Another Government Strike Thread

[Khunbaan]

Lets start with the Mental Health Service... They currently have up cronk grenaigh four Managers supervising 4 health care assistants, when you apply to work as bank staff you have a choice of all the managers to apply to. Time to cut the numbers of managers who have simply been promoted due to turning up at work for so long.

[bluemonday]

As was stated in the Times today

 

Basic business rule.

No one is indispensible.

Anyone threatening to resign should have the resignaton accepted.

[P.K.]

…as to think folks mind their taxes being spent on healthcare.

Oh, so now you think healthcare workers should be an exception? What a pity you never made that distinction in your previous posts when you were ranting on about public sector workers, perhaps you didn’t realise that they were? Never mind, let’s overlook that and talk about:

 

overpaid, pampered Civil Servants by associating them with healthcare

But hang on a minute, the hospital is full of Civil Servants. They run the IT systems, do the secretarial and admin work for the doctors, run medical records, do the data entry, the list goes on and on. Are you excluding this group as well now or should the doctors and nurses be doing these jobs?

Not very good at this are you? I posted nearly three weeks ago:

 

Also in an exercise like this absolutely NOTHING can be ring-fenced. Why the hell should it be? Does anyone actually know if you have an excess of doctors, police, nurses, firemen, teachers, excessive purchasing management executives ??? No, they bloody well don't know and that's the point!!! There may even be shortages to make good but until it actually get's properly looked at nobody actually knows.

In the same theme:

 

In fact let’s get down to specifics. In your opinion which specific groups should not be included in the pension changes?

Let's turn it on it's head - why should there be exceptions?

 

To quote P.K. "Also in an exercise like this absolutely NOTHING can be ring-fenced. Why the hell should it be?"

 

I would start with the CS and their piss-take non-contributory pension "fund" and work through the lot. All pension schemes to be self-funding from now on.

[oldmanxfella]

I would start with the CS and their piss-take non-contributory pension "fund" and work through the lot. All pension schemes to be self-funding from now on.

 

Be careful. Most CS workers still believe that they 'pay' into their pension.

[P.K.]

Be careful. Most CS workers still believe that they 'pay' into their pension.

I hear you.

 

But when they look at their payslips do they see a before tax 5% or 6% deduction for pension?

 

I think not...

[Galen]

IMO it is a pity that this thread has become a mixture of fact, fiction and ill informed information based on what, in many instances, could be seen as "envy" by private sector workers whose T&Cs are different (and have changed, reduced or removed in the economic crisis). When the Manx economy has been thriving, the focus on public sector workers has been virtually non-existent. Now that we are entering into "troubled waters", the focus has changed onto what are "easy targets" and who by virtue of their T&Cs have limited ability to give their side of the story being effectively "gagged" by the employer.

 

Yes, the Public Sector T&Cs are different because historically their pay was generally less than private sector pay and especially so if the private sector benefits were taken into account. (Note that private health care is often carried out in by NHS doctors whose training has been paid for by the tax payer and arguably whose inefficiency in the public sector is rewarded by treating people who choose to pay (or have paid for by their employer) additionally to their contribution to state care via taxation).

 

To redress the "balance" of public/ private employment benefits, politicians agreed to give better public pensions. To cite that Public Sector workers do not pay for their pension is inaccurate. All do, but at varying levels, again with the agreement of those that run the country. The fact that sufficient monies have not been put aside to pay for pensions is not the fault of the those who contribute every month. However, the "masters" of all our collective destinies, AKA politiicans, do NOT PAY for their pensions and get a full pension after only after 10 years of service! I accept the numbers of politicians is truly outweighed by the numbers of CS and public sector workers but if, as is being suggested that there are "no sacred cows" in this present "crisis", then why is it not starting at the top? Is it a case of "turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas"? It raises the question as to why Politicians pensions were outside the recent review by Hyman Robertson!

 

As to efficiencies that can be made in the public sector, yes there are, as there will most likely to be in the private sector. In both sectors the consequences need to be thought through carefully and private sector shareholders are seen differently to public sector stakeholders. Those who ultimately decide in the public sector on what stays and what goes, is determined by Politicians who, in the IOM, have to decide if difficult decisions may influence their performance at ballot-box in Sept 2011.

 

Cutting health, social care, and other social benefits is obviously possible, but unless they impact on individuals' or their relatives, friends etc directly, no one will be too bothered. But in small communities such as the IOM it is inevitable that we will all know someone that will be effected. Regretfully, life is not fair, and the search for seeking equity to counter frustrations of one own's circumstances is a common reaction coupled to how we each perceive where we should be in life - irrespective of the reality. Yes, we would all want want a better life, but it is not difficult to find others who are worse off than we are!

 

Perhaps more informed debate might actually produce better outcomes, than the "spleen venting" debates threads like this attract where one sector takes delight in criticising the other, often with without the knowledge or evidence (other than what contibutors want to hear or believe)- no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

[P.K.]

To take some of your points:

 

"Yes, the Public Sector T&Cs are different because historically their pay was generally less than private sector pay and especially so if the private sector benefits were taken into account. (Note that private health care is often carried out in by NHS doctors whose training has been paid for by the tax payer and arguably whose inefficiency in the public sector is rewarded by treating people who choose to pay (or have paid for by their employer) additionally to their contribution to state care via taxation)."

 

Firstly it would appear that CS/PS pay & bennies have overtaken the private sector. Personally I don't care if it's come about historically or whatever. Times have changed and the CS/PS should change with them, especially their mindset it would seem.

Secondly the private sector have also paid to educate and train NHS doctors. Yes they also carry out private healthcare. The thing is that not only do private sector employers pay for that "benefit" (a healthier workforce = fewer days lost through sickness) but private healthcare is a taxable benefit! So the private sector actually pay out a lot more for the same treatment, to the obvious benefit of the public sector.

 

"To redress the "balance" of public/ private employment benefits, politicians agreed to give better public pensions. To cite that Public Sector workers do not pay for their pension is inaccurate. All do, but at varying levels, again with the agreement of those that run the country. The fact that sufficient monies have not been put aside to pay for pensions is not the fault of the those who contribute every month."

 

As I posted previously times have changed. ALL pension schemes should be self-funding, not just those in the private sector. The CS/PS pensions are most definitely not self-funding with some of the CS paying a measly 1.5% which in some cases is returned hence the genuine and deserved grievance the rest of us feel. I would like to see a "real world" contribution of between 6% and 7% for a 1/80th capped at 50% with AVC's available to top it off at 60%. I would also like to see totally unnecessary over-generous payouts such as the MEA instantly curbed. With the amount of MEA debt loaded onto each Manx household it's obscene and insulting. If the MEA is over-manned then bring in redundancies, it's not exactly rocket science.

 

Don't get me started on Tynpotwald.

 

"As to efficiencies that can be made in the public sector, yes there are, as there will most likely to be in the private sector. In both sectors the consequences need to be thought through carefully and private sector shareholders are seen differently to public sector stakeholders. Those who ultimately decide in the public sector on what stays and what goes, is determined by Politicians who, in the IOM, have to decide if difficult decisions may influence their performance at ballot-box in Sept 2011.

Cutting health, social care, and other social benefits is obviously possible, but unless they impact on individuals' or their relatives, friends etc directly, no one will be too bothered. But in small communities such as the IOM it is inevitable that we will all know someone that will be effected. Regretfully, life is not fair, and the search for seeking equity to counter frustrations of one own's circumstances is a common reaction coupled to how we each perceive where we should be in life - irrespective of the reality. Yes, we would all want want a better life, but it is not difficult to find others who are worse off than we are!"

 

This is where you are wrong. The private sector has for years been deliberately re-organising to be flatter and broader whereas the public sector have not. I'm quite sure layers could be quickly removed to make it more efficient - and cheaper.

 

As an LSS project manager I am aware, and have posted previously, that with government you have to apply a certain amount of "fuzzy logic" shall we say. The obvious way to reduce the bloated CS/PS is via "outsourcing" but in some cases it may make perfect economic sense but as it's the government you just can't do it. The classic example being the "Care Homes For The Elderly" which are centrally funded. Could they be run by the private sector? Most certainly. Could the private sector save the gov money by doing it cheaper? Absolutely. Could you build in safeguards for those involved? Yes of course you could. Looks like a win / win. BUT it's the government and as such they have a duty of care to all of their voters citizens. So you have to ask the question "Would those living in those homes continue with the same quality of life?". A N space nobody knows. So you shouldn't do it. I certainly wouldn't.

 

"Perhaps more informed debate might actually produce better outcomes, than the "spleen venting" debates threads like this attract where one sector takes delight in criticising the other, often with without the knowledge or evidence (other than what contibutors want to hear or believe)- no matter how uncomfortable it may be. "

 

It needs to be professionally looked at. It's far too important to be left up to the butchers, bakers and candlestickmakers that currently hold the reins.

[oldmanxfella]

To cite that Public Sector workers do not pay for their pension is inaccurate.

 

No it is not - its is precisely very accurate.

 

Most Civil Servants 'pay' 1.5% of salary into the 'scheme' but this money is not a contribution to the pension fund. It is a deduction for covering the cost of providing the spouses death benefits which attach to the scheme. If you never marry you are actually entitled to this deduction back as an additional lump sum at retirement because you have had money deducted from your salary for a benefit that you never had. On this basis it is actually correct to say that currently most CS employees are not strictly paying a penny into their pension fund despite the fact that a deduction has been made from salary.

 

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/personnel/Pensi...lassicrules.pdf

 

[Look for Rule 4.16 and 4.16(a)]

 

On this basis the proposals seem fair to me (although I accept its an emotive issue for all those concerned). From what I have read about those who are paying realistic contributions (Police, Fire, Nurses etc) will continue to pay in the future at a fair rate, and those who currently contribute nothing in real terms will have to start paying at a fairer rate. There would seem to be nothing inequitable about that in the current climate.

 

It is a serious change to the T & C's of many government employees and that is unfortunate. I wouldn't like a change like that forced on me either (its effectively a paycut) but looking at the figures that attach to this unfunded liability things cannot stay as they are as it is unststainable.

 

If you want to still challange this as inaccurate then go away do some reading and post back when you've done a bit of research.

[Galen]

To cite that Public Sector workers do not pay for their pension is inaccurate.

 

No it is not - its is precisely very accurate.

 

Most Civil Servants 'pay' 1.5% of salary into the 'scheme' but this money is not a contribution to the pension fund. It is a deduction for covering the cost of providing the spouses death benefits which attach to the scheme. If you never marry you are actually entitled to this deduction back as an additional lump sum at retirement because you have had money deducted from your salary for a benefit that you never had. On this basis actually it is very fair to say that currently most CS employees are not paying a penny into their pension fund.

 

The basis of the proposals seem entirely fair to me. Those who are paying realistic contributions (Police, Fire, Nurses etc) will continue to pay in the future at a fair rate, and those who currently contribute nothing will have to start paying at a fair rate. There would seem to be nothing inequitable about that in the current climate.

 

It is a serious change to the T & C's of many government employees and that is unfortunate, but looking at the figures that attach to this unfunded liability things cannot stay as they are as it is unststainable.

 

If you want to still challange this as inaccurate then go away do some reading and post back when you've done a bit of research.

 

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/personnel/Pensi...lassicrules.pdf

 

Look for Rule 4.16

 

 

CS make up less than 25% of Public Sector workers - so your argument does not apply to the majority that work in the public sector

Certain of those you cite as making "realistic contributions" make higher contributions that get them double the years after 20 years of service which is why police and fire staff can retire after 30 years not 40 like other "public sector" workers. It is a 1/60 scheme not a 1/80 which is what most public sector workers including CS get - so you are comparing "apples and pears' as the same fruit.

You may also care to note I was not against pension reform _ it is needed _ but in part because of the people who historically have been in charge

[oldmanxfella]

CS make up less than 25% of Public Sector workers - so your argument does not apply to the majority that work in the public sector

Certain of those you cite as making "realistic contributions" make higher contributions that get them double the years after 20 years of service which is why police and fire staff can retire after 30 years not 40 like other "public sector" workers. It is a 1/60 scheme not a 1/80 which is what most public sector workers including CS get - so you are comparing "apples and pears' as the same fruit.

You may also care to note I was not against pension reform _ it is needed _ but in part because of the people who historically have been in charge

 

Go back and read what I have posted in this thread. Its not as inflamatory as everyone else - the fact is that nobody understands the issues when it comes to pensions and benefits and yet it does not stop them having an opinion.

 

What you posted was wrong. You said:

 

To cite that Public Sector workers do not pay for their pension is inaccurate.

 

when actually at least 25% of public sector staff do not pay anything towards their pensions at all - and I have shown you where you were incorrect.

 

That's all I said. I'd be unhappy if I was in that situation but as a realist I would accept that things cannot continue as they have been either.

[Galen]

To take some of your points:

 

 

 

Firstly it would appear that CS/PS pay & bennies have overtaken the private sector. Personally I don't care if it's come about historically or whatever. Times have changed and the CS/PS should change with them, especially their mindset it would seem. I think you will find there are many in the service who also want to change but are stopped by doing so by the politicians as it can make the politician unpopular

 

 

 

Don't get me started on Tynpotwald. A fish rots from the head down so if you don't deal with Tynwald then all you are doing is treating the symptoms

 

 

This is where you are wrong. The private sector has for years been deliberately re-organising to be flatter and broader whereas the public sector have not. I'm quite sure layers could be quickly removed to make it more efficient - and cheaper. My previous comments about the political impediments above apply here too

 

The classic example being the "Care Homes For The Elderly" which are centrally funded. Could they be run by the private sector? I think you will find the majority are run by the private sector and the costs reflect this

 

 

It needs to be professionally looked at. It's far too important to be left up to the butchers, bakers and candlestickmakers that currently hold the reins. I would agree

[P.K.]

CS make up less than 25% of Public Sector workers - so your argument does not apply to the majority that work in the public sector

Certain of those you cite as making "realistic contributions" make higher contributions that get them double the years after 20 years of service which is why police and fire staff can retire after 30 years not 40 like other "public sector" workers. It is a 1/60 scheme not a 1/80 which is what most public sector workers including CS get - so you are comparing "apples and pears' as the same fruit.

The percentages re CS or PS are irrelevant. The thing that matters is the cost. The PS make a contribution towards their pension and despite them being more than 75% of the public sector I wouldn't mind betting that the < 25% CS staff making no contribution at all cost's muggins taxpayer a lot more than the PS folks.

 

Edited to add if they start making the CS pay, say, 6% towards their pension and at the same time recompense them with an extra 6% salary to see them through a "transitional phased approach" I, for one, will be spitting blood...

[Galen]

CS make up less than 25% of Public Sector workers - so your argument does not apply to the majority that work in the public sector

Certain of those you cite as making "realistic contributions" make higher contributions that get them double the years after 20 years of service which is why police and fire staff can retire after 30 years not 40 like other "public sector" workers. It is a 1/60 scheme not a 1/80 which is what most public sector workers including CS get - so you are comparing "apples and pears' as the same fruit.

The percentages re CS or PS are irrelevant. The thing that matters is the cost. The PS make a contribution towards their pension and despite them being more than 75% of the public sector I wouldn't mind betting that the < 25% CS staff making no contribution at all cost's muggins taxpayer a lot more than the PS folks.

 

Edited to add if they start making the CS pay, say, 6% towards their pension and at the same time recompense them with an extra 6% salary to see them through a "transitional phased approach" I, for one, will be spitting blood...

 

"The percentages re CS or PS are irrelevant" - I disagree. If 75% (PS) are paying something (typically 5 -7.5%) and the remaining 25% (CS) are paying "next to nothing" that is surely better than 100% of the entire Govt workforce paying "next to nothing". At least with a majority paying towards their pensions the Govt is getting something into its coffers to pay out to all those that retire - PS & CS.

[P.K.]

Nice try. The point remains that the CS should pay their way. Currently they're totally leeching off the private sector.

[farmgirl]

Nice try. The point remains that the CS should pay their way. Currently they're totally leeching off the private sector.

What a strange remark, doesn't PK realise that CS also pay taxes which fund public services and also use services and buy goods from the private sector which in turn contributes to their salaries and pensions.