An Bord Snip Nua

Officially known as Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes.

Report due this week. I suppose success of the body will depend on what looking for in it. I see government already saying findings of the report not bidding which seems like an attempt to distance themselves from it.

Board Snip leaks

Quote:

---

The Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes, informally known as An Bord Snip Nua, will make more than 400 recommendations for public sector cutbacks.

About €1.5 billion will be cut from the €21 billion social welfare budget, with child benefit and rent supplements being the primary targets. Mr Lenihan has said that he would seek reductions of approximately €4 billion in December’s budget.

---

I also read they apparently proposing to close the Dept of Sport, Tourism & Culture alongside other reorganisations.

CSO public sector report

Quote:

---

In the three years to March 2009, employment in the public sector rose by 19,900 to 371,200. However, this figure for March marks a reduction on the 373,300 employed in the public sector in December 2008.

---

I suppose that shows that will hiring feeze numbers will reduce but not significantly. I hear many people (I have heard about education specifically) taking early retirement now to avoid tax levy taking portion of lump sum. I guess early retirement schemes will also be proposed...

The early retirement and incentivised career break schemes seem to be doing very well. I know there was such an interest in early retirement in my Dept they had to suspend making a decision on letting them all go until after the closing date. If even half those eligible took retirement the Dept would be impossible to reorganise as the majority are in senior management positions.

The first early retiremnts only started this month so they wouldn't be reflected in those figures. The drop would be a result of the recruitment freeze and natural wasteage I'd imagine.

I see talk of cutting Garda numbers too, I'd be disappointed if that happens I think increasing Garda numbers was one of the few things this Government has gotten right.
There's a fairly obvious need at this stage for an overhaul of the social welfare programme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passinginterest

There's a fairly obvious need at this stage for an overhaul of the social welfare programme.

---

Leaks sound like they moving towards suggestions from IMF last week that social welfare budget should be targetted at those you need the most. Means testing seems an inefficient process so some other system would be preferable.

Tourism could be merged into Enterprise as it is just an Industry. It would also seem to make some sense to reorganise the Departments & cabinet Minsiter posts as areas like say communications are a lot important than in the past.

Hanafin telling all and sundry yesterday, that unfortunately "our public spending is just too much", and savings need to be made. Well, unfortunately Mary, that applies to every citizen in the country. More money taken out of the economy = less money spent by the public = more job lossess = less tax revenue = more strain on the public finances. The public sector can't be touched in terms of job redundancies, people like me won't allow Lisbon to be passed, the EU can't help, the IMF are unwilling to help.

Tough decisions need to be made, and it needs a cabinet that know what they're doing, not an inexperienced cabinet employed in the wrong ministerial positions, making budget projections which are off the wall in accuracy.

Cutting public spending is the most painless way, (if there is one) of achieving the targets the IMF want, but Cowen and his cabinet are primarily responsible to the Irish people, not someone with a computer in some remote distant location, acting as judge and jury on other nation's finances.

You're babbling now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Hanafin telling all and sundry yesterday, that unfortunately "our public spending is just too much", and savings need to be made. Well, unfortunately Mary, that applies to every citizen in the country. More money taken out of the economy = less money spent by the public = more job lossess = less tax revenue = more strain on the public finances. The public sector can't be touched in terms of job redundancies, people like me won't allow Lisbon to be passed, the EU can't help, the IMF are unwilling to help.

Tough decisions need to be made, and it needs a cabinet that know what they're doing, not an inexperienced cabinet employed in the wrong ministerial positions, making budget projections which are off the wall in accuracy.

Cutting public spending is the most painless way, (if there is one) of achieving the targets the IMF want, but Cowen and his cabinet are primarily responsible to the Irish people, not someone with a computer in some remote distant location, acting as judge and jury on other nation's finances.

---

I don't like quoting entire posts but bt confused by that post. Not sure if you are saying cuts need to be made or not.

I am sure the leaks will be fairly accurate as apparently some departments have already been given a preview of their section.

Will be interesting to see how the government spin it politically. I think Cowan said it would potentially be implemented in the December budget.

Cuts need to be made but there are certain no-go areas, like jobs in the entire public sector, and standard JA/JB social welfare. Rent allowance and child benefit are areas where you could review the situation.

But imo, cutting infrastructure seems to be the least painful way of balancing the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I suppose that shows that will hiring feeze numbers will reduce but not significantly.

---

It depends, in some sections there is an older workforce, so natural wastage can be high. Do those figures include temp/ contract staff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I hear many people (I have heard about education specifically) taking early retirement now to avoid tax levy taking portion of lump sum. I guess early retirement schemes will also be proposed...

---

When Lenihan introduced the scheme in the last budget, the main incentive was the threat of changes to the treatment of lump sums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

But imo, cutting infrastructure seems to be the least painful way of balancing the books.

---

That is the least efficient way of saving money. Infrastructure projects should be accessed on cost/benefit analysis though.

Ultimately the decisions will be political. If the government avoid certain decision they will be criticised & for the tough decisions they do make they will probably just blame the report.

Says a lot about our political leaders that they need to setup an external body now to advise them. Reform should be an ongong process not something looking to when in crisis.

Two "facts" bandied around yesterday amongst the usual crew of all knowing economists blew my mind.

1) Public sector numbers have, and continue to increase substantially over the last 12 months.

2) Public sector employees are still getting increments.

1) seems like an indisputable fact (but would be good to know where the increase in numbers is coming from), but 2) surprises me. Is it true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

1) Public sector numbers have, and continue to increase substantially over the last 12 months.

2) Public sector employees are still getting increments.

1) seems like an indisputable fact (but would be good to know where the increase in numbers is coming from)

---

Whatever about hem increasing over 12 months, Pete's link above states that numbers were down by about 2,000 for the past three months so that would suggest that the line "continue to increase substantially " isn't an indisputable fact

It's really bothering me the way the recent figures are being presented, numbers in the public service have clearly begun to fall but the headlines are only concerned with the increase, which isn't substantial in the first place, the average wage for public servants that's quoted at just over 50,000 seems to include all state employees which means overpaid politicians and high level management positions, and then deeper in the articles passing mention is given to the fact that it doesn't take into acount the pension levy. Lower level civil and public servants end up getting all the stick about being over-paid etc when the figures being quoted are horribly distorted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

1) Public sector numbers have, and continue to increase substantially over the last 12 months.

1) seems like an indisputable fact (but would be good to know where the increase in numbers is coming from)

---

It's not even a fact, numbers are down for the first three months of the year, and that is before the early retirement scheme, incentivised career break, shorter working week scheme, the reductions in teachers and teaching assistants, special needs assistants, the temp/ contract workers reaching the end of their contract etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

2) Public sector employees are still getting increments.

2) surprises me. Is it true?

---

It's part of the contract (once performance targets are reached), so would require legislation to change it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passinginterest

the average wage for public servants that's quoted at just over 50,000 seems to include all state employees which means overpaid politicians and high level management positions, and then deeper in the articles passing mention is given to the fact that it doesn't take into acount the pension levy. Lower level civil and public servants end up getting all the stick about being over-paid etc when the figures being quoted are horribly distorted.

---

They take the total (gross) pay bill and divide it by the numbers they say are employed. Using an average alone is obviously misleading, and tbh how can you trust an organisation full of statisiticians that continues to go for headlines on what they must know is an irrelevant figure?

Just on the general coverage I've a few things that are bugging me.... they're quoting an increase in average pay, when I would've thought that this was going to happen with the laying off of temp workers - there would hardly be too many temps at higher grades. Also, there has been zero mention of the levy, so even if there has been an increase in gross pay, it's been wipped out and more by the levy - instead of their headline 3.4% increase, it's a 3.6% reduction.

I think from the numbers above can see public sector numbers were increasing until the last 3-6 months where there has been a small drop. I would guess most of the numbers reduction has been at local authority & other bodies?

Not surpised at the pay increments as I think that was highlighted in the media in recent months.

Whatever else the government do with the expenditure cuts I can't see them avoiding pay cuts or reduction in numbers in the public sector. I think wages increase with age in some categories? I think a 40 year old teacher earns more than a 30 year old all things being equal? Probably not a big difference for individuals but across the system all adds up.

Social Welfare could probably do with a big shake up. Surely the goal should be to assist people (temporarily) when they are at their lowest instead of the miriad of child, rent & other allowances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I think from the numbers above can see public sector numbers were increasing until the last 3-6 months where there has been a small drop. I would guess most of the numbers reduction has been at local authority & other bodies?

---

Wait, so a increase of "nearly 3,000" for the year is substantial but a drop of 2,900 in 3 months for the year is a "small drop"

Thanks for clarifying the above.

Devil is obviously in the detail (e.g. As mentioned above the loss of a guard or nursing job over an admin position makes a harder case) but broadly a fall in employment is what is required. Why it took until 3 months ago simply reinforces view that senior civil servants are in practical terms, accountable to nobody and a law unto themselves (Yes Minister springs to mind).

In relation to the increments, in a declining wage environment in the wider economy, the price to be paid by the civil service is layoffs and other ridiculous schemes like the levy. The penny might drop soon with the unions.

I would imagine various special interest groups (and threatened Ministers) are trying to stop the report being publicly released in full.

It's imperative that the detail is released into the public domain. At least then when the pork barrels are rolled out, we at least know where to look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Wait, so a increase of "nearly 3,000" for the year is substantial but a drop of 2,900 in 3 months for the year is a "small drop"

---

Benchmarked against private sector employment and tax revenue, then yes.

Now that's an interesting word, "benchmarking". Suspect we won't hear it coming out of the public sector for a while.

Just to clarify, the increments effect public servants, not just civil servants.

And increments aren't based on age, but rather service and performance. There is a scale and once people reach the top of the scale thats it. It isn't like increments are continual throughout your career at each grade.

Here's an idea of the pay scales for "middle managers" in the Civil service
http://www.pseu.ie/html/pay.html#Payrate_Page

For Clerical grades (BY FAR the largest group within civil service) the pay scales are in this .pdf file
http://www.cpsu.ie/images/NewsManage...016_insert.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Benchmarked against private sector employment and tax revenue, then yes.

Now that's an interesting word, "benchmarking". Suspect we won't hear it coming out of the public sector for a while.

---

From the same CSO survey, industry pay rose by 4%. Guess we won't be hearing about that for a while either...

And for the record I work in the private sector...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Why it took until 3 months ago simply reinforces view that senior civil servants are in practical terms, accountable to nobody and a law unto themselves (Yes Minister springs to mind).

---

Or they abide by employment law and the terms of contracts that temp staff have. But, hey, whatever spin you want to put on it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

In relation to the increments, in a declining wage environment in the wider economy, the price to be paid by the civil service is layoffs and other ridiculous schemes like the levy. The penny might drop soon with the unions.

---

Legally, Unions cannot negotiate/ agree for members a reduction in terms and conditions. The civil and public service use salary scales - you start at the bottom and work your way up over time (which might answer pete's question about age - it's not age it's time on the grade). The pension levy was a de facto pay cut (even Lenihan admits this now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Benchmarked against private sector employment and tax revenue, then yes.

Now that's an interesting word, "benchmarking". Suspect we won't hear it coming out of the public sector for a while

---

If we use the last available CSO figures, private sector wages were increasing - 4% in industry, 2% in Retail and services. Public Sector (taking into account the levy) down 3.6%.