There is no cost or loss of productivity if the work done in the extra hours Mon-Thurs is the same as the work that would have been done on the Friday afternoon. However, my observation is that an average 'working up the flexi' hour is less productive than an average core hour. I have seen many people take advantage of being able to build up time just by being there. And yes, it's due to lax management - shock - lax management exists! But it does happen.
The problem with Flexi Time is that it is suited to some area of work more than others. If you are working at a counter in a bank or social welfare office, you have to work more structured hours. If however, you don't deal with the public and have a quantifiable amount of work, you should be able to work flexible hours to suit you.
On a standard 8-hour day, it would make difference to my productivity if I worked 9-5, 7-3 or 10-6.
On a standard 8-hour day, it would make difference to my productivity if I worked 9-5, 7-3 or 10-6.
That's ok but we are talking about the building up of time to take as a day off. Most people I know that have this facility automatically add at least 30 mins on to their standard working day even if they don't need to just in order that they can take a day off later in the month. My point is that for a lot of people (not everyone), they could get the work done in 8 hours instead of the 8.5 hours. And then there would be no need to take time off.
Actually, most people just take a shorter lunch and still leave at a reasonable time in the evening. Yes, there are some people who are there until seven, a lot of them working, but some of them on the phone or surfing the net. And there are some people in at 8 o clock in the morning, most of them working, but some drinking coffee and having a cigarette. The point is that the majority work up their days legitimately and there will always be people, no matter what the system, that will be lazy chancers - both in the public and private sector.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Which is why flexi applies at certain locations in certain organisations, and not all.
The flexi issue is a red herring. If someone is a skiver, and is allowed skive, they will skive for any part of their day, whether they are in core hours or working up flexi. In any environment that I've seen, skiving is managed and addressed.
Bill Struth
Registered User
- Messages
- 182
Back to the trolling expedition that is the OP, anyone tell me where this benchmarking ATM is? I'm skint til friday.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Bill Struth
Registered User
- Messages
- 182
Just the location of the ATM will do.Sorry to hear you're skint. Perhaps we need another round of benchmarking
People should also remember that plenty of people in the private sector got benchmarking awards as well. For example, many bank staff got them, + performance related payrises (and profit share as well). I know of one bank (UB) where in the boom times, staff were getting rises often in excess of 10% per annum.
I'm no defender of the public sector and have often complained about them on here in the past. I fully believe greater efficiencies could be got from them (and seriously wonder what half the quangos actually do that benifits society, but that's a discussion for another post), however, in the interest of fairness, the private sector has hardly covered itself in glory over the last 10 years either
I'm no defender of the public sector and have often complained about them on here in the past. I fully believe greater efficiencies could be got from them (and seriously wonder what half the quangos actually do that benifits society, but that's a discussion for another post), however, in the interest of fairness, the private sector has hardly covered itself in glory over the last 10 years either
Flexi-time is a minor issue. Wasters who avoid work are also a minor issue. Structural inefficiencies, duplication of services and lack of mobility of labour are the main reason for bad value for money/ bad return of investment.
The above can be said for any large public or private sector organisation.
While Benchmarking was utterly unfair and utterly unnecessary and the greed and hypocrisy shown by the Bearded Brethren who run the unions has been both sickening and breath taking I think all would agree that if the only problems we had were those within the public sector we’d all be happy bunnies right now.
The banks are as close as you can get in the private sector to the public sector. There is a lot of restructuring going on in the banks at the moment and job losses will I believe occur. Just look at Halifax as an example.
The private sector had in fairness a glorious decade, but equally the long dole queues today show the pain that is being suffered.
And in the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that although the benchmarking award was 8.9%, this was only an average amount. From memory, the awards ranged from as low as 2% to as high as 25% (ambulance drivers I think).
If the general concensous was that benchmarking in hindsight was a mistake, it would have been fairer to just reverse the actual awards each grade received.
It is also worth mentioning that retired public sector pensioners also received the benchmarking awards. Yet, when the government first cut pay it was through the pension levy which did not affect pensioners.
It's ironic so that the only people that had held onto the becnhmarking award were the people that no longer worked in the public sector.
If the general concensous was that benchmarking in hindsight was a mistake, it would have been fairer to just reverse the actual awards each grade received.
It is also worth mentioning that retired public sector pensioners also received the benchmarking awards. Yet, when the government first cut pay it was through the pension levy which did not affect pensioners.
It's ironic so that the only people that had held onto the becnhmarking award were the people that no longer worked in the public sector.
Fully agree. The pension levy is a disgrace. It should have been a cut.
During their Celtic Tiger pomp the Banks could not have been more unlike the Public Sector.
The risk taking , which ultimately led to the desperate situation we find ourselves in today , was driven by performance driven pay & bonuses particularly to those of managerial levels & above - the mantra was sell , sell , sell & to hell with what tomorrow brings.
The initial craziness was led by Anglo - the profits they posted were the envy of the Irish Banking system & thus the crazed pursuit of similar profits began - ethics , morals & probity simply went out the window.
Perhaps a more valid comparison for our Banking sector would be with the Alaskan gold rush.
Good afternoon AAM. 2009 has called and would like its thread back.
I do like how we get an even greater picture of just how and why the economy failed so epically and yet we still retain enough bile to pick up on the odd perk given to the public sector.
On a side note, I have nothing else to add and I suspect with some introspection I may not be the only one.
I do like how we get an even greater picture of just how and why the economy failed so epically and yet we still retain enough bile to pick up on the odd perk given to the public sector.
On a side note, I have nothing else to add and I suspect with some introspection I may not be the only one.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
There are many former public sector staff on the dole queues. The private sector does not have a monopoly on the dole queues.
R
RoyRover
Guest
Indeed, but the private sector does have a monopoly on compulsory redundancies.
In a country with a 32% budget deficit (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0426/eurozone-business.html), there absolutely has to be a whole swathe of the public sector removed by compulsory redundancy. Generous voluntary redundancy packages will lead to too few exiting in time to address the crisis.
It is immoral to keep Terms and Conditions, such as generous "flexi" and Gold plated pensions, while the private sector worker takes the strain and the dole queues lengthen
It is heartening though to see Rory Quinn standing up to the teachers today though (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0427/education.html). Let's see if Labour have the steel to continue to make hard pronouncements when their paymasters in the unions start to rein them in, as they have traditionally done.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Again, not true. I recall reading about some FÁS staff from a midlands office (Athlone maybe) that were protesting about their redundancy deal when that office closed. And of course, many contract staff were terminated as contracts came up for renewal. But regardless, I don't quite understand this fetish for 'compulsory redundancies'. What is behind this blood lust? Why does the actual method of termination matter so much - surely the numbers and cost of termination is actually the important issue, not the mechanism?
It matters because you often lose the people you need. Though it is the most heartless way of operating.
Often you will lose people who you don't want to lose through voluntary redudancy.
Those who are most qualified, who can get jobs elsewhere.
Those who are most motivated.
Those who are thinking of emigrating.
Those who are ready to take a risk.
You can be left with the people who just want to clock in and clock out, and collect a pay check.
Voluntary redudancy is a blunt instrument.