marginal.

Few reasonable people would object to seeing healthy pay rises for the civil service, if this were linked to some improvement in productivity, but it cannot be justified when everyone else is tightening their belts.

Time for this government to call a halt to the folly of Benchmarking.
 
Re: ..

If wages in the private sector are being reduced, shouldn't this also be reflected in bench marking?
 
Re: ..

I too think that the 'public service' bashing is a little too easy. So here's my cheap shot;

Q) How many people work in the public service?
A) About half of them!

Ba-dum tish

But seriously folks, there is no doubt that the lack of transparency in the benchmarking process is a real problem. None of us know the rationale for the increases that were agreed, and the cynics amongst us may suspect that there was no real rationale, unless we see the supporting data.

It also strikes me that almost all of these partnership agreements are out of date as soon as they are agreed. In the late-90's when the economy was booming, the unions were complaining that the miserly increases they had negotiation were been overtaken by inflation. Now, the private sector are complaining the public sector is overtaking them.

Perhaps future agreements could be expressed in relation to an agreed standard, e.g. CSO inflation rate + 1% to avoid this problem.

It's not true to say that those in the public service can't/won't jump ship into private companies. The pharmaceutical companies are delighted to pick of the cream of trained nurses as sales rep's (give 'em a company car and a 9-5 routine, and they are happy as a pig in ....). The accounting firms are happy to cream off the best of the tax inspectors to be gamekeepers turned poachers. The IT consultancies are happy to cream off the best of the well-trained IT staff to let them sell into the private sector at huge rates.

In the health service in particular, I would expect that our currently devestated health service would look more like Baghdad's hospitals, had the recent rounds of increases not helped to retain current staff.
 
Re: ..

Regarding the "cream" jumping the public sector ship. Surely
the unions can take most of the credit for this by insisting
on a Marxist approach to wages and salaries. It is impossible
to pay the best or the most required in the public sector any
more because all the wasters will be up in arms demanding
commensurate rises. It is impossible to pay nurses more
(obviously the pay isn't enough given that it seems it is
impossible to recruit them) without the teachers and guards
going up in arms demanding more even though there are queues of people trying to become teachers and guards.
 
Re: ..

Hi Darag - I suppose you could blame the unions for asking for those parity increases. Or you could take the 'Catch-22' view and say that they would be 'damn fools' not to ask - which I guess puts responsibility back on those who sanction the increases?

I'd agree that the absence of (and resistance to) performance-related pay in the public service is a real problem - perhaps this should be used as a pre-condition to future increases.
 
Re: ..

I would suggest that everytime that there are layoffs in the private sector, that these should be matched in the public sector. (By percentage)
 
Re: ..

By that reasoning we should probably match layoffs in, say, the IT/tech sector and those in, say, the farming sector for example. :rolleyes
 
Re: ..

Clubman, that wouldn't make sense.

The reason I'm suggesting matching private with public layoffs is that it would keep the tax burden the same. It would also more fairly match pay and conditions between the two sectors. Isn't this what it's meant to be about?
 
Re: ..

I suppose you're right Clubman. But how was anyone to
know how things would turn out when the tech workers
started their now infamous struggle for parity with the
farmers only a few short years ago.

Benchmarking is nothing short of usury on the part of
the public sector. It's not even funny that
benchmarking was justified to deliver "parity" with the
private sector given that it only seems to justify
transferring massive benefits in pay to to the unionised
public sector. So you get all the benefits of pay
levels set during a boom without any of the downsides of
working in the private sector.

Then people are surprised that our social services,
health and infrastructure are so poor given the spending
while public sector workers gobble from the trough of
government money. Every now and again, a head lifts
from the trough for air and indignantly demands MORE,
MORE!! Among the rest of us looking on at this feeding
frenzy wondering what's going to happen when the trough
becomes empty, many are made feel guilty for pointing
out how disgusting it looks having been programed from a
young age to believe that public sector workers are all
altruistic saints who put aside their ambitions to work
for the improving our society.
 
Benifits

No only do they want more pay, they get up to 5 year career breaks, family friendly hours, subsidised food in some cases, they claim expenses at every opportunity and from the people I know there - they have a culture of what else can we get ? (without breaking a sweat!). They are adept at finding out what benifits they are entitled too, I think the job-for-life is really the problem, I know if my performance was not monitored and I was getting a pay increase I wouldn't see any point in being more 'productive'. There are a few good ones in there I'm sure under pressure 'not to work too hard' as I heard one fellow say.. 'or you'll get us all in trouble'. I think their slogan is 'Keeping expectations low, and doing nicely thank you!'.
 
Benifits

-Many Companies offer career breaks, it not exclusive to the public sector.
-Subsidised canteens are the norm in any private company that gives a damn about their employees (I've worked for a few)
-Family friendly hours are surely a good thing, and don't cost any money, you still work the full week. I can 't see any local crazy person running in the next election on a "Keep the family apart" ticket.
-Any company will pay employee expenses where they are incurred e.g. mileage for work related journeys etc. nothing unusual there.
-Being adept at finding out what benefits you are entitle too is common sense, if you're entitled to something and you want it, take it. Its not illegal.
As a public servant I'm not going to refuse my benchmarking award but I think you should know its pretty small, I definitely won't be able to afford anything more than I was before. This is because different sections of the public service are getting different awards, depending on what the benchmarking body considered to be the difference between their current salary scale and that of the private sector.
Also I take great exception to any suggestion that my work is not monitored, it is and I am a s sackable as any other worker, more so because I'm not in any Union, an never will be. I have a professional attitude towards my work and I always ensure that my job gets done properly and I don't "take it easy". No one has ever told me to and if they did I'd want to know why.
The "People you know in there" Are they living in luxury homes and driving expensive cars? Do their clothes come form Armani? I doubt it. Clerical officers earn a living wage and little more. By what ever means its come about, I think they deserve a pay rise.
And there is no such thing a as job for life. Anyone who thinks there is is a fool. We are all responsible for our financial independence, which is why sites like this are vital to intelligent and supportive discussions. I'll be happy to give my point of view through out this debate, but remember it is a financial debate and not a public servant bashing shop.
 
Re: Benifits

Curvy - I think that this topic is a lost cause to balanced discussion so, like me, you might simply choose to steer clear of it (other than now) rather than get upset or attempt rebuttals of some of the points! :|

By the way - I'm not a public servant myself.
 
Re: Benifits

Methinks you're right CM. I appreciate how frustrating the issue must be to a lot of tax payers and that's why I sought to balance the debate a little. I think this site is a godsend to people concerned for their financial independence and should be used as such. Keep up the good work.
 
Expenses incurred

"Any company will pay employee expenses where they are incurred e.g. mileage for work related journeys etc. nothing unusual there."

The crucial words here are "where they are incurred". The system of paying expenses in the state sector does not always require evidence of expenses incurred - for example, if you are away from your office for a half day, there is a "subsistence" payment - and whether you spent it on subsisting or not is entirely your own business; if you are away overnight, there is an overnight allowance and so on. Most state sector employees regard it as normal (and right) to try to clear a profit on these payments. If curvy doesn't know at least some state sector employees who get to claim overnight expenses while staying with parents/friends, she has her head in the clouds. This system therefore incentivises state employees to "incur" the expenses. In the private sector, an employer getes to shout stop every now and again - in the public sector, these expenses are viewed as entitlements, and if you tried to change them, there would be war.

I don't blame state sector employees for maximising their "entitlements". I would do the same thing in their position. I just think that a system which rewards this mindset is a bad system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top