Public sector reform a mirage
As the deadline for the receipt of retirement applications from public sector workers wishing to benefit from the old, more generous, pension regime expired yesterday, it is already clear that forecasts of disruption have been greatly exaggerated.
Yesterday it emerged that Paul Appleby, the director of the Office of Corporate Enforcement for the past decade, had handed in his notice. Mr Appleby is one of approximately 9,000 public sector workers who, by retiring now, will receive far more generous pensions than if they stayed in their jobs for a few more years.
With anyone retiring after the end of next month set to receive a pension based on career average earnings rather than their final salary, it made sense for many senior public sector workers in their late fifties and early sixties, including Mr Appleby, to go now.
While 9,000 public sector workers might seem like a large number in absolute terms it is in fact only about four-tenths of the 23,000 workers who will leave the public sector by 2015 under the Government's plans for public sector reform. Public Expenditure and Reform Minister Brendan Howlin is relying upon natural wastage for the remaining 14,000 reduction in employment numbers.
In fact, even the hoped-for reduction of 9,000 in public service numbers due to pre-February 2012 retirements could well prove to be something of a statistical mirage. Mr Appleby's case provides a good demonstration of this. He has been asked by the Government to stay on for up to six months, while presumably benefiting from the more generous pension arrangements for those who go before the end of this month, while a replacement is selected.
While it could be argued that Mr Appleby is postponing a no doubt well-deserved retirement to facilitate the smooth running of the country, his is only one of many whose "retirements" have been at least temporarily delayed.
At the same time as 9,000 public sector workers are taking retirement Mr Howlin has conceded that up to 3,000 public sector workers will be recruited this year. This 3,000 will be in addition to many "retired" public sector workers who will continue, at least temporarily, to do their old jobs in one guise or another. This means that predictions of disruption resulting from the retirements will almost certainly prove to have been overblown.
The more we see of the proposed public sector "reform" the more suspicious one becomes. In fairness to Mr Howlin and his colleagues it should be pointed out that the previous government was, if anything, even more culpable. It is becoming increasingly clear that the spate of expensively-bought retirements from the senior echelons had more to do with securing trade union acceptance of the public sector pay cuts announced in the December 2009 Budget than with securing meaningful public sector reform.
Irish Independent
