its not really about cutting the pay of people, although some of that will happen as well. Its about reduicng headcount, merge FAS into the depart of social welfare so that those going to sign on are also inside the place where they casn job hunt. A job centre if you will. This would free up a lot of headcount and also reduce overheads from maintaining seporate offices.
"Sometimes the best thing a government can do is simply get out of the way"-Vince Cable
This would have the effect of preventing TDs pay from cuts below 100k and off course it copperfastens benchmarking.Originally Posted by patslatt
If this correct then there would be no point in having Kenny in power
kenny has indeed stated this and has been at best lukewarm on the topic of public sector reform
what should happen is that public servsants who are a year or two awya fromr etirement should be offered a package to retire early. Then those public servants who work in an area which is not needed can be moved suideways.
This will allow a headcount reduction without a dole queue increase.
"Sometimes the best thing a government can do is simply get out of the way"-Vince Cable
That'll only save peanuts.
There isn't a huge delta between a full salary minus pension levy + supperannuation + full PAYE/income levies and a half salary minus much less tax.
no it wills ave some, this thing has to be planned carefully. A hiring freeze will actually save wuite a bit over a year as it means not replacing retiring people, would 35 of the public sectopr retire in a year? headcount reduced by 3%.
But there are ancillary costs saved as well. As I've alreday mentioned, merging fas offices and dole offices would save on overheads and probably rents as well.
If you do this and also dismantle the esb(generating billions) sell the aer lingus stake) 150million) you start yo hit decent numbers straight away.
"Sometimes the best thing a government can do is simply get out of the way"-Vince Cable
You forget that retired public servants effectively stay on the payroll by virtue of their pension payments being funded through current income.
Meanwhile the remaining active public servants all move up their salary scales via annual increments. With no new recruits coming in at the bottom of the scale, the average cost per teacher/nurse/whatever increases.
So a recruitment ban together with early retirement is not a silver bullet solution.
but the pension thing happens whether you fire people or not right?
And you are saving on wages by hiring people, and one buracrcay and overheads, I also believe in abolishing many quangos etc, where the people are not on staff.
The problem with firing civil sevrvants that they join the dole queue, so you dont get thier tax and pay them dole, and on the dole they are going for other jobs squeezing other unemployed people out. Whereas in retiremnet that wont happen.
The pensions are legal retirements which cannot be changed.
Existing civil servants would not be promoted to replace the retired one, people would move across from departmebnst areas etc whihc have been abolished.
"Sometimes the best thing a government can do is simply get out of the way"-Vince Cable
The legal right is to a pension at normal retirement age (65 or 60, depending).
Retire early and normally you'd get a reduced pension because you wouldn't have the full 40 years of contributions and you'd be claiming the pension for more years until death, so the amount paid is "actuarily reduced" to account for this.
Early retirement is generally incentivized by adding contribution years or foregoing the actuarial reduction or both. These terms deisgned to make the VER scheme attractive then have the effect of limiting the savings.
Existing public servants will refuse to do the work of the retiree unless they're promoted. This is already happening.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote