"Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants"..statement by Michael O'Leary in SIndo

[Latrade]

They may not have got us into this mess, but they supported the government that did.

Does that mess include benchmarking? That was the original context of why some felt it was the fault of the private sector that FF retained power.

You cannot blame one section of society for FF votes. Secondly, it's a bit rich to imply that there is no responsibility on the PS/CS for profiting from benchmarking because people kept voting in FF. In the same way bankers and senior civil servants obtained obscene bonuses, they can't put the blame solely on the voting public.

And we keep ignoring the nonsensical assumption that FF only retained power because of the private sector. The other big issue is the opposition. Let's be honest and upfront and say it doesn't matter who was in power there was no way in the world benchmarking was going to go. Look at the fuss that was created when they tried to introduce a system of promotion being based on merit instead of length of service. Mandate were up in arms that their members would be subject to performance reviews and may never get a promotion if they performed poorly.

And what of the likely opposition? FG/Labour? I'd be delighted to know exactly how there would have been any change with Labour in a position of power. And disenfranchisement was evident over the last few elections, not just with FF, but all parties. Voter turn out has dropped considerably, some may be apathy because the times were good, but some is also people of the opinion that no party/candidate is worth a vote.

The PS/CS unions pushed for, achieved and fought tooth and nail to keep benchmarking the nice earner it was. I’m sorry, but I find it particularly galling to find the blame for benchmarking put onto the voting public and not the greed of Union members.

Last, look around the forum, you will see many, including myself, who have repeatedly stated there has to be personal responsibility for many of the issues. Except, in most cases we were accused of a right wing agenda for suggesting that people who took out extreme mortgages leaving themselves with a very tight margin were short-sighted. Yet it seems when it comes to benchmarking, it’s the public’s fault, when it comes to the public, it’s the bank’s fault.

The policital motive behind encouraging broad brush attacks on the PS is that if the PS was looked at organisation by organisation, reformed and cuts made, the "jobs for the boys" people would be out of work very quickly as generally speaking, they are unproductive. By encouraging the broad brush approach whereby all Public Servants have to suffer, these unproductive political supporters hang onto their jobs.

PS/CS Myth: 101. When people state that they want reform and cuts in the PS/CS they are not saying that all those cuts are from front line or lower pay scales. We’re all aware of the huge salaries, overloading of middle and senior roles and the jobs for the boys. Yet every time it is mentioned, those who advocate a review and change are painted with the brush that we want nurses, gardai, teachers and fire-fighters on the dole.

 

[liaconn]

I'm not saying only Private Sector workers voted for FF. I'm saying that they are the ones now complaining about benchmarking and partnership yet a large number of them must have voted FF back into government in 2007. Why didn't they vote them out then, when they had the chance, if they were so furious with these policies? Because they too were benefitting from this Government, that's why.

 

[Sunny]

I'm not saying only Private Sector workers voted for FF. I'm saying that they are the ones now complaining about benchmarking and partnership yet a large number of them must have voted FF back into government in 2007. Why didn't they vote them out then, when they had the chance, if they were so furious with these policies? Because they too were benefitting from this Government, that's why.

But thats the point. Who could they have voted for that would have reversed benchmarking or ended social partnership that was long past its sell by date? I am sure there are plenty of people who didn't agree with benchmarking but voted FF because of other reasons because no political party had the guts to come out and take on the public sector interest groups. Most of the private sector gained nothing from benchmarking or social partnership but unlike the public sector, didn't have a strong lobby group like the trade unions to fight their corner.

 

[Shawady]

In the last election Fianna Fail did very well in the commuter belt - Meath, Kildare, Wicklow.
Ironically, these are the areas that are now suffering the highest increase in unemployment and sharpest falls in house prices.

 

[Staples]

Yes, there's that expression again because I was clarifying the original context. Sweet Enola Gay!

As I said, it's an old trick to try to divert attention away from points by picking up on small issues.

Any considered analysis of issues is always welcome. It's a bit of a trick (or should that be "illusion") though to make conclusions based on feelings.

The relative merits/demerits of the public/private sectors have been discussed on this site for years. The only reasonable conclusion is that there are examples of good and bad in both sectors.

However, the public sector is so broad in terms of its functions and reach that it's pretty pointless to make sweeping conclusions on the entire sector on the basis of individual examples of inefficiency (which undoubtedly exist). That sort of analysis just doesn't stand up.

It's extremely easy to adopt and repeat the mantra that "the public sector is in urgent need of reform". Presenting specifics (and I mean being VERY specific) in terms of where and how this should be applied is far more difficult. An Bord Snip took months of analysis to make some stab at it - I'd welcome the publication of that report.

 

[liaconn]

But thats the point. Who could they have voted for that would have reversed benchmarking or ended social partnership that was long past its sell by date? I am sure there are plenty of people who didn't agree with benchmarking but voted FF because of other reasons because no political party had the guts to come out and take on the public sector interest groups. Most of the private sector gained nothing from benchmarking or social partnership but unlike the public sector, didn't have a strong lobby group like the trade unions to fight their corner.

The point is, that had they objected vocally at the time and made it clear that they weren't voting for FF because they objected to benchmarking and partnership, they would have made their feelings loud and clear. They didn't because, as you said they were voting FF for other reasons - because they were doing very well themselves out of FF's short sighted policies.

 

[Purple]

They didn't because, as you said they were voting FF for other reasons - because they were doing very well themselves out of FF's short sighted policies.

He said that was one of the reasons. I didn't vote for FF but I found it very hard to find anyone I wanted to get in. A vote for FG is a vote for Labour and they are nothing more than the political wing of Congress (formerly known as ICTU) , or maybe I should say that they are a political wing of Congress since Congress are a political body all by themselves.

 

[liaconn]

He said that was one of the reasons. I didn't vote for FF but I found it very hard to find anyone I wanted to get in. A vote for FG is a vote for Labour and they are nothing more than the political wing of Congress (formerly known as ICTU) , or maybe I should say that they are a political wing of Congress since Congress are a political body all by themselves.

There are many people, in both the private and public sector, who voted for FF out of self interest and with no regard for the good of the economy. My point is that those in the private sector who did this are being a bit hypocritical to now start lambasting benchmarking and partnership when they didn't do anything about it when they had the chance. Maybe they'll put a bit more thought into their vote next time.

 

[Green]

The PS/CS unions pushed for, achieved and fought tooth and nail to keep benchmarking the nice earner it was. I’m sorry, but I find it particularly galling to find the blame for benchmarking put onto the voting public and not the greed of Union members.

An interesting question, is it greed or just the ability to be able to buy a house? I bought a house in a suburb or Dublin in 1996 £70,450 (approx €89.5k), the same house in 2006 was worth €425,000. Given this rapid rise in house prices is it not acceptable that union members (both private and public) would press for wage increases to be able to afford a house?

 

[Green]

There are many people, in both the private and public sector, who voted for FF out of self interest and with no regard for the good of the economy. My point is that those in the private sector who did this are being a bit hypocritical to now start lambasting benchmarking and partnership when they didn't do anything about it when they had the chance. Maybe they'll put a bit more thought into their vote next time.

And to follow this to its logical conclusion, are they now actively raising this as an issue with their local representatives...

 

[Sunny]

An interesting question, is it greed or just the ability to be able to buy a house? I bought a house in a suburb or Dublin in 1996 £70,450 (approx €89.5k), the same house in 2006 was worth €425,000. Given this rapid rise in house prices is it not acceptable that union members (both private and public) would press for wage increases to be able to afford a house?

And then we wonder why we ended up with a property bubble

 

[Latrade]

Any considered analysis of issues is always welcome. It's a bit of a trick (or should that be "illusion") though to make conclusions based on feelings.

I think the point of what I said and was trying to say is being lost in the use of one word. I clarified it and even pointed to where some assumptions had been made. Note I didn't hide away at all from the fact that I had made some assumptions. I clearly stated where and what they were.

However, to highlight that one word out of all the points made, even when there has been a clarification, even when there is quantifiable evidence to demonstrate the point has some amount, if not a significant, of merit is to keep up the illusion or trick. It is to introduce a red herring to deter the discussion.

I'll admit, as I made an accusation/stated society felt that was the case, it was for me to produce evidence to back up the claim. I feel I gave at least some points as to where this came from.

An Bord Snip's report is to give the full extent and specific nature of where cuts may be possible, whatever the reason. The current absence of this report in the public eye doesn't deter from the other reports and evidence that show some areas and in general where there is an issue of over-staffing.

Anyway, with all due respect to the OP, the whole thread started on a feeling that there was an unfair bias against the PS/CS in the media's reporting.

 

[Latrade]

An interesting question, is it greed or just the ability to be able to buy a house? I bought a house in a suburb or Dublin in 1996 £70,450 (approx €89.5k), the same house in 2006 was worth €425,000. Given this rapid rise in house prices is it not acceptable that union members (both private and public) would press for wage increases to be able to afford a house?

To use some of the logic being applied here, the property bubble and the sudden collapse is therefore the fault of those under benchmarking. Instead of realising your limitations in terms of earning and being more reasonable, the prevailing thought was to try and match your pay scale to the false inflation. However, if there hadn't been such a drive and wages had stayed lower, then the house prices would have had to drop to meet the demands of the consumer.

The short-sighted demands of union members only fuelled the property bubble.

 

[liaconn]

Anyway, with all due respect to the OP, the whole thread started on a feeling that there was an unfair bias against the PS/CS in the media's reporting.

No, it didn't. My intention was to highlight one particular deliberate lie made by Michael O'Leary and to criticise the reporter in question for not checking his facts in this particular case, given that it would have been very,very easy to do so.

 

[Purple]

An interesting question, is it greed or just the ability to be able to buy a house? I bought a house in a suburb or Dublin in 1996 £70,450 (approx €89.5k), the same house in 2006 was worth €425,000. Given this rapid rise in house prices is it not acceptable that union members (both private and public) would press for wage increases to be able to afford a house?

Yes it was. They should have pushed for actions that would lead to a reduction in house prices. They were, and still are, part of the problem.
On another point, if you sold you house in 2006 would you have sold to the highest bidder? If so would that make you the same as the "greedy developers"?

 

[Green]

To use some of the logic being applied here, the property bubble and the sudden collapse is therefore the fault of those under benchmarking. Instead of realising your limitations in terms of earning and being more reasonable, the prevailing thought was to try and match your pay scale to the false inflation. However, if there hadn't been such a drive and wages had stayed lower, then the house prices would have had to drop to meet the demands of the consumer.

The short-sighted demands of union members only fuelled the property bubble.[/quote]

Good god, what a statement! I assume you are including private sector union members here too? We are now being blamed for the property bubble too......despite this country being knee deep in planning corruption, having twenty years of a pro developer Government and no real land use and transport policy its the fault of union members...What were they supposed to do, go into the showhouse and say I'll give you five grand less than the asking price, I know what the response would have been....Next!

 

[Latrade]

No it was a joke. Private sector employees were implied to be a fault for FF remaining in power, so to use the logic, continually pushing for more money under benchmarking to keep pace with house prices, fuelled the bubble.

 

[Green]

Yes it was. They should have pushed for actions that would lead to a reduction in house prices. They were, and still are, part of the problem.

And would you consider private sector workers during the same period of time (96 - 06) part of the same problem?

 

[Purple]

Good god, what a statement! I assume you are including private sector union members here too? We are now being blamed for the property bubble too......despite this country being knee deep in planning corruption, having twenty years of a pro developer Government and no real land use and transport policy its the fault of union members...What were they supposed to do, go into the showhouse and say I'll give you five grand less than the asking price, I know what the response would have been....Next!

Latrade's logic is completely sound, if not encompassing the full spectrum of who is to blame. The unions have been at the top table of government for the last 10 years; they are one of the socialist partners. They knew better but since they were suckling at the tit of the bloated capital tax bubble they were happy to nod along and play lip service to their “members”. Orwell could have dedicated a book to them.

 

[Purple]

And would you consider private sector workers during the same period of time (96 - 06) part of the same problem?

If they were in a union then yes. The CIF, IBEC and the other vested interest groups that ran the country while the government took a back seat are all one and the same, public pontifications not withstanding. They all saw what was happening, they all knew better and they chose to do nothing because it suited their short term vested interest.