Are Public Servants Living in the Real World?

[highorlow]

Recession proof jobs and no pay cut for 4 years, huge work benefits, plenty of holidays and they still grumble.

They need to wake up to reality.

[dublinfella]

Recession proof jobs and no pay cut for 4 years, huge work benefits, plenty of holidays and they still grumble.

They need to wake up to reality.

And that reality is the state can find €79bn to bail out corrupt banks but can't afford €1bn to pay their staff.

Why should low paid public servants take another cut on top of the 15% they have already lost? They didn't cause the mess.

The deal isn't all that bad, IF, and thats a big if, you trust the government to stand by it and that the Dept of Finance projections its based on are accurate. That seems to be the actual issue.

[Declan]

Popular thinking on crisis swept aside

Views that banking was just one part of the crisis and that the public sector was not to blame have been ignored, writes FINTAN O'TOOLE

LET'S START with a short quiz. Who wrote the following? "Much of the rhetoric in the media about public sector pay and reform is an attempt by some of the least well-informed commentators to distract attention from the main source of our economic woes. The mess in which the Irish economy finds itself largely stems from the house price bubble, not from problems in the public sector. It is probably not a coincidence that some of the most vocal critics of the public sector today were among the most conspicuous cheerleaders for the housing boom."

Was it (a) Peter McLoone; (b) Jack O'Connor or (c) David Begg?

And who wrote this? "There are five dimensions to Ireland's current crisis: a banking crisis, a fiscal crisis, an economic crisis of competitiveness and job losses, a social crisis of unemployment and income loss, and a reputational crisis . . . it cannot be said that an integrated and evolving debate is occurring on the fiscal, social and economic aspects of the crisis."

Was it (a) Michael D Higgins; (b) David Begg; or (c) Me?

The answer, in both cases, is none of the above.

The first quote is from Alan Ahearne, now special economic adviser to the Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan. Writing in The Irish Times in January 2009, he went on to point out that cuts in public sector pay, though necessary, would have a relatively modest effect on the budgetary crisis: "an often overlooked point is that even large-scale public sector pay cuts would only have a moderate effect on the fiscal deficit. A 10 per cent reduction in public sector pay and pensions, for example, would reduce Government spending by €2 billion. But when account is taken of the associated loss of tax revenues (both direct and indirect), the net reduction in the budget deficit would be a little more than €1 billion."

The second quote is from the National Economic and Social Council. It represents the view of the actors in what used to be social partnership. It is endorsed by the trade unions, the representatives of six different Government departments, of Ibec, and of community, voluntary, environmental and agricultural groups. The council's message, in reports last spring and autumn, was that the banking catastrophe is just one of five crises and that there are thus "definite limitations to a national response which was dominated by a focus on recapitalising the banking system".

In both of these propositions, we are dealing with highly respectable, mainstream, orthodox opinion. When Ahearne wrote 15 months ago that attacks on public servants were intended to "distract attention from the main source of our economic woes", he was being rational. His view was uncontroversial enough for Lenihan to bring him into the Department of Finance and make him the intellectual architect of Nama.

And when the NESC suggested there were five crises, not one, and that allowing the banking system to dominate all policy responses would not work, it was reflecting a broad consensus. No one argued against its emphasis on "the need to convince Irish society as a whole, and particularly groups making visible sacrifices, that those who led Irish financial institutions into their current reliance on the State, and who were major beneficiaries of the boom, are being held accountable and bearing their share of the adjustment burden". When it talked about the need for a coherent response to be "based on social solidarity, seen as sharing the burden of adjustment fairly and yielding a fair economy and society in years to come", it was almost dealing in truisms.

I cite these two examples in order to suggest that something extraordinary has happened to our public discourse about the crisis. Given the right-wing domination of our political and media cultures, it is not at all odd that radical dissent has been marginalised. (Even the word "marginalised" suggests, wrongly, that it was anything but marginal in the first place.) What is much harder to grasp, however, is that mainstream, rational analysis has been marginalised too.

If Alan Ahearne were now to write in The Irish Times that the targeting of the public service is a transparent ruse to distract attention from the real causes of the crisis, he would be dismissed as a Marxist conspiracy theorist. As for the NESC, it doesn't even merit dismissal. It simply doesn't exist. It is roundly and comprehensively ignored. Its intellectual framework of a five-dimensional crisis has no place in the one-track mind of official discourse. And this, remember, is a body chaired by the secretary general of the Department of the Taoiseach.

The ultimate irony of this marginalisation of the mainstream is that it now encompasses those who believe in that weirdest of ideologies – capitalism. The poor saps who actually thought there was a system of private enterprise, in which investors took the risks of failure as well as the rewards of success, are now as heretical as the rest of us.

[highorlow]

And that reality is the state can find €79bn to bail out corrupt banks but can't afford €1bn to pay their staff.

That's incorrect and apart from the Anglo disaster the investment by the government to keep the banks in business will reap a return at some time in the future.

Forking out a billion to overpaid Civil Servants, some of which work in unnecessary Quango's will never reap a return.

Why should low paid public servants take another cut on top of the 15% they have already lost? They didn't cause the mess.

We all were part of the cause of the mess including the Unions. The benchmarking and union pay deals over the years which was used to inflate 'low paid' workers wages to unsustainable levels which left people to over borrow for houses which were too expensive in the first place as demand for them outstripped supply which in turn caused 'amateur' property developers or speculators to buy land that was way over it's worth.

The deal isn't all that bad,

Understatement of the year. I guarantee you that there won't be one Private Sector worker who can get an employment contract with no pay cut for 4 years plus a guaranteed job to go to every day.

[Geoff Tipps]

Understatement of the year. I guarantee you that there won't be one Private Sector worker who can get an employment contract with no pay cut for 4 years plus a guaranteed job to go to every day.

Yeah while I sympathise with some of the lower paid civil/public servants the crux of the matter is that they have a guaranteed job for the next 4 years. There are very few in the private sector who could get a simliar assurance off their employers.

[dublinfella]

That's incorrect and apart from the Anglo disaster the investment by the government to keep the banks in business will reap a return at some time in the future.

If you think we will get a return on Anglo, go away and lie down. FF are bailing out their chums and literally picking the pockets of public sector workers to do so.

Forking out a billion to overpaid Civil Servants, some of which work in unnecessary Quango's will never reap a return.

Its not meant to. Thats why its a public service.

We all were part of the cause of the mess including the Unions. The benchmarking and union pay deals over the years which was used to inflate 'low paid' workers wages to unsustainable levels which left people to over borrow for houses which were too expensive in the first place as demand for them outstripped supply which in turn caused 'amateur' property developers or speculators to buy land that was way over it's worth.

So lets not blame Sean Fitz. Lets not blame Sean Quinn. Its the fault of civil servants on €30,000 how had the temerity to look for inflation linked salaries in a boom.

Understatement of the year. I guarantee you that there won't be one Private Sector worker who can get an employment contract with no pay cut for 4 years plus a guaranteed job to go to every day.

Of course not. But they get paid more, thats the trade off. Security versus pay. And on the basis 72% of private sector workers not only kept their jobs but also didn't have a pay cut, the public sector are being singled out.

Or put another way, if the civil service get such a cushty number, why didn't you sign up?

[dublinfella]

Yeah while I sympathise with some of the lower paid civil/public servants the crux of the matter is that they have a guaranteed job for the next 4 years. There are very few in the private sector who could get a simliar assurance off their employers.

Again, that why you join the public service. For a lower paid guranteed job.

FF have done some job when we are debating whether Guards, teachers and nurses should have secure employement.

[armaghniac]

Yeah while I sympathise with some of the lower paid civil/public servants the crux of the matter is that they have a guaranteed job for the next 4 years.

Children need to be educated, people fall ill, criminals need to be nabbed. Demand for public services continues, so this job security arises from continued demand for these services.

As for the no paycut clause, the economy will probably have nominal growth of 15-20% in that period, not having a pay cut is nothing special in such circumstances. 

[Hardy]

Yeah while I sympathise with some of the lower paid civil/public servants the crux of the matter is that they have a guaranteed job for the next 4 years.

Children need to be educated, people fall ill, criminals need to be nabbed. Demand for public services continues, so this job security arises from continued demand for these services.

As for the no paycut clause, the economy will probably have nominal growth of 15-20% in that period, not having a pay cut is nothing special in such circumstances. 

Continuity of service doesn't depend on keeping people in work irrespective of their performance or lack thereof. Every private sector company must also provide continuity of service, but I don't know of one that guarantees a job for life, irrespective of performance.

[dublinfella]

Continuity of service doesn't depend on keeping people in work irrespective of their performance or lack thereof. Every private sector company must also provide continuity of service, but I don't know of one that guarantees a job for life, irrespective of performance.

Lets not use the Irish private sector as an example of how it should be done....

[An Gaeilgoir]

i think its the unions who are to blame here, they have led their members up the garden path, but for the public sector the unions would be in the main irrelevant. t always makes me laugh when i hear public servants saying "we never got anything from the celtic tiger" WHAT THE f**k WAS BENCHMARKING? Money for nothing, no efficient work practices, no modernisation etc.Where else do workers get extra money to change with the times and request extra money to become more efficient and that overtime is now regarded as the norm?.As a private sector worker who interfaces with all strata of public service on an almost weekly basis, the inefficiency and cant do attitude is unreal.Promotions are in the main time served promotions again these are not based on ability. i know a teacher who retired this year and got a lump sum of 125k on top of her pension! I work in an company where each worker has taken a 180 euro (after tax) pay cut in their weekly wages and most of them are now working 250 miles away from home, their choice is this project or the dole line. Can anyone imagine if this was to happen in the public sector. They are so out of touch with reality it is unbelievable.

[armaghniac]

Continuity of service doesn't depend on keeping people in work irrespective of their performance or lack thereof. Every private sector company must also provide continuity of service, but I don't know of one that guarantees a job for life, irrespective of performance.

Fine. But 95% of public servants perform their jobs in a way that would not allow them be sacked under general employment legislation. The issue is redeployment rather than redundancy for overstaffed sectors. 

[Hardy]

Continuity of service doesn't depend on keeping people in work irrespective of their performance or lack thereof. Every private sector company must also provide continuity of service, but I don't know of one that guarantees a job for life, irrespective of performance.

Fine. But 95% of public servants perform their jobs in a way that would not allow them be sacked under general employment legislation.  The issue is redeployment rather than redundancy for overstaffed sectors. 

Source?

(I don't engage with that other clown as he has no credibility here, having been found to be a liar).

[INDIANA]

Continuity of service doesn't depend on keeping people in work irrespective of their performance or lack thereof. Every private sector company must also provide continuity of service, but I don't know of one that guarantees a job for life, irrespective of performance.

Fine. But 95% of public servants perform their jobs in a way that would not allow them be sacked under general employment legislation. The issue is redeployment rather than redundancy for overstaffed sectors.

Used to have to perform my working duties in certain public sector organisations at certain times of the year. I'd disagree with the 95%. Some of the things that went on beggared belief. Its so hard for any public sector manager to get rid of a poor employee most of them have given up trying to do it. So they just allow them to do whatever they like.

We have the most inefficient public sector in Europe. I know people in 60k a year public sector jobs who absolutely rip the piss out of the flexible owrking hours ie . On a night out on the piss- fall out of Coppers at 4am- go to burgerking for an hour - then head into their public sector job- clock in or log on for 4 hours and bugger off home having allegedly worked up a half day and before anyone gets there.

I mean thats the point of no return really for me.

[muppet]

Lenihan's idea that NAMA will yield a return for taxpayers at some time in the future is comical. It is based on two premises that don't stand up:

a) The banks will pay a levy for their participation in Nama. The problem is that it isn't in the legislation and it would cause their shares to collapse if they had to account for it now. Therefore they are not committed to it so it won't happen.

b) Nama is buying the loans on the basis that the property will increase in value in the future. Some of it might. But everyone knows that Nama will have to knock thousands of houses around the country to merely stop the prices falling. How can it regain money at a future inflated value on property it has destroyed. In addition I believe it will have purchased pyrite affected property that will simply fall down in 5-10 years. Not much chance of recouping anything there either.


Back to the thread subject, the public sector.

I told a couple of teacher friends of mine recently that I would have ripped the governments arm off if they offered me the Croke Park deal. The reasonably argued against the deal on issues such as those raised above. I agreed with their argument and accepted that they were being treated unfairly but that missed the point completely.

This is the point.The State will shortly be bankrupt and offered them no pay cut for 4 years. You are holding a 7 and a 2 and you are certain the other guy has a high pair, when offers to split the pot with you. You don't bluff, except the unions now have.