it was people who joined up until 1994 who got 30 minutes banking time but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story
totally agreed about the half days shopping leave, it’s ridiculous and I was made to take it
you were fairly pissed on friday night mac, you might have invited him over
That happened to a mate of mine in school where one of the lads from the remedial class jumped up on the toilet in the cubicle and watched him having a dump.
I thought it was wrong then and I certainly think it is wrong now.
It’s like something I’d do when pissed*.
*NOT THAT I EVER HAVE
I think Sledge is missing herself. Maybe ye should take it a bit easy on him.
[quote=“artfoley”]it was people who joined up until 1994 who got 30 minutes banking time but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story
totally agreed about the half days shopping leave, it’s ridiculous and I was made to take it[/quote]
Sorry, Art is right. My sis in law is a Civil Servant since 1992 and she had the extra half hour at lunchtime on a Friday to cash the cheque: this made her lunch “hour” 1h 45mins instead of the usual 1h 15mins
[quote=“artfoley”]it was people who joined up until 1994 who got 30 minutes banking time but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story
totally agreed about the half days shopping leave, it’s ridiculous and I was made to take it[/quote]
you were made to take it? really, did they get security in to turf you out of the building?
if you had any morals you’d have sat at your desk for the afternoon and told em to fuck off.
[quote=“HBV*”]you were made to take it? really, did they get security in to turf you out of the building?
if you had any morals you’d have sat at your desk for the afternoon and told em to fuck off.[/quote]
I love how all this anti-public sector is not at all paving the way for massive, thatcherite cuts in public services. I also love how it does’nt at all echo the right-wing vitriolic condemnation of government spending by the Torys, with the Indo not at all leading the charge and not at all following almost precisely the same script as the Daily Mail, the Times, and the Telegraph.
I take your point.
However if there are glaring inefficiencies in the public service then they need to be rooted out. We simply just can’t afford that luxury anymore.
Agreed. I love the way that as soon as you point out that something could be done better in the public service, you become a thatcherite.
You become a thatcherite because of the form that the criticism takes. You’d have to be blind not to have recognised money wasting by the government over the past ten years. You’d also have to be blind, however, not to identify a characterisation of civil servants (and now teachers) as bloated fat-cats, living lives of luxury at our expense. You’d additionally have to ignore the indisputable fact, that this follows the exact same pattern of rolling back of social service provision by the right-wing political establishment of the UK and America.
When you accept that the government has a role in providing public services, you must also accept degree of inefficiency when you remove the bottom line as an absolute imperative. That far greater sums of money are wasted in doomed capital expenditure projects, projects for which individual members of the government are directly accountable, is conveniently pushed into the background. What you end up with, is the creation of a strong public sentiment of dissatisfaction verging on anger with the civil service, and this anger softens attitudes for big cutbacks, not reform.
And when these cuts come, and they probably will, don’t think you’re going to reap the benefits. The greatest line Thatcher ever told was that you could cut social sevices without having to pay a social cost. Your children will go to worse schools and your parents will go to worse hospitals. This is’nt about reform, which is a good thing. Reform takes years, decades. This is about cuts. And you only have to open the last budget to see it.
far from it sledge
some departments could indeed with swingeing cuts not least the branch of the civil service which is costing the most per head employed: the houses of the oireachtas
for example each TD gets a clerical officer to work in their office whilst at the same time getting 99k to pay a secretary normally one of their relatives. now multiply that by 164 and add on what the senators get and you have a handy saving of an amount that would pay for the cancer vaccine
Wouldn’t disagree with any of that, chaps. Of course, everyone wants the cuts to be taken from any department bar their own - will always be that way. I know some people who are vehemently against any cuts, and they’re the same lads who were laughing about having to redecorate their offices to use up the end of their budget this time a couple or years back.
the thing of it is that they are going to hit the soft targets i/e clerical officers, when in reality they will actually end up costing the state more unemployed then they would have receiving wages from the state
the cuts need to be made at midlevel upwards
at the moment we are understaffed by 2 on what we need to comply with our statutory obligations but they won’t be replaced
[quote=“Watch The Break”]
When you accept that the government has a role in providing public services, you must also accept degree of inefficiency when you remove the bottom line as an absolute imperative.[/quote]
Fine, but you must also be willing to accept that public expenditure and capital spending are based on a government’s ability to (i) borrow internationally, and (ii) raise taxes domestically. Both of these sources of funding are drastically reduced from previous years. None of this should be read as a reluctance to avoid placing blame upon those who deserve it, but these are the facts. I’m not going to be as blind as to say there can be reform without cuts - there can’t. Reform means cuts, and the cuts can be targeted. Look at the attempt to place a one per cent additional tax on the head of everyone in the country regardless of income though, and it wouldn’t exactly fill you with confidence in the ability of the current government to identify where savings can be made.
there may be some inefficencies in the public service but its not as bad some right wing economists make out- they should cut back on stuff like T&S & certain training costs but we are an easy target- where were these right wing economists warning us about the woefully run banks etc-
Ive worked in 2 big banks & while the public service is defo more people focussed i would find that people in the public service are more passionate about their jobs than people in the banks . i know thats a generalisation but someone in the combat poverty agency would have a feel good factor about their job while how much can someone really care if the NAV of a fund goes up
id agree with art as well, retrenching clerical officers & low grade is a bit counterproductive- especially if they go on the scracther -
im tempted to go on the scratcher for a year- save on childcare costs & become a proper drain on the economy
[quote=“north county corncrake”]
id agree with art [/quote]
[quote=“artfoley”]the thing of it is that they are going to hit the soft targets i/e clerical officers, when in reality they will actually end up costing the state more unemployed then they would have receiving wages from the state
the cuts need to be made at midlevel upwards
at the moment we are understaffed by 2 on what we need to comply with our statutory obligations but they won’t be replaced[/quote]
They will inevitably fuck up the cuts, but that doesn’t takw away from the fact that cuts are needed.
Ads on the TV for people to text a number and receive a “funny” laugh as a text alert on their phone. eg text “laugh” to 45950 and received “har de har har” of 45951 to received “ho ho hee ha”.