Who made the decision to hire you lot? Civil Servants? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
Printable View
Who made the decision to hire you lot? Civil Servants? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
"Now go away"Quote:
Originally Posted by WeAreRovers
WAR in agreeing with Bertie shocker:p
People working crazy hours, living to work instead of working to live should organise themselves. People can't see that the reason they're working crazy, illegal hours is because they've abandoned Trade Unions, voted for the Tories in the UK/ FF and PD's in this country, and instead blame those in work places that have kept that commitment going.
There is no conceivable reason that people can be advocating working the hours that Paul O'Shea is quoting. That is madness. It would not be worth the additional money to work in that kind of environment - so that's the pay off. Less money* for better terms and conditions in the Public Sector, or taking a step back to the 1800's for more money and no life. All you've done is swap the mill for an office.
*And it is less money for most civil and public servants, regardless of flawed average figures that are put out.
It works both ways Peadar, and you know it. I don't know whether you work in a large company or not, but the vast majority of large companies work solely for profit, with little or no consideration for employees, customers, the environment or anything else. The civil service has it's faults, but so does the private sector. Trying to prove that one is better than the other in general is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
adam
BTW, the public/private "where do you find the time" jokes stopped being funny after the first one. Get back on topic please, save the jokes for OT.
adam
The fact of the matter is that it's people with determination, commitment and ambition, in the private sector, who have turned Ireland into such a wealthy country. The civil servants want to get pay increases, on the back of our ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
The civil service hasn't changed since Ireland was under British rule, yet they expect credit for powering our economy.
I think it shows in the last 15 years what international investment and privatisation-leading to- better competition and better infrastructure can do.
dahamasta, I am not going to get into a big thing about this ( this comment and thats it ), but there isn't much if any difference between, "you are ignorant" and "you dont have a clue".
Finally, I think some people are too sensitive, its not a case of "my dick is bigger than your dick" i.e. my job and what i do is better than you, which is what certain people seemed to think. It was more a public v private sector and attitudes to work I was refering to.
I'm more a FFer every day. Getting old I suppose. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by SÓC
KOH
And it was the Trade Unions that came up with the idea of a national plan aka national wage agreement that developed the right environment to allow that to take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
Even if you accept that argument, then you must also recognise that public servants relative position has dramatically decreased during this period too. A teacher, nurse, clerical officer, executive officer used to be relatively well off, being able to afford housing on the open market in Dublin for example. Now most don't even reach the rate to allow them qualify for affordable housing. So it hasn't been without cost to the public service if that's the arguement you want to make.
1000 euro a day id say, in and around anyhow!!!Quote:
You'd choke if you knew how much I cost the State per day!
Macy, madness yes maybe but it depends what you want from life and how quickly.
The reason that gets people is because it is so hard to get into the public sector ( almost like an old boys network in one sense ), and they see its cushy and a handy number, then they see their paycheck and 800 a month is coming out on tax or whatever. Maybe its jealously, I dont know ( not in my case, not yet anyhow ;) ), but it makes people ask awkward questions, and it also makes people perceive things, that when you go in and see for yourself, can be answered!!!
Name the privatisations and deregulations that have lead to better service and reduced costs? Even the great white hope of deregulation the taxi has actually meant cost increases to consumer. CIE, which FF/PD want to privatise is actually one of the most efficient in europe (of both privatised markets and publicly operated)Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Infrastructure nearly all public funded anyway, and there was a recent report that showed that for roads the public funded schemes came in cheaper than Public Private Partnerships.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
hmmm, look at most of the PPP's came in on-time nearly 100% of the time, plus under-budget and a lot of the time a few months early, that never happens out of PPP's. What do you think Macy has fuelled and/or funded this, I mean all the money available for roads etc? Going off topic btw kinda.Quote:
Infrastructure nearly all public funded anyway, and there was a recent report that showed that for roads the public funded schemes came in cheaper than Public Private Partnerships.
The EU mostly funded it. If I have time I'll dig out the report. It was only in the last couple of days.
I think there is an element of that & shows that Benchmarking was one of the greatest scams ever sold to the Nation. Countless studies have shown that public sector pay & conditions are greater than the private sector which proves that Benchmarking has screwed the taxpayer & provided nice benefits for the public sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Some days I think i'd like a nice cushy number in the public sector but then I realise i'd be bored in a few days. Unless i;m busy I get bored at work very easily.
Reading recently how Shannon airport workers turned down average redundency payment of 100k plus new (lower paid) job in outsourced job (i assume this guaranteed for some period of time). I think they would come out with 70k after tax I can think of no private sector person who would turn down that deal so must be some cushy job in Shannon airport. :eek:
Countless biased studies by IBEC that take public service pay as an average including Sec Gens, P.O.s A.P.s (High grades) T.D.s and Government ministers!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
An entry level Clerical officer earns 21 grand per year. The majority of civil servants are of that grade. An entry level EO (middle management) gets 27 grand. If you work at IT in the civil service your earnings are based on your grade not on your skills. You would get way more in the private sector.
How many times do we have go through this? Countless studies that use average pay which includes the top brass, politicians, high overtime jobs like the Gards and Prison Service. The whole scheme, as well as national wage agreements, paying on percentages have lead to massive increases for the top levels of the civil service, and giving handy fodder to the likes of IBEC. It's the same bull**** statistical analysis that Cowen has used to try and claim only 20% of workers are paying at the top rate of tax, or do you believe that too?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Port Tunnel. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Also "On time" and "under budget" are terms relative to the targets that are set.
trudged through this thread with a few things sticking out...whatever inefficiencies are in the public sector are firstly a system problem, and secondly down to individuals - like a football team with stan in charge even the best will struggle but through their ability and determination they can emerge from the mundane, while the less ambitious can amble along safe in the knowledge that management wont drop them or see any of their faults because eventually someone else well cover for them.i mention ambition as i think going back a few decades(when there werent jobs elsewhere) the public sector was seen as guaranteeing a secure position for years, therefore people went for jobs as civil sevants,teachers, gardaí etc firstly because there wasnt really an alternative and then, as we are now discovering to our cost, without really considering there own attributes and individual talents. so that now we have people who are not happy in there jobs and as a result not producing what they could or should..the unions are protecting the jobs of such people now by resisting change, as in the Shannon example, macy - in the 1800s workers were downtrodden because of malevolent managers and, crucially, workers were afraid to speak up for themselves, now with huge labour mobility in the private sector people realise they can stand up and be counted without fear of not getting another job, or if they do a good job there is a good chance management well bow to their wishes or at least discuss the issue, unlike 100 years ago
[quote]Also "On time" and "under budget" are terms relative to the targets that are set.[\quote]
that was a pointless project from the start, and who decided on that?
The system is run by Civil Servants!Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
That analogy is very eircomleague-esque. Clubs moaning about the way the eL run dispite the fact is was actually run by the clubs themselves.
:eek:
That is simply not borne out by facts. There is a trend for new jobs to be un-unionised low paying with poor working conditions (this is a general trend-I'm sure people here can cite examples of their friend the accountant or the guy with the IT qualification-I'm talking in general) in the services sector. I have spoken to young workers in the course of "End Low Pay" campaigns, and unionisation campaigns who are terrified of their bosses finding out they spoke to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
have you dropped your ludicrous claims on pay Pete?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
:o :o oops!!
my opinions are also applicable to the private sector, its just easier to pick on the public sector..sorry boys, i might just have to revise my thoughts given the excellence of this site and its management
(nothing like a bit of plaumás to get out of a tricky situation)
Damn right, they should be!Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
They know well they don't deserve more pay and therefore wouldn't bother asking their boss, but they sniff a chance to force the company to give them more, by talking to people in unions.
If I wasn't happy with the conditions in my job, I'd speak to my manager, failing that, I'd speak to his manager and would also have to option of speaking to HR. If none of that worked, I could go out and get another job, with a rival company.
Not because some union did something but because I'm an individual and can think for myself, allowing me to make my own decisions.
No. Like for like public sector jobs pay as much or more than private sector. Considering I would have no contributory pension & lot more perks I don't feel I would be financial worse off in the public sector. My job mobility might be limited though & also might be difficult to go back to the private sector if I choose, Remind me in a few years when ready to be out out to pasture :p ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
its not borne out with facts, i was giving an opinion... i should have put in that people should realise they have other options outside of going to the union, they should be confident in their abilities and that they desrerve better. i fully accept unions are required in certain situations, but they have also lost their relevence compared to 100 years ago which was my pointQuote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Even though Macy and Myself have consistantly given figures to disprove that?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
What :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
If there is a general tendency in society for wages to fall and hours at work to increase, therefore squeezing more out of wokers for less pay then Unions are as relevant as ever. Just a pity they are in the state they are in.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
But you two both discredit figures/studies that come from the other side!!! :rolleyes:Quote:
Even though Macy and Myself have consistantly given figures to disprove that?
Its hard sometimes alright, but what he means is that when he is ready almost to retirement and the easy life, remind him then.Quote:
Remind me in a few years when ready to be out out to pasture
I want to see facts posted on the pay issue or I'm not allowing any more discussion on it. Pete, that means you. You made a claim, now back it up or drop it.
Er, because we have provided the actual figures for public sector pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Once again - Entry level pay for the grade that the majority of Civil servants are is €21,625.
With incriments it takes 13 years for that to rise to €35 grand. That is fact not some concocted average.
Average annual Earnings for All Employees in Banking, Insurance and Building Societies as of 2005 was €40,012
(Sourse: Central statistics office).
Disclaimer: I accept this is an average and all banking staff do not get this.
the keyword is the first; ifQuote:
If there is a general tendency in society for wages to fall and hours at work to increase, therefore squeezing more out of wokers for less pay then Unions are as relevant as ever. Just a pity they are in the state they are in.
i know you have more anecdotal evidence but are wages really falling? also, you mention some 'end low pay' campaign, isnt our minimum wage amongst the highest in europe?
How can you directly compare someone who leaves school does a few entry exams and starts on a basic salary to someone who spends to 4 - 5 years in a related field of study and then goes into that career? Also there aren't enough direct jobs related from one sector to the other.
I know from my school alone 15 ( out of 120+ )that went into it after school, whereas I had only started working 5 years later. I have only passed them out recently I reckon if even. so thats 5+ years on me, as well as expenses I incurred in Uni. these factors also have to be taken into account. I do know that not everyone within the public sector goes directly from school into civil service, nor do those who have worked in pubs and what not till 25 then decide to go into civil service, I know quite a few of these too.
I think the only ones that you can directly relate to are Consultants V Civil Service, as thats the only real inter-relation between too, in that case consultants win hands-down (in every sense :D) in wages, but in related hours of work, where overtime and flexi-time don't exist, so it would average out about the same after total hours worked!!!
The disclaimer somewhat invalidates your argument given that you were complaining about the same averages being applied to public workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Both sides to this argument have merit. There are certainly bad employers out there taking advantage of vulnerable workers and equally there are unions out there which act to protect bad working practices.
On average wages are rising. Not by much but yes they are rising. However the numbers of low pay jobs are also rising. So in effect the wealth gap is increasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
On minimum wage, yes but prices are lower in most of those countries. Also under 18's have a much reduced minimum wage and there are more employers than you would think not paying it. I was personally threatened for outing employers who were paying below the minimum wage.
If my arguement was what you think it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
My arguement is that you can make anything look good with averages.
Here's a little article about public sector pay...
Thats why im saying directly you could only really compare Civil servants to Consultants, where they both do directly the same sort of work at different points in time.Quote:
in fairness how can you provide stats for the whole entry level of the private sector to compare to the 21k mentioned by bohs? the new minimum wage would work out around 17k for an average week, but an entry level pharmacist might earn 50k or more pete's point was that for whatever he does he would be better off, or not much worse off all things considered, in the public sector
Well then you'd have to say the civil servants would come of worse than the consultants.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
We've already dealt with this at length:Quote:
Wages in the public sector rose by more than 6 per cent last year, bringing average pay in the public sector (excluding health) to more than €45,000 a year, compared to the average industrial wage of €31,000.
Here and here. :rolleyes:
Not if you include everything BOHS infairness.Quote:
Well then you'd have to say the civil servants would come of worse than the consultants.
[QUOTE=BohsPartisan;606536]Mostly foreign workers though? allowing irish people the opportunity to climb the wage ladder? not saying i dont care about foreigners but for one the unions havent actively sought to recruit them and secondly they are happy with their wage in comparison to what they'd get at home and a good few are likely to leave in the short term.Quote:
However the numbers of low pay jobs are also rising. So in effect the wealth gap is increasing.
it would be better to lower prices than increase wages, but thats all getting very complicated and would mean less tax income for the government to roll around in. by the way has the abolition of the groceries order had much effect i wonderQuote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
This debate seems to be missing one major issue, that is the hidden but hugely beneficial perk that public servants accrue under their pension schemes.
Again at a risk of been accused of generalising a civil servant gets gratis a pension of 2/3rd of their final salary upon retirement. The cost of funding that (assuming a salary of €35k) if you worked in the private sector is €12k per year assuming you started funding for it at age 20 annd retired at 60.
So when are the private sector workers going to cop on and realise that they are been hammered on 2 fronts ,firstly by their own employers who are forcing them to fund their own pensions and secondly by seeing their contribution to the exchequer used to fund the pension arrangement for ooo's of civil servants who for the most part don't pay any pension contributions or top rate 6% prsi...... so in real terms if you examine it closely Civil Servants do receive a better slary than your avarage private worker, they also enjoy much better terms & conditions (eg flexi time, length of hols and of course for life job security)... we're operatring a two tier society for workers and don't expect any of our politicians to change that since they of course also benefit from the aforementioned perks in addition to their unique extra one ie they are entitled to receive half of their salary tax free !!
Thought you said civil service jobs were hard to get. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea