Time to revisit the benchmarking ATM?

[horusd]

@thedaras. The reports of poor management, and related systems in the PS have been prettily extensively reported in the media. One item related specifically to the failure to implement Croke Park was because management had dittered and fulminated over staff suggestions & recommmendations. I don't know how endemic this is, but prima facie, there seems to be serious failures and little accountability.

Management set the culture of an organisation, so any reform should start at the top. Eg. Chatting to my neighbour this am. He's on the dole. 300 people queuing at one hatch. Staff walking around in the background. Staff problem or management? I would say the latter. They should open up the hatches for 15 mins, deal with the backlog swiftly and return to work. What did the manager actually do? They sent a staff member out into the public area to organise and fuss around the queue! Pure daft. What time does the "hatch" open? 10am. Why not 9 or 8?

I worked yrs ago on an insurance counter as the manager. Huge rush came in, we knew they would come at lunchtime or whenever, and we planned for it. And if we didn't people would chew me out, and rightly so.

 

[horusd]

But with respect DB, the problem is that the people who are lending the money to us to pay these "highly qualified employees" DO have a problem with the the pay rates - it would be interesting to compare what their packages with the same type roles in Germany. I'm pretty sure you will find it is significantly less in Germany.

Roy

I think this is a critical point. We need to review this urgently, and start at the top. Complainer made an excellent point on another post when (s)he said that someone made these contracts and arrangements. This was the responsibility of management, including gov.t.

 

[thedaras]

I just noticed that i quoted the wrong person deiseblue when it should have been horsed,i will correct that.thanks.
Back to the issue at hand,
can someone answer why ps mangers do not implement what is required? If as horsed said there were many staff behind the counter and the manager did nothing,how come he has not been called into account?

Most if not all ps managers are in unions so perhaps their incompedence is somewhat protected?
So the staff want to open the hatch for example but the manager says eh no you cant do that? why ?
How can thousands of workers stand by and allow this to happen,and how come the managers are allowed to get away with it?
Finally why do you all think the managers dont enforce the rules?
Are they afraid of the reaction they would get?
Are they being told by more senior people to not rock the boat?
There is something fishy going on,when most managers are not prepared to do what is required,my take on it would be that they know better!

 

[Deiseblue]

Management set the culture of an organisation, so any reform should start at the top. Eg. Chatting to my neighbour this am. He's on the dole. 300 people queuing at one hatch. Staff walking around in the background. Staff problem or management? I would say the latter. They should open up the hatches for 15 mins, deal with the backlog swiftly and return to work. What did the manager actually do? They sent a staff member out into the public area to organise and fuss around the queue! Pure daft. What time does the "hatch" open? 10am. Why not 9 or 8?

I worked yrs ago on an insurance counter as the manager. Huge rush came in, we knew they would come at lunchtime or whenever, and we planned for it. And if we didn't people would chew me out, and rightly so.[/QUOTE]

I can only relate my own experience of signing on over an 18 month period.

From my initial fact finding/form completion meeting to the monthly signing on process I was treated with the utmost professionalism and importantly understanding & compassion.

Anytime I signed on all available hatches were manned , there was also a process of dealing with claimants on an alphabetical basis over a period of days thus minimising queues - I can honestly say the longest period I queued was for half an hour.

I was lucky enough to be claiming at a time when you could have your benefits credited to your bank a/c , I think this system has changed which allied to perhaps more stringent signing on regulations increased workloads.

Given the tragic level of unemployment I can only imagine that the amount of paperwork to be dealt with by back office staff must be truly frightening.

The Government readily accept that social welfare offices are understaffed & aim to resolve the problem under the transferability clause in the Croke Park Agreement - this process may have already started I believe.

 

[ashambles]

I'd almost agree now that benchmarking is overstated as the problem, I'll try to dig it out again but I think it was a DoF report into misspending during the boom and they broke down the cost of benchmarking v partnership. Benchmarking was dwarfed in spending increases by partnership.

It was a snowball, from the late 90's onwards you'd 2%-3% partnership increases being doled regularly sometimes barely 6 months apart. I never once remember any single person involved in this process give a hint of being intellectually capable of understanding the principle of compounded increases. With percentage rises 2+2 does not quite equal 4.

Benchmarking started coming late in the boom meaning its increases were compounded on top of the many partnership ones.

The problem with the partnership increases is interesting because here's an area where hypocritical unions who're so worried about progressive taxes (higher tax rates for higher earners) were completely happy giving a 3% rise to someone on 20k and a 3% rise to someone on 120k (like - um well themselves).

(I seem to remember further back unions used to look for rises such as 10 pound a week for all their members, say in An Post or somewhere. A fairer payrise where the rise isn't performance related)

As to everybody getting partnership rises - that's like everyone getting increments. They don't, especially the people many in the public sector like to consider their peers - they really don't.

Largely in the private sector the partnership rises went to low paid manufacturing workers (their jobs are gone), high paid building workers (their jobs are gone), shops/restaurant workers (many jobs gone), banking workers (many jobs about to go).

The only area of the private sector where jobs haven't gone in large numbers is those that were able to ignore the partnership process. They had this weird idea of paying or not paying rises based on what the company could afford and without asking David Begg what he thought they should pay.

 

[Deiseblue]

Strange then that the graph provided by Onekeano reflects the fact Private Sector pay rose by approx 72% in the 9 year period between 1999 & 2008 as opposed to approx 63 % in the Public Sector.

As a general rule the majority of Private Sector employers used the increases granted under the various NWAs as a guideline in calculating the rate of pay increases for their employees - indeed many employers exceeded the NWA rates.

One would also get the impression from your post that somehow it was the unions alone who decided on the pay increases - not so , the employers were also represented & the Government kept a weather eye on developments.

 

[Purple]

Where I work we never paid any of the national wage agreements. In fact there have been no big increases for over ten years (though starting from a high base). In real terms wages have dropped since around 2005. That said we haven't laid anyone off since the crash and at the moment we are busier than ever and hiring people.

I earn more than most publically employed people so I'm not going to comment on their individual rates but it is factual to say that their employer (the state) is bankrupt and can't afford the current wage bill. It is also factual to say that in most cases, even adjusted for cost of living, Irish public employees are well above the average equivalent pay levels of other OECD states.

Should Benchmarking be revisited? Yes, but only in the context of removing the unfair pension levy and replacing it with a flat pay cut so that exiting public sector pensions can be cut. We need to keep cutting ‘till we get to a level that we as a state can afford. That in no way implicates publically employed individuals in our current circumstances.

I would add that if public sector pay is being cut all payments by the state to private employees should also be cut by at least the same amount. I am thinking in particular about the vast sums paid to doctors (GP’s who have GMS lists) and pharmacists (who are still over paid by the state) and lawyers .
I am sure there are other groups in the same boat that I don’t know about.

 

[Purple]

Strange then that the graph provided by Onekeano reflects the fact Private Sector pay rose by approx 72% in the 9 year period between 1999 & 2008 as opposed to approx 63 % in the Public Sector.

As a general rule the majority of Private Sector employers used the increases granted under the various NWAs as a guideline in calculating the rate of pay increases for their employees - indeed many employers exceeded the NWA rates.

The gap between public and private sector pay increased over the years of the boom. I wouldn't go down that road if I was you.

 

[Deiseblue]

The gap between public and private sector pay increased over the years of the boom. I wouldn't go down that road if I was you.

A road I have travelled down many times ( & will again no doubt ) without trepidation - but thanks for the warning !

What onekeano's graph clearly demonstrates is that the average Private Sector worker benefited slightly more percentage wise from the National Wage Agreements , either directly or indirectly , than his/her Public Sector counterpart.

My memory may be failing me but I thought that you recently agreed that Public Sector workers had suffered enough in terms of pay reductions & the best way to now progress savings was through job losses ? - something on which I agreed with you on the basis that such redundancies would be of a voluntary nature as per the Croke Park Agreement , you may indeed have a contrary view as to whether such redundancies should be voluntary.

 

[Shawady]

Where I work we never paid any of the national wage agreements.

Purple, just out of interest how much did salaries increase from say the late 90's to the mid 2000's?
There must have been some increase in pay rates.

 

[Purple]

Purple, just out of interest how much did salaries increase from say the late 90's to the mid 2000's?
There must have been some increase in pay rates.

We have no collective agreements so rates change on a case by case basis. The top 35% of employees are on a bonus scheme which means that their income can vary by up to 40% from year to year (or month to month) so when things are going well people get paid more and when things are tight we get paid less.
On average wage rates just about kept ahead of inflation from the late 90’s to the early 00’s. We trade internationally so what happens in the Irish domestic economy had no impact on the price we can charge, it just increases our cost base. If the boom had lasted for another few years it would have put us out of business.

 

[liaconn]

Good article on the Irish Indo website on the complete unaffordability of benchmarking:

http://www.independent.ie/national-...enchmarking-atm-still-delivering-2461140.html


Any new round of benchmarking should look at closing the gold plated defined benefit scheme, and dramatically reducing the number of holidays, flexi-days, and "travel" days at Easter and Christmas.

Its a step in the right direction for the government to threaten to impose more paycuts if efficiencies promised under the Croke park agreement are not delivered, but something more radical needs to be done.

Sen Joe O'Tooles free ATM needs to be restocked

Has this debate not been done a thousand times??? There have been many paycuts imposed on public servants in recent years, something you have not bothered to mention.

Also, why do you want to reduce the number of flexi days? They are not free holidays, they are days worked in advance. Reducing them ie getting rid of flexi time will provide not one cent of savings to the national coffers and would be a pointless move. You seem to be somewhat motivated by spite and not by a genuine desire for efficiencies.

 

[Sunny]

Has this debate not been done a thousand times??? .

I agree and yet people continuously respond to it....

 

[Firefly]

There have been many paycuts imposed on public servants in recent years, something you have not bothered to mention.

I agree but:

The employer is broke and
If benchmarking was fair then it should be fair now so I can't see a reason for a new round not to be performed.

 

[Purple]

Also, why do you want to reduce the number of flexi days? They are not free holidays, they are days worked in advance. Reducing them ie getting rid of flexi time will provide not one cent of savings to the national coffers and would be a pointless move. You seem to be somewhat motivated by spite and not by a genuine desire for efficiencies.

An increase in the standard working week for all public employees to 39 hours would result in an increase in capacity with no increase in cost.
Ditto a reduction in the amount of annual leave.

We have to cut numbers while maintaining services.

 

[Firefly]

Also, why do you want to reduce the number of flexi days? They are not free holidays, they are days worked in advance. Reducing them ie getting rid of flexi time will provide not one cent of savings to the national coffers and would be a pointless move. You seem to be somewhat motivated by spite and not by a genuine desire for efficiencies.

I think re flexi-days that the point is that if someone is off because they worked up the flexi-leave, then someone else has to be there to cover (be they part time cover or fulltime cover) and this increases the cost of providing the service. If it was a standard 39 hour week then less people would be required resulting in a cost saving.

 

[Sunny]

I have only ever worked in one organisation that offered flexi time. It wasn't a zero sum game for the company. There is a cost involved. The company simply offered it as a selling point to candidates because they couldn't compete on pure pay rates with other companies in the Industry.

Flexi time was always one of the 'perks' of many public/civil service jobs and I don't have a problem with it but people seem to think there is no value attached to this arrangement. There is. There is a reason why the majority of private companies never ran around offering the arrangement to it's employees.

 

[liaconn]

An increase in the standard working week for all public employees to 39 hours would result in an increase in capacity with no increase in cost.
Ditto a reduction in the amount of annual leave.

We have to cut numbers while maintaining services.

Yes, but flexi time isn't a problem. However some people seem convinced its annual leave by another name.

 

[liaconn]

I have only ever worked in one organisation that offered flexi time. It wasn't a zero sum game for the company. There is a cost involved. The company simply offered it as a selling point to candidates because they couldn't compete on pure pay rates with other companies in the Industry.

Flexi time was always one of the 'perks' of many public/civil service jobs and I don't have a problem with it but people seem to think there is no value attached to this arrangement. There is. There is a reason why the majority of private companies never ran around offering the arrangement to it's employees.

How is there a cost involved? If I fit an extra day's hours into my standard month and then take those extra hours off in one day it doesn't cost the company. Also, it means people can work longer on busier days and work shorter hours on less busy days.

 

[Firefly]

How is there a cost involved? If I fit an extra day's hours into my standard month and then take those extra hours off in one day it doesn't cost the company.

Presumably your employer will have to have someone to fill you place when you are taking this time.