Give and Take For Public sector Pay cuts!

[Kevin Doyle]

No, what you have proven in your continued negative discourse is the futility of anyone bringing something to the Govt. or the civil service that makes perfect sense in the most effective and efficient organisations and asking them to consider it.

Sorry pal, but if that where the case other public services in other countries would have them implemented and we of course would be following their lead.

As it stands you appear to be stating that you have a superior wisdom than every Government on the Planet, that’s some statement.

I'll spell it out for you though. I would love to see a PRS introduced, absolutely love it. It would mean more money for me.

[Kevin Doyle]

Unfortunately, the opportunity for painless reform has passed. The govt. has 3 options - raise taxes to pay for public services, cut costs by reducing services, cut costs by reducing public service pay costs either through cutting numbers or reducing rates. Personally I'd reduce services and payroll costs and on the latter I'd lean on pay rates rather than numbers.

It will be a combination of all 3.

[hopi watcher]

No, what you have proven in your continued negative discourse is the futility of anyone bringing something to the Govt. or the civil service that makes perfect sense in the most effective and efficient organisations and asking them to consider it.

Also, you continue to demonstrate that you do no more than a superficial consideration of other poster's contributions by claiming I suggested a "pay by measured output scheme", when in fact (and I corrected you on this on more than one occasion), I suggested a "pay increase (or increment) by measured contribution (including output however that is measured by the particular role) scheme". I think you have signalled the deathknell on this topic yet again and with Deathknell's advice translated into demonstrated act on your part, I will leave it at that.

Ok lets look at what you are now proposing, some means of measuring performance to be linked to increments. The only reference you have made is to systems used by the likes of Intel etc. However there is a huge problem here, these systems are motivational only. They are add-on schemes which reward the achievement of objectives set out in an agreed programme. All these schemes derive from MBO which was originally a non-paying system of setting out and agreeing to achieve certain objectives. These schemes were very successful and accordingly companies began a process whereby a financial reward was attached to the achieving of the agreed objectives. As the paymernt was over and above the agreed rate for the job, whether the employee received a reward or not was not contested. All such schemes have the same core principles, they are agreed in advance with a team leader and assessed by the same team leader and regardless of outcome, the agreed rate for the job is not reduced. An employee found to be under performing is subject to the conditions attached to the contract of employment.

The other system is to pay employees on minutes produced. In this system all work is broken into elements and timed and at the end of each work period output is calculated as minutes produced. These minutes have a set value and the employee is paid by mulitiplying minutes produce by the set minute value.

I suspect that you are referring to the motivational schemes that indeed operate in the likes of Intel. Again, these schemes operate as add-ons and do a not have any impact on the 'rate' for the job. My understanding is that schemes to monitor performance are being introduced into the public service. Again such schemes can only be implemented with the agreement of the employees. It is not permitted to set an objective, indeed it would be counter-productive, to which any individual employee cannot be expected to reasonably attain.

[Oppenheimer]

Ok lets look at what you are now proposing, some means of measuring performance to be linked to increments. The only reference you have made is to systems used by the likes of Intel etc. However there is a huge problem here, these systems are motivational only. They are add-on schemes which reward the achievement of objectives set out in an agreed programme. All these schemes derive from MBO which was originally a non-paying system of setting out and agreeing to achieve certain objectives. These schemes were very successful and accordingly companies began a process whereby a financial reward was attached to the achieving of the agreed objectives. As the paymernt was over and above the agreed rate for the job, whether the employee received a reward or not was not contested. All such schemes have the same core principles, they are agreed in advance with a team leader and assessed by the same team leader and regardless of outcome, the agreed rate for the job is not reduced. An employee found to be under performing is subject to the conditions attached to the contract of employment.

The other system is to pay employees on minutes produced. In this system all work is broken into elements and timed and at the end of each work period output is calculated as minutes produced. These minutes have a set value and the employee is paid by mulitiplying minutes produce by the set minute value.

I suspect that you are referring to the motivational schemes that indeed operate in the likes of Intel. Again, these schemes operate as add-ons and do a not have any impact on the 'rate' for the job. My understanding is that schemes to monitor performance are being introduced into the public service. Again such schemes can only be implemented with the agreement of the employees. It is not permitted to set an objective, indeed it would be counter-productive, to which any individual employee cannot be expected to reasonably attain.

Finally! Your suspicion in the third paragraph is correct (and it is not just now I proposed it but that's all documented anyhow). The schemes however, do not need to be defined as add-ons. Take for instance, a base rate for the job plus an additional (and I accept this appears as an add-on but is finitely quantifiable) amount, up to a maximum, that an employee can earn, if the performance related measures are completed. The budget is set at the maximum for the department but that is more for planning purposes and to account for potential maximum exposure.

I fully agree that employee consent is needed, I never contradicted that. I don't know why it is not permitted to set an objective (also agreed with employee, but based too on the overall objectives of the department) but that might just be a whitewash element someone decided was too difficult to deal with. The base pay rate element takes care of someone carrying out their role according to their job description, the other element is taken into consideration in how well they do that job and some objectives or measures have to be made to reasonably determine the comparison between two people in the same role.

The person only doing the minimum gets the base so that covers their need. The person outperforming gets the base and the increment, possibly even justification for a promotion on lines not only linked to time served which is an appalling unimetric way of advancement.

[hopi watcher]

Finally! Your suspicion in the third paragraph is correct (and it is not just now I proposed it but that's all documented anyhow). The schemes however, do not need to be defined as add-ons. Take for instance, a base rate for the job plus an additional (and I accept this appears as an add-on but is finitely quantifiable) amount, up to a maximum, that an employee can earn, if the performance related measures are completed. The budget is set at the maximum for the department but that is more for planning purposes and to account for potential maximum exposure.

I fully agree that employee consent is needed, I never contradicted that. I don't know why it is not permitted to set an objective (also agreed with employee, but based too on the overall objectives of the department) but that might just be a whitewash element someone decided was too difficult to deal with. The base pay rate element takes care of someone carrying out their role according to their job description, the other element is taken into consideration in how well they do that job and some objectives or measures have to be made to reasonably determine the comparison between two people in the same role.

The person only doing the minimum gets the base so that covers their need. The person outperforming gets the base and the increment, possibly even justification for a promotion on lines not only linked to time served which is an appalling unimetric way of advancement.

Fine, so you are proposing that such a scheme be implemented into the public service? As I said, any public servant you meet tonight will but you a pint. But I doubt if the money is available to do so.

[Oppenheimer]

Fine, so you are proposing that such a scheme be implemented into the public service? As I said, any public servant you meet tonight will but you a pint. But I doubt if the money is available to do so.

What - to buy me a pint - even on their salaries, with their job security?

[Dreaded_Estate]

Fine, so you are proposing that such a scheme be implemented into the public service? As I said, any public servant you meet tonight will but you a pint. But I doubt if the money is available to do so.

Why should it cost any more money?

[hopi watcher]

Why should it cost any more money?

Because such a scheme is an add-on scheme, not a productivity incentive scheme. In any event it would not work, there is other legislation that would be invoked on a continuous basis.

[Dreaded_Estate]

Because such a scheme is an add-on scheme, not a productivity incentive scheme. In any event it would not work, there is other legislation that would be invoked on a continuous basis.

Why can't it be 75% of existing pay as the new base and the remaining 25% as performance related?
Not sure I understand the point about the legislation.

[hopi watcher]

Why can't it be 75% of existing pay as the new base and the remaining 25% as performance related?
Not sure I understand the point about the legislation.

So you are saying the public servants agree to a new basic pay that is 75% of the existing rate for the job? Not practical.
Again we come back to the thorny subject of 'performance' and how to measure it The only way to legally base payment on performance is to measure the work to be performed by an agreed formula, essentially what used to be called piece-rate. That could not be done in the public service, far too complex and the cost of implementation and administration would be enormous.
The only system that could be applied is a motivational one based on MBO. However, this has serious potential problems particularly when employees doing the same work are receiving different wages.