These costs are for consequential pay increases in private sector organisations doing public services where the Government has agreed to increase the payments it makes to these organisations in line with civil and public service pay rates. Again, done for politicial reasons rather than legal reasons. There is no reason why the Government should be determining the pay of private sector employees in hospitals - it should be up to the hospital owners to negotiate pay with their own staff and set their own rates.
No payrises in benchmarking ? "Shock"
- Thread starter Pique318
- Start date
These costs are for consequential pay increases in private sector organisations doing public services where the Government has agreed to increase the payments it makes to these organisations in line with civil and public service pay rates. Again, done for politicial reasons rather than legal reasons. There is no reason why the Government should be determining the pay of private sector employees in hospitals - it should be up to the hospital owners to negotiate pay with their own staff and set their own rates.
You are forgetting that the government has to answer to SIPTU, who have a vote on all of these decisions (politically and practically speaking).
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
With respect, it makes no sense to suggest that the HSE (for example) is a private sector organisation - especially when its staff only agreed to its establishment on condition that their existing entitlements as public sector employees would remain unchanged ad infinitum.
Purple,
your bitterness is shocking....get back to work to contribute to the nations taxes..
seriously, many civil servants are frustrated at the 'yes minister' attitude and lack of career progression, are very professional in their work, are not members of unions, pay full PRSI etc - the media just ignores them, so no-one ever hears about them!
in the private sector, if you work hard, it's recognised. In the civil service, that doesn't happen....
the other thing is that managers in civil service do not have any way to deal with underperformance of lower grades - or underperformance of higher grades! When a person is on the same salary for the rest of their lives, and there are no additional bonuses/perks, that person isn't likely to give a toss...
giving staff 3 days off due to move buildings a short walk away is utterly ridiculous...
your bitterness is shocking....get back to work to contribute to the nations taxes..
seriously, many civil servants are frustrated at the 'yes minister' attitude and lack of career progression, are very professional in their work, are not members of unions, pay full PRSI etc - the media just ignores them, so no-one ever hears about them!
in the private sector, if you work hard, it's recognised. In the civil service, that doesn't happen....
the other thing is that managers in civil service do not have any way to deal with underperformance of lower grades - or underperformance of higher grades! When a person is on the same salary for the rest of their lives, and there are no additional bonuses/perks, that person isn't likely to give a toss...
giving staff 3 days off due to move buildings a short walk away is utterly ridiculous...
Purple,
your bitterness is shocking....get back to work to contribute to the nations taxes..
OKSo how many of them would cross the picket if the government tried to change things so that those who work hard and well are rewarded and the dead wood was removed (i.e. the idiots were sacked)?
So how many of them would cross the picket if the government tried to change things so that those who work hard and well are rewarded and the dead wood was removed (i.e. the idiots were sacked)?
i think a clean sweep would be great! Need to start at the dead wood at the top - Yes Minister!
Wasn't one of the condition of Towards 2016 that public & civil servants gave up the 'right' to strike?
i think a clean sweep would be great! Need to start at the dead wood at the top - Yes Minister!
Wasn't one of the condition of Towards 2016 that public & civil servants gave up the 'right' to strike?
So you would cross the picket line?i think a clean sweep would be great! Need to start at the dead wood at the top - Yes Minister!
Wasn't one of the condition of Towards 2016 that public & civil servants gave up the 'right' to strike?
As one of the few people round here who has actual first-hand experience on both sides of the fences (recent move to public sector after many years in private sector), I would just like to point out that the descriptions of public sector environment/people on this thread do not have even the slightest connection with the reality of my world.
The difference between the two sides is actually considerably less than I expected. To correct some specific points of factual error on this thread;
- many public sector staff contribute to their own pensions
- not all public sector staff have defined benefit pensions
- public sector staff do have performance reviews, and annual increments are subect to satisfactory performance and review
- not all public sector staff are unionised
- public sector staff (unionised and non-union) do cross pickets
etc etc. People need to get real.
The difference between the two sides is actually considerably less than I expected. To correct some specific points of factual error on this thread;
- many public sector staff contribute to their own pensions
- not all public sector staff have defined benefit pensions
- public sector staff do have performance reviews, and annual increments are subect to satisfactory performance and review
- not all public sector staff are unionised
- public sector staff (unionised and non-union) do cross pickets
etc etc. People need to get real.
Perhaps posters here aren't the only people who'd want to get real, quoting from http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0110/benchmarking.html here's IFUT (?)
Here's ASTI
'
Hmm "lifetime earnings" a curious distinction - nothing to do with early retirement, career breaks and the like I'd hope.
Lecturers here are extremely well paid 70 - 80k typically - how many grads would be earning 90k or so after a few years. Lecturers as well as highly paid are so under worked that a resourceful one managed to have two "full time" jobs at separate colleges. (He resigned recently when found out.)
Here's ASTI
'
Hmm "lifetime earnings" a curious distinction - nothing to do with early retirement, career breaks and the like I'd hope.
Contribute is the key word here. They don’t fund there own pensions, they throw a few bob into the pot and the rest of us make up the balance (i.e. most of it).
Yes but most do.
Yea, and how many don’t get their pay increase? BTW a system where you get a pay increase for just not screwing up it nothing to be proud of, especially when it’s other peoples money that they are being paid with.
Yes, but most are.
Yes, but most don’t.
We agree at last.
R
rabbit
Guest
Not only that, but most lecturers I know ( well in to the double figures ) have a "side" business, they operate as nixers, in their "spare" time, holidays, days off etc. EG some do quantity surveying / building drawings work, snag lists + consultancy for builders + disputes ; others work in "outdoor education / sports" area during the long summer holidays ; another does homeopathy from home in the evenings / weekends etc. Yet they all have a great day job , great hours, conditions + security , etc
HSE HQ staff are public servants, though not civil servants. In fact, when the HSE was established, civil servants were barred from moving to the HSE, even if their job did.
Most staff paid by HSE funds are NOT public servants. Staff in hospitals and most other organisations delivering health care, including the admin staff, are private sector employees whos wages are paid from HSE funds. These private sector workers make up the vast bulk of the health sector employees and use up the vast bulk of the HSE funds set aside for salaries. When people in the media etc talk about the large amount of funds spent on heatlh sector wages, they are including the private organisation employees in their figures.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
I'm still trying to figure out what relevance this distinction has to this particular debate (ie benchmarking) as HSE staff were one of the largest groups standing to gain or lose as a result of the benchmarking body's report.
Good point.
I think HSE staff (including myself) just want to make the distinction between ourselves and civil servants because of the different pension arrangements - public servants pay towards their pension, civil servants do not. That's all.
I wasn't expecting anything from benchmarking this time, so it didn't come as a shock to me, despite what the newspapers said!
I wasn't expecting anything from benchmarking this time, so it didn't come as a shock to me, despite what the newspapers said!
To add to Rainyday's "not all public sector employees" list.
Not all public sector employees are subject to the benchmarking process.
I dont think this statement is correct.
Not all public sector employees are subject to the benchmarking process.
I dont think this statement is correct.
I'll take these moans seriously when you provide meaningful comparisons. So for private sector employees, how are their pensions funded (majority funded by the employer, right?). I contribute towards my bank's income through bank charges, so do I get to moan about my bank's contribution to my bank manager's pension?[I know your answer will say that I can change my bank, but not my public servant - so what? What's the alternative? Do you want no public services?] The balance isn't made up by 'the rest of us'. It is made up by 'all of us' - us public servants pay taxes too.
And when you do your comparison, don't forget to include the many low-level public sector staff who get little benefit from their pension contributions, given that the standard OAP is deducted before the pension is paid.
How many private sector staff don't get increments following a performance review? How many private sector staff will pass pickets etc. Otherwise, this is just a meaningless B&M session.
These salary figures represent the cream of the profession. There are many, many lecturers in public institutions earning much less that - many on part-time or fixed-term contracts with little or no security. The double-jobber story was quite funny, mind you.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not just lecturers (from both public & private educational institutions) who run side businesses. Many architects, architectural technicians, engineers, plumbers, ICT people etc run side businesses too. The homeopath that I know is an ICT developer in a bank by day, and homeopathist by night.
So what? Can I conclude that all these private sector employees have great day jobs, great hours, great conditions, great security etc? Jeez, you guys moan about the lack of entrepreneurial thinking in the public sector, and then you moan when someone does show entrepreneurial spirit! Sounds like another B&M session.
This thread is long, long way off from any meaningful discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the public sector.