thesultanofsheight Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said: Julie Edge won the vote today for an investigation into govt wages and grades etc. They will find that magically it will cost too much money to start a project that could save the taxpayer millions so they won't do it. Edge must be persistent to get this far but they aren't going to vote for it; and even if by some miracle they do they aren't going to ever do anything about it. The CS run's the show not the politicians. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Max Power said: Could that be Phil Gawne holding the coffin? He'd have been about 4 in 1967. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said: Chris...you can reduce the bill by 20%. Put your Chris Thomas head back on...not the lobotomised government minister PR-Driven non-thinking head. I believe the word you are looking for is 'institutionalised' which basically means selling out.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said: They will find that magically it will cost too much money to start a project that could save the taxpayer millions so they won't do it. Edge must be persistent to get this far but they aren't going to vote for it; and even if by some miracle they do they aren't going to ever do anything about it. The CS run's the show not the politicians. All that would happen is an extension of what has happened in DED and GTS, individual contracts (so peeps aren't in the headcount) paying whatever rates (huge in comparison to the salary structure) they agree. The new terms and conditions are a disaster. Ergo anything more will only hurt the rank and file more, giving the few the excuse they need to break out of the banding system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, english zloty said: All that would happen is an extension of what has happened in DED and GTS, individual contracts (so peeps aren't in the headcount) paying whatever rates (huge in comparison to the salary structure) they agree. The new terms and conditions are a disaster. Ergo anything more will only hurt the rank and file more, giving the few the excuse they need to break out of the banding system. I'm not sure it would. How would it hurt the rank and file? I believe it's proposed only to review the senior grades and not the rank and file roles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted June 22, 2017 Author Share Posted June 22, 2017 16 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said: And where is your big mate the "reform" Minister? He has to be a candidate for the Phil Gawne Award for the quickest establishment sell out once given a Ministry. The thing is, they couldn't all stand up in Tynwald & say our senior civil servants are a seriously overpaid, far too numerous & running this nation when the majority of us haven't the talent to run a whelk store never mind a government 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted June 22, 2017 Author Share Posted June 22, 2017 However, quite how they can complain at the potential expense of this exercise when there are clearly savings to be made I don't know 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) There are some echelons of Govt (and local society) who will forever be exempt from having to take any of the "pain". Because of who they are and who stands up for them and allows it. Look at Tynwald exempting itself from recent PS salary changes. When they entitle themselves to the option to exempt, well fed, corpulent poultry does not vote for Christmastide. Edited June 22, 2017 by Non-Believer Typo 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 28 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said: The thing is, they couldn't all stand up in Tynwald & say our senior civil servants are a seriously overpaid, far too numerous & running this nation when the majority of us haven't the talent to run a whelk store never mind a government But they don't have to say that. What was proposed was a review for quite sensible reasons. Most businesses will do a review every 5 years or so to make sure they're not paying over the market rate for staff. It's entirely sensible. I'm sick of hearing costs as being the biggest excuse going - they water down FOI because of the 'cost' of complying with quite sensible requests. They try to kill this sensible proposal because of the 'cost' to do a review. Then they piss a load of money away on deals like Vision 9 etc but that's them being 'commercial" even though it will 'cost' a few million for nothing. Sick of the same old excuses. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted June 22, 2017 Author Share Posted June 22, 2017 They're an 'in-house' electorate for the likes of Quayle (IMHO) so they won't be touched Direct democracy is the only answer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said: They're an 'in-house' electorate for the likes of Quayle (IMHO) so they won't be touched Direct democracy is the only answer Don't got down that blind alley again. It wasn't pretty the last time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said: I'm not sure it would. How would it hurt the rank and file? I believe it's proposed only to review the senior grades and not the rank and file roles. Because there is very little incentive for rank and file to progress. Positions which had 50-60 applicants, given their generic nature, are getting 1-2 chancers. Meaning they are often readvertised a few times, before being advertised outside govt. Which may sound ace, but don't forget, this is for 'generic' posts. Higher up the tree regrades are going on left right and centre, pointing to the struggle to fill the lower positions. In Cabinet Office they don't bother with any of that nonsence, they just pay whatever (personal contract) to fill the post.. And if course this headcount isn't CS. My point being, this loophole isn't part of the upcoming reviews, so will only increase. CS salaries decreased - win. Contract salaries breaking the bank (don't mention them). Edited June 22, 2017 by english zloty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, english zloty said: Because there is very little incentive for rank and file to progress. Positions which had 50-60 applicants, given their generic nature, are getting 1-2 chancers. Meaning they are often readvertised a few times, before being advertised outside govt. Which may sound ace, but don't forget, this is for 'generic' posts. Higher up the tree regrades are going on left right and centre, pointing to the struggle to fill the lower positions. In Cabinet Office they don't bother with any of that nonsence, they just pay whatever (personal contract) to fill the post.. And if course this headcount isn't CS. My point being, this loophole isn't part of the upcoming reviews, so will only increase. CS salaries decreased - win. Contract salaries breaking the bank (don't mention them). I'm not sure that would be the case at all. All you seem to be suggesting really is that IOMG is institutionally corrupt when it comes to job fulfillment, and that to try to bring it to account like this will result in more corrupt or questionable behaviour (personal contracts) so best not bother? Someone needs to take an axe to the whole fabric of it at some stage. At least people on personal contracts are easier to get rid of and (presumably) not getting final salary pensions so even if that is an issue it's easier addressed than doing nothing as they have less fixed employment rights and no long term pensions to fund. Edited June 22, 2017 by thesultanofsheight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Edge has been pretty quick to seek a review of senior civil service posts now that she's relinquished hers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 38 minutes ago, Uhtred said: Edge has been pretty quick to seek a review of senior civil service posts now that she's relinquished hers. Sour grapes? I hope she has an armoured hat and a bullet proof vest as the whole CS are clearly going to come out gunning for her now. How dare she try to tackle the bloat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.