Public Service Attitudes.

Ah I see. Anything that doesn't suit your personal agenda is dismissed as a lie. I've just replayed the clip ([broken link removed]) and I don't see any grinning from Tommy Morris (IMPACT, not SIPTU) or any of the staff picketing the Hospice, but feel free to make up other wild allegations. Some of them might just stick.

These are public servants, picketing their workplaces - no more, no less - while their colleagues are still at work inside continuing to provide essential services.[/quote]



A hospice is a lot more than just a place of work. Maybe not to your mates in Impact or Siptu or whatever other union they are a member of. It is a place where people are dying. They and their families need comfort and care and security and above all dignity. Not to have their pain relief withdrawn because pharmacy is affected by the strike or other services withdrawn. I presume the purpose of a picket is to stop people actually passing that picket? People delivering food or medicines, visitors coming to visit their family members?

Ten years ago I remember a young women coming onto a radio show crying because her mother had terminal cancer. Nurses from the hospice visited every day with pain relief for her condition. That day the hospices were picketed by the nurses union and her mother did not receive her pain relief and she was in agony. She, the daughter, was begging for someone to help. I have never forgotten that show and I thought it was heartless of the unions then and I think it is heartless of them now.
 
Purple said:
That's a bit much; public sector recruitment procedures are very fair.
Click to expand...

Only on paper - which is a far cry from the real world in public sector recruitment - i know have been there and seen how it works ...
 
Rois said:
Only on paper - which is a far cry from the real world in public sector recruitment - i know have been there and seen how it works ...
Click to expand...
I've seen both sides, public and private. Public sector recruitment is far more open, transparent and equitable than anything that I saw in 25 years in the private. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post details.

Right so the 'grinning SIPTU' lie didn't stick, so you decide to up the stakes with the unverifiable dying relative story. I certainly have no recollection of such an incident, and I have a feeling that it would be regularly rehashed in the meeja if it did actually happen. But regardless, it certainly didn't happen yesterday. No picket would ever try and block relatives visiting a hospital - that suggestion shows how little you actually understand about pickets. No patient, cancer or otherwise, went without essential pain relief yesterday. As was the case in the Mater, many of the picketing staff were off-duty staff, showing support for their working colleagues inside.

But do feel free to keep making up stories and hypotethicals. If anything, the fact that you feel obliged to attack for things that didn't actually happen points to the sound, reasonable, measured and dignified nature of yesterday's protest.

I'm not questioning your bona-fides Don, but unfortunately, this is yet another hysterical rant. Hysterical because it contains so many factual errors that I don't know where to start.

The public service is the one sector where EVERY employee (with the exception of a few judges) has already taken a hit through the so-called pension levy. I already fund my pension - the fact that my employer chooses not to put that funding away and invest it is not my responsibility. Many public sector staff have already lost their jobs (8,000 according to last week's Tribune) and many more will lose their jobs as contracts expire. Yes, there is a difference insofar as there have been no forced redundancies of permanent staff as yet, but there are no guarantees around this - it is simply a matter for negotiation between employers and the employees. Public sector employees (like all employees) are entitled to the contracted terms & conditions of employment. If any other employer in the country had done with the Govt did with the pension levy (unilateral deduction), they would be in jail. So don't speak to me about fairness.

Your conclusion that 'the country can't afford it' is a matter of opinion, not fact. There are many things the county can do, including stop pouring billions into Anglo-Irish (€4billion next year, does that figure ring a bell, i.e. the entire proposed cuts to public services) and stop subsiding landlords through mortgage interest relief (€500m each year). I'm not an economist, and I don't claim to have all the answers (unlike many of the bar-stool experts here on AAM), but I do know that this Govt has no mandate to go for 'small Government' by cutting the public sector. There has been no real debate or discussion around this, and it is interesting to note that most of those who recommend this approach aren't depending on the public health service or the public schools etc.
 

This is the crux of the problem in this debate: the waters are being muddied by all sides. We have several big plugs to fill on this sinking ship so it isn't just a matter of only fixing one problem. Initially the big problem for us was the state of the banks. No matter how irresponsible and even immoral their actions, we had to bite the bullet and help them. That is a had to. I don't care what others say about letting them go bust, we just couldn't.

Then there's the public spending bill which isn't just on PS/CS wages, it's far reaching; and then there's the tax intake.

So this isn't about putting all the hardship on one area, it's about plugging all the holes as best we can. Sorting out the tax intake will take a while not just to define and implement, but to also see any benefits. But that still leaves that deficit and borrowing that we have to do every week to pay for social welfare and the PS/CS.

It's not a matter of finding 4 billion and we'll be grand (not all of that is pay bill savings either, that's 1.4 billion), it's about finding a sustainable way to provide a public service within our means. The other factor often ignored is we have to cut the public spending bill otherwise we won't be able to borrow any more money.

The reason the government managed to get the borrowings, despite the country being more or less blacklisted at the time, in order to keep paying the PS/CS and social welfare bills was because it promised the creditors it would reduce the payments on public spending this year by 4 billion. If we don't, we don't get anymore money. That's not good.

More importantly, it's not good for the PS/CS or those on social welfare because the pockets will be well and truly empty. It won't be a matter of sitting down and discussing things, it will be a matter of shutting offices overnight and ceasing benefits.

This whole economic mess is multi-causal and multi-faceted, it's not as simple as saying the PS/CS must take all the hits or that the banks and property developers must take all the hits. There a several plugs and issues that have to be dealt with if we're to last through the first quarter of next year.

And nice try on the no mandate thing. If the government had a mandate to increase the size of the PS/Cs it has a mandate to reduce it. We elect them and they can do what they want to manage the country so long as it is constitutional. Unless there’s a hidden bit in the Constitution that restricts the cutting of the size of the PS, the mandate was there the minute the votes were counted and the government formed.
 

Again, this a red herring. The deficit that the Government is trying to solve doesn't include the money given to Anglo. If you include the bank bail out costs, the deficit rises to €26-27 billion. The Government is simply trying to solve the problem that they are spending more on running the Country every day than they are bringing in. Sure there are ways to raise revenue but there are not enough ways to raise €20-22 billion extra. You don't need to be an economist or a bar stool expert to know that this Country is living beyond its means both in terms of the level of services that it provides and the cost of providing those services. We will have to accept that we either face less public services or we find a a way to provide the same services for less money. Either way, public sector pay and/or numbers have to be reduced.
 
Complainer said:
The parent interviewed on the news who joined the teachers on the picket line didn't seem to think so.
Click to expand...

The unions can't even keep to their own rules.

From PSEU :
"Only persons employed by the employer concerned (along with trade union officials) are permitted to picket an employment."

[broken link removed]
 

In my own punblic sector organisation, there 'll be a staff cut of some 15% over a 12 month period as a consequence of the early retirement scheme; the incetivised career break scheme; natural wastage and the recruitment freeze.

Assuming this is typical of most public sector organisations, would most commentators be happy to have a corresponding reduction in the level of public services provided? I'm sure the combination of these measures would reduce public expenditure to the required levels. The alternative is that people expect the SAME level of public services for the less money.

I could equally ask "On which planet are these people?".
 

Staples, this is nothing personal against you as I am sure you are a good worker. However, where there is no performance management and people get scaled pay increases whether they are good at their job or not, is it not inevitable that more can be done with less? An environment like that breeds inefficiencies and laziness.

Bring in
-real IT changes to move away from the paper system we currently have.
-performance management to weed out and sack the lazy and
- incentivise staff performance with salary increases for the best and nothing for the worst employees.

Do those 3 things first and I am sure you'll find a better service with less employees.
 
VOR said:
The unions can't even keep to their own rules.

From PSEU :
"Only persons employed by the employer concerned (along with trade union officials) are permitted to picket an employment."

[broken link removed]
Click to expand...
The PSEU are not teachers. The teachers unions are not responsible for stopping parents hanging around outside their schools. But do feel free to keep nitpicking.

VOR said:
Bring in
-real IT changes to move away from the paper system we currently have.
-performance management to weed out and sack the lazy and
- incentivise staff performance with salary increases for the best and nothing for the worst employees.
Click to expand...
You are about 5 years too late. It's all been done.
 
Rois said:
Only on paper - which is a far cry from the real world in public sector recruitment - i know have been there and seen how it works ...
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this?

I'm not saying it's the case with you, but it really irritates me when people who sat the Civil Service exams and didn't make the grade or were surpassed by better candidates at the interview stage, then go around whinging that you have to use 'pull' to get into the Public Service. God forbid that the jobs just went to superior applicants.

As I said, I'm not saying this is what happened with you but would be interested to know what areas of the Public Service are using dodgy recruitment procedures.
 
Complainer said:
You are about 5 years too late. It's all been done.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. If it were already done then people would be laid off and the PS would not have continued to grow. Benchmarking came without any real measures and conditions.
 
Complainer said:
You are about 5 years too late. It's all been done.
Click to expand...

Not universally, the C&AG who made the initial recommendations has a serious of progress reports (available on the C&AG website). Some departments have been effective, but others much less so.
 

I don't either side has allowed any serious debate on this issue. As stated all along cutting the "pay bill" does not immediately mean loss of basic pay.

Is it the government, the media, or the partisan attitude of those with the biggest voices who have created the divide? I'd say a combination of them all, but the main issue is that any cut in public spending is directly related to less nurses, teachers and an escalation in crime.

All I ask is show me where any government official has said this. Show me where they've actual said about cutting pay? We've only heard from those outraged at the cuts which has fuelled and divided public opinion.

If the government's proposal is sweeping in cuts, I'll be as outraged. If it doesn't take account of "natural wastage" etc. I'll be outraged at their myopia too. But there's nothing I can see that indicates we won't have a tough, but reasonable approach to reducing the pay bill via various routes.
 
Latrade said:
Not universally, the C&AG who made the initial recommendations has a serious of progress reports (available on the C&AG website). Some departments have been effective, but others much less so.
Click to expand...
Indeed - not universally in public or private sector. Always room for improvment on all sides of the fence. But facile suggestions from outsiders who have no idea what is actually happening on the ground are not going to help.
 
Latrade said:
As stated all along cutting the "pay bill" does not immediately mean loss of basic pay.
Click to expand...

No, but it's the quickest and neatest way without any requirement for analsysis or consideration of outcomes. In other words, a typical government response.

Pay has already been reduced (courtesy of the pension levy) and the government has indicated an unwillingness to react to the either the McCarthy report or that of the Commission on Taxation. That doesn't leave a whole lot of options.

Latrade said:
If the government's proposal is sweeping in cuts, I'll be as outraged. If it doesn't take account of "natural wastage" etc. I'll be outraged at their myopia too.
Click to expand...

May I suggest that you polish your outrage in preparation.
 
Right so the 'grinning SIPTU' lie didn't stick, so you decide to up the stakes with the unverifiable dying relative story. I certainly have no recollection of such an incident, and I have a feeling that it would be regularly rehashed in the meeja if it did actually happen. But regardless, it certainly didn't happen yesterday. No picket would ever try and block relatives visiting a hospital - that suggestion shows how little you actually understand about pickets. No patient, cancer or otherwise, went without essential pain relief yesterday. As was the case in the Mater, many of the picketing staff were off-duty staff, showing support for their working colleagues inside.

But do feel free to keep making up stories and hypotethicals. If anything, the fact that you feel obliged to attack for things that didn't actually happen points to the sound, reasonable, measured and dignified nature of yesterday's protest.


I'm not questioning your bona-fides Don, but unfortunately, this is yet another hysterical rant. Hysterical because it contains so many factual errors that I don't know where to start.

The public service is the one sector where EVERY employee (with the exception of a few judges) has already taken a hit through the so-called pension levy. I already fund my pension - the fact that my employer chooses not to put that funding away and invest it is not my responsibility. Many public sector staff have already lost their jobs (8,000 according to last week's Tribune) and many more will lose their jobs as contracts expire. Yes, there is a difference insofar as there have been no forced redundancies of permanent staff as yet, but there are no guarantees around this - it is simply a matter for negotiation between employers and the employees. Public sector employees (like all employees) are entitled to the contracted terms & conditions of employment. If any other employer in the country had done with the Govt did with the pension levy (unilateral deduction), they would be in jail. So don't speak to me about fairness.

Your conclusion that 'the country can't afford it' is a matter of opinion, not fact. There are many things the county can do, including stop pouring billions into Anglo-Irish (€4billion next year, does that figure ring a bell, i.e. the entire proposed cuts to public services) and stop subsiding landlords through mortgage interest relief (€500m each year). I'm not an economist, and I don't claim to have all the answers (unlike many of the bar-stool experts here on AAM), but I do know that this Govt has no mandate to go for 'small Government' by cutting the public sector. There has been no real debate or discussion around this, and it is interesting to note that most of those who recommend this approach aren't depending on the public health service or the public schools etc.[/quote]
 
Complainer said:
Indeed - not universally in public or private sector. Always room for improvment on all sides of the fence. But facile suggestions from outsiders who have no idea what is actually happening on the ground are not going to help.
Click to expand...

But the C&AG didn't direct the private sector to do so and set a timescale. I couldn't agree more that some private employers do not have the same set up as suggested for the ps, but then that is their choice as all their resources are through a competative market. They know the risks, these are well defined.

However, as the C&AG states, it isn't unreasonable to expect an efficient PS. It isn't unreasonable to expect these changes across the whole PS. It's been at least 10 years (stand to be corrected) and some areas are still way behind the proposals.

So you're right, it isn't far to say the whole PS needs reform, plenty have already taken that step. But then this isn't the case for all areas. It also isn't far to compare the PS to the private in this sense as the risk is the burden of the private employer/shareholders and not public spending.



Behind the scenes, there is a lot of attention being given to the McCarthy Report. Not all changes can be made immediately and not all will have an immediate pay back. But I would expect a large part of the report to be phased in over the next few years and would expect some of the more simple recommendations (merging various units) to feature in the budget or early next year.

Same thing for the taxation. Except this will need a greater degree of considerations as to how to change the tax system while having to retain and increase tax revenue given the times we're in. It may be a couple of years before we see too much on this.

As I said, I'll back the outrage if that is what happens. But look at what has happened over the last 18 months in the ending of temporary contracts, the early retirement scheme, etc. They've been relatively successful and indicates that there is a thought about how to get the cuts without sweeping decimination (as such).
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register