SOS IRELAND - Public Sector Pay Cuts!

[orka]

Perhaps the fact that public sector pensions (pre 1995 officers) are calculated on the basis of 50% of final salary max. and not 66% of final salary as pertains in a private sector pension, Defined Benefit?

Public sector pension is 50% final salary PLUS a lump sum of 1.5 times final salary. Private sector pensions are generally 66% of final salary - with an option to take a 1.5 times lump sum in return for a reduced pension. These two structures about equivalent.

Also, is the private sector pension not index linked? i.e. subject to national salary increases as per partnership?

No. It depends on the rules of the scheme but increases are usually discretionary and subject to a maximum - e.g. discretionary CPI increases subject to a maximum of 5%. Whereas public service pension could get a 10% inflationary increase (if inflation is 10%) PLUS any grade increases that their retirement grade might have got that year.

 

[Slim]

You're right there! Actually, the "justification" for it as some sort of productivity bonus was discredited from the start. Remember Sen. Joe O'Toole's boast that it was an "ATM machine" for teachers?

well, that has proved not to be the case. Relatively modest rises were granted in Benchmarking I and BM II was disappointing for most in the public sector. It has been and will be far from an ATM for any public servants.

 

[Sunny]

well, that has proved not to be the case. Relatively modest rises were granted in Benchmarking I and BM II was disappointing for most in the public sector. It has been and will be far from an ATM for any public servants.

Relatively modest rises were granted in Benchmarking 1. Are you serious?

 

[csirl]

To be realistic, no public sector employee is going to volunteer for a pay cut or accept an imposed pay cut.

To tackle the public pay bill you have to look at reducing the number of employees in areas where there is gross over staffing and in areas of programme expenditure.

The elephant in the room is the health service. Most of our major hospitals are privately owned by trusts, religious orders etc. There is no reason why the public service should be taking responsibility for the HR management of these hospitals or any pay and pension risks. The Government should tender for all the services it needs and pay the hospitals on the basis of contracted work fulfilled. Let the hospitals manage their own staff. Would eliminate the crazy stuff we have been hearing lately about hospitals not performing operations as they've run out of money. These private organisations are effectively ripping off the State - if the State has paid them a particular amount of money for a specified service, the State should get the full service. If not, it shouldnt have to pay the full bill.

As well as getting rid of the employee risks and getting better service for the public, you could also disband the HSE and all its admin staff. Dept. of Health should do the tenders full stop.

 

[Complainer]

Most of our major hospitals are privately owned by trusts, religious orders etc. There is no reason why the public service should be taking responsibility for the HR management of these hospitals

The hospitals generally have their own HR departments.

The Government should tender for all the services it needs and pay the hospitals on the basis of contracted work fulfilled. Let the hospitals manage their own staff.

Tendering isn't a panacea. This isn't about buying widgets. There are many medical services that aren't easy to measure. How would you put a fixed price tender around rehab services for peope with spinal cord injuries? Would you put a fixed price tender around treatment of mental health issues, or alcoholism?

When hospitals are operating under fixed price tenders, will you be confident that decisions about treatment will be in the best interests of the patient, as opposed to the best interests of the accountants.

 

[joejoe]

To be realistic, no public sector employee is going to volunteer for a pay cut or accept an imposed pay cut.

To tackle the public pay bill you have to look at reducing the number of employees in areas where there is gross over staffing and in areas of programme expenditure.

The elephant in the room is the health service. Most of our major hospitals are privately owned by trusts, religious orders etc. There is no reason why the public service should be taking responsibility for the HR management of these hospitals or any pay and pension risks. The Government should tender for all the services it needs and pay the hospitals on the basis of contracted work fulfilled. Let the hospitals manage their own staff. Would eliminate the crazy stuff we have been hearing lately about hospitals not performing operations as they've run out of money. These private organisations are effectively ripping off the State - if the State has paid them a particular amount of money for a specified service, the State should get the full service. If not, it shouldnt have to pay the full bill.

As well as getting rid of the employee risks and getting better service for the public, you could also disband the HSE and all its admin staff. Dept. of Health should do the tenders full stop.

Totally agree, we would then see value for money and a more efficent system.

Joejoe

 

[Nermal]

To be realistic, no public sector employee is going to volunteer for a pay cut or accept an imposed pay cut.

To tackle the public pay bill you have to look at reducing the number of employees in areas where there is gross over staffing and in areas of programme expenditure.

Csirl, what would be your opinion on index-linking all public sector pensions - those currently being paid and those to be paid in future - to HICP instead of wages? What would it save, and would it be politically feasible?

 

[Mouldy]

The public sector have a pay freeze until next September. I believe it would be appropriate, assuming a worsening of the public finances, for the government to call the partners back in to agree a deferment of any pay increases for a further 12 months in the public sector, subject to growth figures. If the country is in a recession then there should be no delivery of agreed pay rises until the country is no longer in a recession ie we have 2 successive quarters of positive growth.

The conditions for a pay cut are also favourable, since inflation is coming down, along with intrest rates and oil prices. Its likely that a modest pay cut across the board would be, to a degree, cost neutral for the employees concerned.

There might actually be some appetite within the public sector for this, but not while there is a clearly orchestrated hate campaign in the media against this sector. The afore mentioned Jim Power in particular is popping up almost daily telling the government "wield the knife" etc while journalists in the Indo write absolute drivel about the sector in their columns.

M

 

[Tom123]

There is a simple instrument available that would level the playing pitch - tax Security of Tenure as a BIK at the marginal rate. If company cars are taxed at 30% of their OMV, all public sector salaries should be given a similar rate and taxed at bthe marginal rate of tax. A public sector worker already getting a gilt edged pension which adds at least 20% to the basic, could be taxed at their marginal rate on 30% of basic pay. So a higher earner on 100k pays 41% of 3ok per year, that's 12.3k.

 

[Complainer]

There is a simple instrument available that would level the playing pitch - tax Security of Tenure as a BIK at the marginal rate. If company cars are taxed at 30% of their OMV, all public sector salaries should be given a similar rate and taxed at bthe marginal rate of tax. A public sector worker already getting a gilt edged pension which adds at least 20% to the basic, could be taxed at their marginal rate on 30% of basic pay. So a higher earner on 100k pays 41% of 3ok per year, that's 12.3k.

If you want to go down this road, the first think you'll have to put 'security of tenure' into the contracts. I'm a public servant, and I don't have any written clause in my contract about security of tenure.

 

[Purple]

I'm a public servant, and I don't have any written clause in my contract about security of tenure.

Great; that means that the government should pay no more than statutory redundancy for all job cuts required in the public sector. There should be no voluntary redundancy package; cuts should be made based solely on the best interest of the organisation in question. (Ask the people in Citibank who get the boot what terms they are getting)

 

[csirl]

The hospitals generally have their own HR departments.

Tendering isn't a panacea. This isn't about buying widgets. There are many medical services that aren't easy to measure. How would you put a fixed price tender around rehab services for peope with spinal cord injuries? Would you put a fixed price tender around treatment of mental health issues, or alcoholism?

If hospitals have their own independent HR departments, how come it is the government who is negotiating with e.g. nurses, consultants etc. on issues like pay and conditions? If these hospitals had genuine HR departments, then they would set their own pay rates and negotiate with their own staff. I think you've just identified a bunch of people who are drawing a salary from the state, but do no meaningful work


Tendering isnt a panacea? - I think you've got what is called "we're special" syndrome. Normal rules do not apply to your area

If tendering isnt the solution, then how come more than 50% of the working population in Ireland tender on an individual basis to procure their own private or semi-private health insurance? These people are putting more faith in the procurement of their own health care as opposed to relying on the HSE. Services that are directly paid for get delivered. There is absolutely no comparison in the level of care and outcome between privately procured medical treatment, even for the most difficult cases, and public treatment.

When hospitals are operating under fixed price tenders, will you be confident that decisions about treatment will be in the best interests of the patient, as opposed to the best interests of the accountants

.

Try telling this to the patients who have to go without operations between now and the end of the year because certain HSE funded hospitals have run out of money. Who's putting the accountants ahead of the best interests of the patient?

 

[Purple]

If hospitals have their own independent HR departments, how come it is the government who is negotiating with e.g. nurses, consultants etc. on issues like pay and conditions? If these hospitals had genuine HR departments, then they would set their own pay rates and negotiate with their own staff. I think you've just identified a bunch of people who are drawing a salary from the state, but do no meaningful work


Tendering isnt a panacea? - I think you've got what is called "we're special" syndrome. Normal rules do not apply to your area

If tendering isnt the solution, then how come more than 50% of the working population in Ireland tender on an individual basis to procure their own private or semi-private health insurance? These people are putting more faith in the procurement of their own health care as opposed to relying on the HSE. Services that are directly paid for get delivered. There is absolutely no comparison in the level of care and outcome between privately procured medical treatment, even for the most difficult cases, and public treatment.


.

Try telling this to the patients who have to go without operations between now and the end of the year because certain HSE funded hospitals have run out of money. Who's putting the accountants ahead of the best interests of the patient?

Excellent post.

 

[Purple]

I think you've got what is called "we're special" syndrome.

God I love that line...

 

[Towger]

OK. I was listening to the news. Have I got this right? The government are going to setup a group/task force/quango in six months time. This ‘body’ is going to start looking at cost cutting measures and redundancies in the public sector. So, by the time they setup and come to a decision (report) it will be 5 years later, the rest of the world will have come out of recession, but Ireland inc will only be starting her cut backs, the government will have borrowed enough to make Bill Gates blush and the country will be banjaxed for another 20 to 30 years?

 

[Complainer]

If hospitals have their own independent HR departments, how come it is the government who is negotiating with e.g. nurses, consultants etc. on issues like pay and conditions? If these hospitals had genuine HR departments, then they would set their own pay rates and negotiate with their own staff. I think you've just identified a bunch of people who are drawing a salary from the state, but do no meaningful work

I'm not quite sure that I follow your logic here. It appears that you are suggesting that because you personally have no idea what hospital HR depts do, therefore they must be doing nothing. This is obviously such a ludicrous conclusion that I must have misunderstood. Perhaps you'd like to clarify.

If you don't know what hospital HR depts do, perhaps you need to do a little research before jumping to wild conclusions.

Tendering isnt a panacea? - I think you've got what is called "we're special" syndrome. Normal rules do not apply to your area

I note with interest that you don't have any answers to the difficult challenges that I outlined around tendering for services that are inherently unpredictable in nature. Perhaps you'd like to go back and review these questions again and educate us all on the possible solutions instead of coming up with catch (yet meaningless) cliches.

If tendering isnt the solution, then how come more than 50% of the working population in Ireland tender on an individual basis to procure their own private or semi-private health insurance? These people are putting more faith in the procurement of their own health care as opposed to relying on the HSE. Services that are directly paid for get delivered. There is absolutely no comparison in the level of care and outcome between privately procured medical treatment, even for the most difficult cases, and public treatment.

Comparing an individual purchase of health insurance with tendering for a hospital is like comparing my little black & white pussycat with a wild Siberian tiger. There is indeed a certain family resemblance, but if you get the two mixed up, someone is going to get badly hurt.

Buried underneath all that guff about tendering, you actually make an interesting point about the reliance on private health insurance. If I recall correctly, about 50% of Irish people buy private health insurance, whereas about 10-15% buy it in the UK. I've heard Harney claim the high level of private health insurance as a badge of honour, whereas it should be a badge of shame. Many people (like me) buy private health insurance as the only way to ensure that my family won't die waiting in a queue. Wouldn't it be just great if private health insurance was about getting the nice hospital room with the flat-screen TV? Unfortunately, we're a long way from that.

Try telling this to the patients who have to go without operations between now and the end of the year because certain HSE funded hospitals have run out of money. Who's putting the accountants ahead of the best interests of the patient?

This is indeed a huge problem, and is evidence of the failure of Harney's HSE. It is screamingly obvious to anyone that no particular hospital has any significant control over the demand for services. Therefore, lump sum budgeting is by definition going to end up with either overestimating or underestimating. The money needs to follow the patient, not the building. I can only assume that the HSE agenda (set by the political appointees on the board) is to ensure that the public health services are a disaster, to force all those who can afford it into the private sector. Those who can't afford can (as happens today) just die, and hopefully won't make too much fuss in the media to embarrass the Minister.

If you do have any constructive suggestions to improve the health service, I'd be interested in hearing them. Knee-jerk reactions driven by a political agenda are not going to save lives.

 

[ashambles]

OK. I was listening to the news. Have I got this right?

That's what they said but it may be a smokescreen to cover actual plans. They can't be taking the OECD report seriously I'd hope - or at least they won't once they've read it. The report was commissioned by the government, looked over by our civil service, and neatly sidestepped salary costs (apart from a mention of hospital consultants being paid 80% more here than in Germany).

The reason I say it may be a smokescreen is because I've read a few articles by Colm McCarthy who's leading it up. Seems I'm not the only one still harping on about benchmarking one. I doubt he's the kind of person who'll be just shuffling the deckchairs on the Iretanic.

[broken link removed]

"The conclusion is inescapable that the first benchmarking body, which did far less pay research than this one and published none of it, got it badly wrong. There was no justification for the average 9 per cent hike awarded last time round.

The report should also induce some red faces at the review body, which recently reported on pay for top public officials, including ministers. Large awards all round was the verdict, subsequently deferred for ministers but approved for over 1,000 others. Many senior officials in Ireland are now paid well - in excess of their counterparts in other jurisdictions.

A peculiar feature of the public pay review process in Ireland is that no notice is taken of pay relativities with other countries, and the resulting anomalies have, naturally, been seized on by the news media.

There is something redolent of Soviet era central planning about Irish procedures for determining public pay. Pay rates and conditions are highly centralised, and Bolshevik-style central bodies determine the minutiae of pay and conditions for 350,000 employees nationwide."

My hope is that they'll start pushing the pay-cut line. There'll be a signifigant militant hardcore who'll fight it tooth and nail but new hires in the last 10 years or so would be more supportive (at least the ones I know would). It could be done quickly and relatively painlessly. It's never been done before but the benchmarking farce was a once off as well.

Widespread public sector redundancies are probably the last thing the economy needs right now.

 

[Purple]

I'm not quite sure that I follow your logic here. It appears that you are suggesting that because you personally have no idea what hospital HR depts do, therefore they must be doing nothing. This is obviously such a ludicrous conclusion that I must have misunderstood. Perhaps you'd like to clarify.

If you don't know what hospital HR depts do, perhaps you need to do a little research before jumping to wild conclusions.



I note with interest that you don't have any answers to the difficult challenges that I outlined around tendering for services that are inherently unpredictable in nature. Perhaps you'd like to go back and review these questions again and educate us all on the possible solutions instead of coming up with catch (yet meaningless) cliches.


Comparing an individual purchase of health insurance with tendering for a hospital is like comparing my little black & white pussycat with a wild Siberian tiger. There is indeed a certain family resemblance, but if you get the two mixed up, someone is going to get badly hurt.

Buried underneath all that guff about tendering, you actually make an interesting point about the reliance on private health insurance. If I recall correctly, about 50% of Irish people buy private health insurance, whereas about 10-15% buy it in the UK. I've heard Harney claim the high level of private health insurance as a badge of honour, whereas it should be a badge of shame. Many people (like me) buy private health insurance as the only way to ensure that my family won't die waiting in a queue. Wouldn't it be just great if private health insurance was about getting the nice hospital room with the flat-screen TV? Unfortunately, we're a long way from that.

This is indeed a huge problem, and is evidence of the failure of Harney's HSE. It is screamingly obvious to anyone that no particular hospital has any significant control over the demand for services. Therefore, lump sum budgeting is by definition going to end up with either overestimating or underestimating. The money needs to follow the patient, not the building. I can only assume that the HSE agenda (set by the political appointees on the board) is to ensure that the public health services are a disaster, to force all those who can afford it into the private sector. Those who can't afford can (as happens today) just die, and hopefully won't make too much fuss in the media to embarrass the Minister.

If you do have any constructive suggestions to improve the health service, I'd be interested in hearing them. Knee-jerk reactions driven by a political agenda are not going to save lives.

Yes csirl, stop talking guff. There's nothing wrong with anything in the public sector or at least if there is it's not for the likes of you to ask ANY questions about it... it's far to complex you see; leave it to the experts in the, er, public sector to sort it out...

 

[Towger]

Widespread public sector redundancies are probably the last thing the economy needs right now.

Good post and very true. Apart from these people appearing on the dole, a number of them will reappear as highly paid consultants, doing the exact same job. I know of one account who took redundancy last time this happened in the 80's. Got his few bob and pension. The following week he was back in the same place doing the same job! Except this time he was invoicing them per hour.

 

[limerickboy1]

my g/f is a teacher and she is getting a 2% pay increase in december. this comes at a time when thousands of private sector workers are losing their jobs and the rest have a pay freeze (a real pay freeze not the public sector imaginary one). the public sector is the employer of choice in this country when it should be the opposite. we have increased VAT and opted out of the EU wide stimulus package. this country is dead.