Public Service Allowance Scandal

[Knuttell]

I'm perfectly willing to take a pay cut. And it shouldn't be easy to get an increment.

Does not compute.

Given where we are right now any talk of incremental pay increases is to most completely and utterly nuts!!

We are in an IMF bail out for Gods sake,Ireland is the equivalent of a beggar on O Connell st without a blanket and yet this sort of nonsense of even suggesting a withdrawal of pay increases to those with secure pensionable jobs is met with work to rule or worse.

This is happening in slow motion,those that think the likes of donkey Howlin will shield the comrades in the Unions forever at the expense of everyone else are deluded,the Troikas velvet glove will come off soon enough and finally deliver a violent coup de grace to this nonsense once and for all..the sooner we have the ability to rule ourselves removed the better...

...our leaders yesterday have finally demonstrated they shouldn't be left in charge of an opened can of royal dutch with fag ends in it.

 

[mandelbrot]

No disrespect to you personally, but I think this attitude stinks. You have a permanent job that you cannot be fired from. You will enjoy a pension that is worth far in excess of what you will have personally contributed to it. You enjoy sick pay, paid maternity leave, and a salary that is currently far in excess of what you would receive for a similar job in the private sector. Essentially you have something that a huge amount of people in Ireland today would give their eye teeth for. And yet, despite all this, you say that if the government, in the current economic climate, scrapped increments, that you would stop helping your colleagues? Even though you clearly could if you wanted to?

So many issues with this post...

I don't think my attitude stinks - I have a great attitude and I like my job, and feel lucky to have it. The fact that I'm lucky doesn't mean I have no right to feel aggrieved if my contract isn't being honoured. I can be fired (or I should be able to be fired), albeit not as easily as in the private sector. I'm not talking about doing anything that would get me fired in either the public / private sector - just not breaking my This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language to get things done.

Who knows what my pension will be - if I was retiring in the next couple of years you might be right, but I won't be retiring for 35 years - doubtless if you have your way I'll do well to get back what I put in. I don't expect to retire with the pension entitlement that I presently have accruing to me.

Next, and most annoyingly of all - how do you know how much I could earn for a similar job in the private sector? You don't. However I do know what I do, I know the private sector counterparts I deal with on a daily basis, and I know within a tight range what they earn, and it is a lot more than I do. I also know I took a pay cut of 15-20% to take up my job in the civil service, but I was happy to do so because the job itself, the non-pay benefits, the job security, and the clarity of the incremental pay scale, all appealed to me. Just looking around online, I reckon I could get a job in the private sector commanding a 20-30% higher salary. Indeed I might if increments are frozen - you'll be delighted then no doubt, one less no good civil servant! Seriously though, the point is beware of crass generalisations, oh and stats published by rag newspapers that start with "the average public sector..."

Also, you're completely wrong when you say that paying increments is a private sector practice as well. It certainly isn't. In the private sector (i.e. the real world) most people work hard to keep their existing job, or to get a promotion.

Where did I say that, and it's not "completely wrong" - there are lots of private sector organisations that operate incremental payscales. One example: [broken link removed]

 

[Knuttell]

just not breaking my This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language to get things done.

If you could translate that into Latin it could very well be the motto for the civil service.

Edit.Gave it a go.

"Iustus non irritum facient pactum meum asinus impetro res fieri"

Serving Ireland since 1922

 

[mandelbrot]

Does not compute.

Given where we are right now any talk of incremental pay increases is to most completely and utterly nuts!!

We are in an IMF bail out for Gods sake,Ireland is the equivalent of a beggar on O Connell st without a blanket and yet this sort of nonsense of even suggesting a withdrawal of pay increases to those with secure pensionable jobs is met with work to rule or worse.

This is happening in slow motion,those that think the likes of donkey Howlin will shield the comrades in the Unions forever at the expense of everyone else are deluded,the Troikas velvet glove will come off soon enough and finally deliver a violent coup de grace to this nonsense once and for all..the sooner we have the ability to rule ourselves removed the better..

We'll have to agree to disagree Knuttell. You could cut everyone's pay, including current pensioners, who IMHO are the ones who've really gotten off lightly so far, by 1% and save more than you would by freezing increments.

The majority of people receiving increments earn less than 50,000. I think an across the board pay cut of 4-7% (graded based on income) would be much fairer, and save much more money on an ongoing basis, without affecting the incremental nature of pay, which is a fundamental of the employment contract.

And a thing to bear in mind, that someone pointed out to me last week, is that apparently something like 1 in 4 households are dependent to some extent on a public sector wage. There's only a certain amount that PS pay rates can be cut before a tipping point is reached for some of these households, where mortgage defaults and other unpleasantness manifest, and these cost the economy as well.

 

[mandelbrot]

If you could translate that into Latin it could very well be the motto for the civil service.

Edit.Gave it a go.

"Iustus non irritum facient pactum meum asinus impetro res fieri"

Serving Ireland since 1922

You're actually really getting my goat up now talk about a selective quote - not breaking my This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language to get things done, in a hypothetical situation where the financial incentive to break my This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language has been withdrawn by my employer. Even in the private sector only a lickarse of the highest order goes the extra mile when the boss has made it clear I don't care if you kill yourself to get work done; you won't be treated or recompensed any differently than Shamie over there who spends the days picking his nose and eating it.

 

[Ceist Beag]

.... and so another important thread descends into a public/private row!

 

[Birroc]

I can be fired (or I should be able to be fired), albeit not as easily as in the private sector.

Having worked in the public sector for many years, I would says its almost impossible to get fired. If you are in the union, there's no chance! You'd have to rob someone on the office floor at gunpoint and even then you'd get a warning. I knew one guy who point blank refused to do any work at all over some silly disagreement about work practices which had gone to mediation but he still didn't accept the decision - he read the paper or surfed or chatted on phone all day every day. My manager said it wasn't worth the hassle with the union reps so they left him alone. When I left that section, he had been doing nothing for 18+ months. The only option open to the manager was to move him on (which often means promotion) to another section.

Looking back I feel that productivity and accountability would improve no end if getting fired was an option.

 

[zztop]

And not a word about all the elected councillors on boards and
councils getting 30k+ for doing SFA...

 

[Chris]

Propose an alternative, or point me to a developed country with a functioning public sector better than ours that has implemented an alternative, and then we have something to talk about. Otherwise we're just talking pie in the sky - you know, like a couple of Socialist Workers Party heads...


I don't see a contradiction TBH. The contract of employment I signed says that my pay increases incrementally over 7 years, with 2 long service increments after 3 & 6 years at the max, all of which are subject to "satisfactory performance", so in theory at least they are already performance related. It's the practical application that's the problem.

To me, this at least makes some semblance of sense - I didn't take the job because the starting salary was good - it was SUBSTANTIALLY less than someone with my experience and qualifications could command in the private sector, even after allowing for pension, flexible hours etc... - I took it because there was clarity as to my progression, provided I keep up my side of the bargain and perform.

The question is how you define satisfactory performance - I'd suggest that what is satisfactory this year shouldn't be satisfactory next year, and to merit increments year on year the worker should be objectively improving their performance year on year. The top of the scale represents someone performing at the highest level expected of someone in that role - I'd argue I'm already there in my job, looking at my colleagues who earn 20k more than me who rely on me for help, but it's going to take me several more years to get there, so the system isn't perfect. But telling me that until further notice no matter what I do I can't close the gap is a hugely demotivating factor, and likely to result in me doing the bare minimum to avoid being hauled in for underperformance, or just leaving to go back to a private sector job where performance is rewarded.

I think you are making some good points, but the issue is that in a lot of instances I hear of there is no review process before an increment is approved. My wife worked as a nurse in the public sector for many years before she had enough and moved to the private sector. She never once had a meeting with a manager to go over performance to see where things could be improved. All she had to do was make a phone call herself to the salaries department of the HSE and ask for the pay to be raised.
Have two friends in the local council offices who have said the exact same thing. You finish another year, make a call to the salaries department and they bump your wage.
That is completely wrong. I fully agree that this years objectives should not be good enough for next year, but when I tell this to people in the public sector they look at me as if I'm crazy, you are very much a lonely voice in this. And I also think that you should be able to make a very good case to be bumped above those people that you are outperforming. I have been in my current job for 5 years, when I started there were people there 4 or more years that had a higher income than me. Through the review process in place I was able to demonstrate within 3 years that I was outperforming and outtasking those people and I am now earning more than them despite being there for half the time. This is the way it should be for you, but unfortunately isn't. I would also say that such a system would paint the public service in a much better picture.

That makes perfect sense, but how do you translate that into the public sector context? Progression up an incremental scale is not a pay rise, it's a person being paid slightly more next year for being slightly better and doing slightly more next year by virtue of experience in the role. A pay rise would be where the entire scale is shifted upwards.

See I think this is where we maybe have a bit of confusion. In my private sector experience I have never seen situations where everybody automatically got a raise, it was always performance related raises. Companies decide they have extra money to budget for salaries and want incentives for staff to stay. But they never gave everyone a certain percent raise without it being related to performance. If you didn't at least meet your goals you would not be entitled to a raise. What you are referring to increments and pay raises are in my opinion the same thing and should always be performance related.
This is no more difficult in the public sector than it is in the private.

This company making a profit analogy that people keep trotting out; the bottom line is we'd have to cut PS pay to nil to clear the budget deficit, so I maintain, a pay cut (across all points of the scales) is fairer than reneging on people's contracts.

I think you are a bit off track here. Companies that find themselves in situations where they are making losses first freeze pay, then usually it comes to layoffs. From what I have heard with friends and family pay cuts are usually introduced after layoffs, as you do not want to demoralize the remaining staff even more.
So the analogy to a private company making losses makes perfect sense. I have said it many times before on here that the first thing to do in order to tackle public sect pay is to cut out entire services and departments that are luxuries at best.

 

[Purple]

I can't disagree with much of what mandelbrot has said.
Reasonable and logical points.

 

[mandelbrot]

I can't disagree with much of what mandelbrot has said.
Reasonable and logical points.

Phew, I was starting to worry that I've been leftified after only a couple of years in the PS... and before I know it I'd be growing a beard and smoking a pipe!



(I'm claiming copyright on the word Leftified by the way!)

 

[Purple]

Phew, I was starting to worry that I've been leftified after only a couple of years in the PS... and before I know it I'd be growing a beard and smoking a pipe!



(I'm claiming copyright on the word Leftified by the way!)

I've ceased using the phrase "Bearded Brethren" as it upset some people. Leftied is good though.

 

[ajapale]

This is an interesting article.

(pdf doc)

 

[ajapale]

My wife worked as a nurse in the public sector for many years before she had enough and moved to the private sector. She never once had a meeting with a manager to go over performance to see where things could be improved.

Out of interest, since your wife joined the private health care sector has she had meetings with her supervisor to see where things could be imporved?

 

[Chris]

Out of interest, since your wife joined the private health care sector has she had meetings with her supervisor to see where things could be imporved?

Good point, and yes. Now the place she is working in has had a pay freeze for a couple of years, but they have a formal review process. It's not the best I have encountered but it does include goals, training, training in other areas, etc.

 

[Firefly]

The top of the scale represents someone performing at the highest level expected of someone in that role

Is that really the case though? Is it not that they are in the job for the length of time it takes to accumulate these annual increments?

- I'd argue I'm already there in my job, looking at my colleagues who earn 20k more than me who rely on me for help, but it's going to take me several more years to get there, so the system isn't perfect. But telling me that until further notice no matter what I do I can't close the gap is a hugely demotivating factor, and likely to result in me doing the bare minimum to avoid being hauled in for underperformance

What happens then, say if increments are not touched, and after the requisite number of years you reach the top of your grade? Do you then do the bare minimum until you are promoted? Not having a dig at you by the way, just trying toi understand the logic.

 

[mandelbrot]

Is that really the case though? Is it not that they are in the job for the length of time it takes to accumulate these annual increments?

As I said already elsewhere, the increment should be given only on the basis of improved performance / output / service delivery year on year, or because you are already performing at a level beyond the level expected for the role.
I would say based on any objective view of my performance, output, and contribution to the organisation that I should be getting paid at the top of my scale already - there's no means for that to happen though, so I have to sit, continue to perform, and wait.
I ask again, and no-one has actually offered an alternative, what do you do if you're not going to offer incremental pay scales - how do you manage pay across the PS? And how do you motivate and retain good staff - opportunities for promotion in PS jobs have never been great and are currently nearly non-existent. Bear in mind that the PS needs to be a place where people want to work, not just somewhere they park themselves for a couple of years while waiting for a proper job - that's a certain way to see performance suffer.

What happens then, say if increments are not touched, and after the requisite number of years you reach the top of your grade? Do you then do the bare minimum until you are promoted? Not having a dig at you by the way, just trying toi understand the logic.

Doing the bare minimum won't, or shouldn't get you promoted, not any more. I'm waiting to hear about a possible promotion at the moment and both the standard of competition and the process itself were very tough.

To me the point of a properly run performance management system would be that in managing people's performance to get them to the top of the scale, it ensures their attitude and mentality are right (otherwise they shouldn't get there!), by which point they should be fully capable and performing very well in their role at the highest level expected of someone in that job.

So they should be more productive and taking on more responsibilities than they were a few years previously, and if they decided to tread water from there they'd still be worth the money they're being paid. But if they want to get promotion they'd have to continue to exceed expectations, as their recent performance would always be a factor.

I hear what you're saying though, and I actually think salary scales shouldn't be a one way street, there should be decrements as well as increments if people want to take the mickey...

 

[Deiseblue]

I've ceased using the phrase "Bearded Brethren" as it upset some people. Leftied is good though.

To be fair Purple you have used the phrase again - you old " running dog of capitalism " - you !

 

[Deiseblue]

I've ceased using the phrase "Bearded Brethren" as it upset some people. Leftied is good though.

Actually the more I think of it the less happy I am about the use of this phrase.

Presumably there should be no problem using phrases such as " overcharging leeches " with regard to such as doctors , lawyers etc or " chinless , corrupt , tax dodging small business owners " - after all they are simply pejorative , catch all phrases similar to that used by you - & I might say equally false.


I must say that I am somewhat taken aback by your continued reference to the phrase " Bearded Brethren " despite a previous promise not to do so - I thought better of you.

 

[mandelbrot]

Actually the more I think of it the less happy I am about the use of this phrase.

Presumably there should be no problem using phrases such as " overcharging leeches " with regard to such as doctors , lawyers etc or " chinless , corrupt , tax dodging small business owners " - after all they are simply pejorative , catch all phrases similar to that used by you - & I might say equally false.


I must say that I am somewhat taken aback by your continued reference to the phrase " Bearded Brethren " despite a previous promise not to do so - I thought better of you.

I'm clearly late to the party on this one, as I haven't seen it used before, but how does "bearded brethren" have a negative connotation equivalent to either of the examples you use above?