Decentralisation

uncivilservant

NewDubliner wrote:

Is Portlaoise in Tom Parlon's constituency?

It is indeed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2117605&#post2117605

Victor

gerrydublin wrote:

If I was never for Decentralisation, I am now!
That's a saving of €23/27 per sq ft, and think of how much room we are talking about. That's a massive saving.

Whoot! Thats €2.5m per year as a saving :rolleyes: [edit]€29,603,750 - see below[/edit]

I imagine the ministers alone could rack that up in their expenses.

RicardoSmith

Hes selling property (thats not rented) and claiming to be saving on rent?

They should rent out the properties, it would pay for the cheaper rent outside of Dublin and make a profit!

The_Conductor

No- hes a politician, all that matters is the immediate headline figure- not the longterm financial benefit/cost (after all he is unlikely to be around all those years down the road to answer for his lunacy......- that, and the electorate have proven to be so appopethic and forgiving towards political history.......)

Parochial politics at its very best!

D'Peoples Voice

Victor wrote:

Whoot! Thats €2.5m per year as a saving :rolleyes:

I imagine the ministers alone could rack that up in their expenses.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the whole property portfolio rented out to the civil service in Dublin is just over 85,185 sq ft. Hmmm, I doubt it.
But I've no proof to otherwise. Iguess that depends on what you define as civil service, is it someone employed by the government or is there a more narrow version. If it's [bold]anyone employed by the Government[\bold], you might end up including policemen and policewomen, nurses & doctors, local authority staff,social workers, Park wardens etc, the list is endless!!!

I actually agree with gerrydublin's point, it makes sense to reduce costs like rental or lease costs where possible. I was part of a Company that relocated from Dublin 2 to a part of Dublin county I never knew existed (it was out that far). I since left the job as the commuting had too much of an effect on my family and social life in general. :mad: The Company moved to boost the profits to the shareholders, because they believed that the rents in Dublin were too high and would continue to grow . That has shown to be the case, but that was no consolation to me, because I didn't stand to benefit from the increase in profits .
However, I'm not a civil servant, and as a taxpayer, I'm a shareholder in the government, and this move will keep costs down. For once, this benefits me Yes there will be a problem with staff, but my Company lost over 28% of their staff within a period of 11 months after the move, many of them thought to be irreplaceable, the truth was no-one is irreplaceble because times change and work practices change, they have to, if the Company was to continue as a going concern.

In short, employees lose out as usual, but the shareholders "gain in the long term". So the question is, people's opinion of decentralisation comes down to which one you are. Unless of course you are like SLIGO/LEITRIM Deputy John Perry and think it has to do with Balanced Regional Growth. Personally never thought this was a concern for shareholders, but no doubt there are some ethical investors

ishmael whale

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

...it makes sense to reduce costs like rental or lease costs where possible. .....as a taxpayer, I'm a shareholder in the government, and this move will keep costs down. ....

Earlier posters have pointed out how Parlon’s comparison is devoid of content, and in any case he’s not swapping expensive Dublin rental agreements for cheaper regional agreements. What he’s actually doing is spending €900 million building offices in regional locations for no good reason.

Decentralisation will not save money. It will cost more to do the same things, and possibly cost more to do those same things less effectively. Shareholders, be they taxpayers or simply citizens, lose out from this cost increasing plan.

D'Peoples Voice

ishmael whale wrote:

Earlier posters have pointed out how Parlon’s comparison is devoid of content, and in any case he’s not swapping expensive Dublin rental agreements for cheaper regional agreements. What he’s actually doing is spending €900 million building offices in regional locations for no good reason.

Decentralisation will not save money. It will cost more to do the same things, and possibly cost more to do those same things less effectively. Shareholders, be they taxpayers or simply citizens, lose out from this cost increasing plan.

Well if that is the case, it's something that I would greatly oppose!

Any plan should represent a positive return over the long term,
else the individuals involved should be held to account for proposely misleading their shareholders.
Is it possible that perhaps it's like the disgraceful benchmarking agreements, the calculations will never be published for fear that people will find out the truth :mad:
I can only think that if a MD was to standover a plan which eroded shareholder value, then that person would quickly be removed by the shareholders.
Have the individuals involved said if their plan is based on true cost savings over at least a 25 year period or on some crappy social reasons?

uncivilservant

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

I guess that depends on what you define as civil service, is it someone employed by the government or is there a more narrow version.

Generally speaking, "the civil service" means those staff directly employed by a Government department in the running of that department. That's a pretty bad definition, but I can't put my hand on an official definition right now. The wider "public service" would encompass local authority staff, health board staff, doctors, nurses, teachers, lecturers, guards, firemen, social workers, prison officers, among others.

So, when speaking of civil service accommodation we basically mean Departmental HQ's & local offices.

When speaking of achieving rent savings on the "... whole property portfolio rented out to the civil service in Dublin...", what we really mean is the amount of currently rented space (as distinct from state owned buildings like Hawkins House) which can be vacated by decentralising staff - a considerably smaller figure, I assure you.

Victor

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the whole property portfolio rented out to the civil service in Dublin is just over 85,185 sq ft. Hmmm, I doubt it.

10,000 people x 10m2 / person x €((12+18)/2+(35+45)/2)/2/*(3.281)2 m2 = €29,603,750

Apologies, decimal place effectively in the wrong position as I forgot idiot head was still thinking in imperial.

We are talking savings, not total cost.

NewDubliner

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

I can only think that if a MD was to standover a plan which eroded shareholder value, then that person would quickly be removed by the shareholders.

We'll have to wait until 2007 to see if the spin doctors have succeeded in deceiving the electorate.

Have the individuals involved said if their plan is based on true cost savings over at least a 25 year period or on some crappy social reasons?

Neither the costs nor the benefits have been properly assessed.

RicardoSmith

This effects the state agencies too, which aren't the civil service.

uncivilservant

Victor wrote:

10,000 people x 10m2 / person x €((12+18)/2+(35+45)/2)/2/*(3.281)2 m2 = €29,603,750

Apologies, decimal place effectively in the wrong position as I forgot idiot head was still thinking in imperial.

We are talking savings, not total cost.

At the moment the figure for 'expressions of interest' in decentralising from Dublin is something like 3,000-3,500 (the rest of the EOI's are from people already located beyond the pale)... let's say 1/3rd of the 10,500 originally claimed.

So, based on your calculation, shall we say roughly a €10m saving?

At what cost?

NewDubliner

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Yes there will be a problem with staff, but my Company lost over 28% of their staff within a period of 11 months after the move, many of them thought to be irreplaceable, the truth was no-one is irreplaceble because times change and work practices change, they have to, if the Company was to continue as a going concern.

In IT the staff loss is likely to be 75%-90%.

It may be neccessary to increase the CS pay rates for IT staff in order to attract replacements. This would be done by recruiting graduates directly at HEO level. Any short-falls would be made up by using contractors at an average cost of €1,000/day.

The former staff, remaining in Dublin, would be retained to support their more highly paid replacements based outside of Dublin.

None of these costs have been admitted by Parlon.

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

In IT the staff loss is likely to be 75%-90%..

Given the stated wish to outsource IT in several departments, and to centralise the rest into 4 supercentres, I don't think the politicians really care about this. Its not a cost issue- its a case of how many of these jobs can be relocated to marginal constituencies.....

NewDubliner wrote:

It may be neccessary to increase the CS pay rates for IT staff in order to attract replacements. This would be done by recruiting graduates directly at HEO level. Any short-falls would be made up by using contractors at an average cost of €1,000/day.

Graduate recruitment is now, with the agreement of the unions, at EO level, no more HEO/AO recruitment. An allowance, personal to holder rather than job, may be offered- there is an active effort to discourage this though.

NewDubliner wrote:

The former staff, remaining in Dublin, would be retained to support their more highly paid replacements based outside of Dublin..

No, the intention is all the highly trained IT staff would be plonked behind desks doing purely administrative work...... This has already created a few Mexican stand-offs, with admin staff fighting with the former IT staff over the more *interesting* admin work (whatever that might be) This is already an issue in the Department of Agriculture (with the Mid-Term-Review screwing things up even more than just decentralisation- there is actually a deficit of "normal" work for staff- the likes of the proposed Garda pulse work going to Castlebar staff from Justice is a possible solution- but that is 24 hour a day, 3 shift, 365 day of the year work, and as it involves shifts, obviously the payroll would rise ever further- and thats not even part of decentralisation at all.....)

kencleary

smccarrick wrote:

Graduate recruitment is now, with the agreement of the unions, at EO level, no more HEO/AO recruitment. An allowance, personal to holder rather than job, may be offered- there is an active effort to discourage this though.

What? Since when? Got a source for this?

The_Conductor

kencleary wrote:

smccarrick wrote:

Graduate recruitment is now, with the agreement of the unions, at EO level, no more HEO/AO recruitment. An allowance, personal to holder rather than job, may be offered- there is an active effort to discourage this though.

What? Since when? Got a source for this?

Its been this way for a few months- I'll try and find something official to quote when I get a chance.

S.

Doctor Benway

smccarrick wrote:

Its been this way for a few months- I'll try and find something official to quote when I get a chance.

The CSC claims it's going to hold an AO competition "in the coming months" , but this'd explain why they ran the Third Sec exam separately last month.

NewDubliner

smccarrick wrote:

Graduate recruitment is now, with the agreement of the unions, at EO level, no more HEO/AO recruitment. An allowance, personal to holder rather than job, may be offered- there is an active effort to discourage this though.

They're not going to get experienced IT people on the EO rate & if they get anyone, they'll leave once they've clocked up enough experience to get a better paid job.

smccarrick wrote:

No, the intention is all the highly trained IT staff would be plonked behind desks doing purely administrative work......

Punishment?

smccarrick wrote:

of the proposed Garda pulse work going to Castlebar staff from Justice is a possible solution

Great system, (out-sourced devlopment, late, under-spec & over budget). The company that developed it is not decentralising....

Will Civil Servants who decentralise be allowed build 'one-off' houses?

uncivilservant

Doctor Benway wrote:

The CSC claims it's going to hold an AO competition "in the coming months" , but this'd explain why they ran the Third Sec exam separately last month.

That page on the publicjobs.ie site was last modified on 30th September 2004, so ehhh.... don't hold your breath.

NewDubliner

uncivilservant wrote:

That page on the publicjobs.ie site was last modified on 30th September 2004, so ehhh.... don't hold your breath.

But AO is an 'understudy' AP?

I cannot see them using this grade to recruit IT staff for the provinces.

But, I do know that open recruitment of graduates at HEO level has been seriously considered in an attempt to gain the interest of competant/experienced IT staff from the private sector. It remains to be seen if this and the attractions of 'Parlon country' will be enough to draw in the people needed to replace the soon-to-be discarded Dubln staff.

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

But AO is an 'understudy' AP?

I cannot see them using this grade to recruit IT staff for the provinces.

But, I do know that open recruitment of graduates at HEO level has been seriously considered in an attempt to gain the interest of competant/experienced IT staff from the private sector. It remains to be seen if this and the attractions of 'Parlon country' will be enough to draw in the people needed to replace the soon-to-be discarded Dubln staff.

Yes, the AO was traditionally an 'understudy' to AP, and was normally fast-tracked to AP, despite there being no meaningful difference between AO and HEO. Revenue tended to garner improbable numbers of AOs over and above any other Government department (quite why, I haven't a clue).

One of the items conceded by the Unions in respect of benchmarking was that a much greater number of positions be filled by external recruitment than by internal promotion (not sure of the number- but it could be 2-in-3 are now external, as opposed to a previous 1-in-3, with external recruitment now open up to and including PO level (correct me if I'm wrong please someone)).
In that respect it might be more feasible to recruit more "graduates" at higher levels- though the marking structure places a large emphasis on relevant experience, something most graduates, irrespective of their education, simply do not have. In addition- the higher the grade, the less likely the holder is to be able to engage in technical/scientific duties, and the more likely they are to have to people manage- once again not something that a recent graduate has any experience of.

The replacement of the "soon to be discarded Dublin staff" in many cases is a blatant exercise in outsourcing, irrespective of the skills that may exist in-house. There have been IT positions at upto and including AP grade filled in DAF recently by simple out-sourcing of the posts (Accenture are doing nicely!) In some offices this has resulted in civil servants effectively reporting to people who are not bound by civil service codes of conduct (including the official secrets act and embargoes on political activity for grades above CO).

Cough..... parochial politics, cough, cough......

RicardoSmith

NewDubliner wrote:

They're not going to get experienced IT people on the EO rate & if they get anyone, they'll leave once they've clocked up enough experience to get a better paid job. ...

Tough choice if your on a good grade a few years under your belt. That pension is good enough to keep IT people in admin jobs. The IT contract and private industry rates are not paying much better these days and working conditions are a lot worse.

NewDubliner

RicardoSmith wrote:

Tough choice if your on a good grade a few years under your belt. That pension is good enough to keep IT people in admin jobs. The IT contract and private industry rates are not paying much better these days and working conditions are a lot worse.

True, especially for those with average ability. But whatever the contractors get paid by their employers, they are charged to the client at around €1,000/day.

This means that not only will Government have to find something for its former IT staff to do & pay them, but will it have to pay more again for somebody to do their original jobs. The ultimate irony being that the contractors will be allowed to work from their Dublin offices........

invincibleirish

hello there, as a 1st year public admin. student ive just done an essay on decentralisation, its the first time ive done any in depth research into the proposed decentralisation and can i just say the governemnts plan is a load of balls! i fail to see a how it will benefit the country in any way aside from minor benefits for the areas who will get jobs. it needs to be looked at again specifically with the national spatial strategy in mind.

The_Conductor

invincibleirish wrote:

hello there, as a 1st year public admin. student ive just done an essay on decentralisation, its the first time ive done any in depth research into the proposed decentralisation and can i just say the governemnts plan is a load of balls! i fail to see a how it will benefit the country in any way aside from minor benefits for the areas who will get jobs. it needs to be looked at again specifically with the national spatial strategy in mind.

Yup, as has been pointed out numerous times here.
Unfortunately the National Spatial Strategy appears to have been killed and quietly buried at the crossroads when no-one was looking......

Thinking of doing an MBS in public administration- might PM you to rack your brain with a few questions sometime.

NewDubliner

From 'politices.ie', looks like their trying to move Dublin Tourism to Parlon Country

Failte Ireland accused of muzzling Dublin Tourism
Monday, April 11

Tourism
Discuss Tourism on the Politics.ie Forum

More news from Tourism
Speaking in a joint statement, the four Labour mayors of the four Dublin local authorities have called on the Dublin Taoiseach to open up a debate about the future of Dublin Tourism. They also slammed Fáilte Ireland for attempting to ‘muzzle board members of Dublin Tourism and stifle debate’.

“We have been elected as councillors to represent our areas and to be instructed not to speak on issues, which concern us, is disturbing. Failte Ireland is effectively muzzling elected representatives and we will not stand quietly by and allow this. As mayor and Cathaoirleach of our areas in Dublin, we are calling on the Taoiseach, a Dubliner, as a matter of urgency to open the debate on tourism in Dublin.

“Taoiseach, Dublin Tourism has performed its task of promoting Dublin excellently. Dublin is continuing to climb the European table of top destinations. So it makes little sense to incorporate Dublin Tourism into Failte Ireland. A report commissioned by Failte Ireland by Price Waterhouse Coopers that effectively seeks the dismantling of Dublin Tourism has been unanimously rejected at an emergency meeting of the agencies board members.

“This report, which was revealed only to selected and invited board members, was presented as a powerpoint presentation, and makes recommendations to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. The Minister has not yet said whether or not he accepts the report, yet Failte Ireland is dealing with it as a fait accompli. This is completely unacceptable and now is the time for this debate to take place. Fáilte Ireland’s ethos of one size fits all regarding tourism in Ireland makes little sense and will not work for the promotion of Dublin. Dublin will suffer as a result, we cannot allow any threat to the status of Dublin as a tourist destination to go unchallenged.”

D'Peoples Voice

invincibleirish wrote:

hello there, as a 1st year public admin. student ive just done an essay on decentralisation, its the first time ive done any in depth research into the proposed decentralisation and can i just say the governemnts plan is a load of balls! i fail to see a how it will benefit the country in any way aside from minor benefits for the areas who will get jobs. it needs to be looked at again specifically with the national spatial strategy in mind.

As I said before, I'm neither for or against Decentralisation, however I would like the facts. Personally I think the only people who will suffer in the long term are the staff, not the people for whom the Departments serve.

In your study, have you assessed

the potential of any synercies between centralising much of the IT work

reducing staff numbers back to pre-2002 staffing levels without paying for redundancies

lower wages in the future, i.e. because of the reduced competition for staff retention (to exaplin in Dublin, if you want staff, you must pay the going rate, but in the provinces, the going rate is lower, so you can maintain FUTURE staff levels at a lower cost)

cost of expansion for any department's buildings( in Dublin, it can be difficult to build extensions because of planning problems and cost of land acquisition)

lower property rents

I have yet to hear how overall costs will go up over the long term, yes the cost will be enormous for the first few years, but will it pay off! Thats what I want to know. DOES IT HAVE A POSITIVE RETURN, AND IF SO, WHERE IS THE RESEARCH?
For example can anyone answer the question "In the year 2025, will the annual COST of the civil service be lower or higher than today?"

ishmael whale

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

.....For example can anyone answer the question "In the year 2025, will the annual COST of the civil service be lower or higher than today?"

I don't think anyone has done a comprehensive study, which means the Government is proposing to throw €900 million into building offices without any picture of the long term consequences. We do have an amount of intuitive and indicative information that suggests its a bad idea. e.g. the duplication of staff required arising from the attempt to decentralise the legal aid board to Cahirciveen, the staff sitting idle in Ballina after abolition of housing grants because there was no clear way to absorb them into some other activities.

Be clear about it. There's no intention that this move will involve lower staff costs, or that pay rates will be reduced because people are not living in Dublin. That's simply not on the agenda. What will be a problem is that reduction of staff numbers will in future be a highly political issue. If 100 people are moved to Claremorris and, after a few years, its found that there's only a need for 80 because of technology or whatever the political imperative will be to keep the extra people on anyway. We're already seeing a bit of this in Agriculture, where staff numbers should be reducing because of the simplified EU payments system.

NewDubliner

There is no research, just the wishful thinking of the government.

They're gambiling €900m plus the cost of infrastructure, plus the costs of disruption plus retrainings costs plus the goodwill of staff on a bet that might just return the original stake after 20 years, all going well.

My own comments on the suggested advantages would be:

the potential of any synercies between centralising much of the IT work

Of unknown value & has to be weighed up against the cost of the catastrophic loss of nearly all experienced staff.

reducing staff numbers back to pre-2002 staffing levels without paying for redundancies

No reason for this to happen. It's very unlikely.

lower wages in the future, i.e. because of the reduced competition for staff retention (to exaplin in Dublin, if you want staff, you must pay the going rate, but in the provinces, the going rate is lower, so you can maintain FUTURE staff levels at a lower cost)

No guarantee of this turn out to be the case. Qualified applicants could be scarce enough on the ground due to the lower densiity of population in Parlon Country. The new rule that staff must agree to work anywhere in Ireland is going to discourage some. The going rate outside of Dublin will soon catch up anyway.

lower property rents

The rents will increase before the first contract is signed & then catch up to Dublin rates after a few years. When was the last time any government contract actually came on budget?

D'Peoples Voice

NewDubliner wrote:

There is no research, just the wishful thinking of the government.

Let me get this straight.
If we want a new national stadium, there had to be a report commissioned first to look into the viability of it!
Ditto with metro!
Ditto any road building project we have EIS's.
Ditto with any bloody positive thing we want in this country!

Now you are saying when it comes to Decentralisation,
there has been no independent report/study commissioned,
yet it will cost as much as any other major project.

Surely and I may have said this before,
is there not a case for EU intervention,
seeing as how we are still getting grants off them,
and yet we could be squandering our own money on this project
without commissioning a report into its viability first.

Then when we have the facts about its viability,
we can defend whatever position we choose to take!

NewDubliner

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Let me get this straight.
Now you are saying when it comes to Decentralisation,
there has been no independent report/study commissioned,
yet it will cost as much as any other major project.

With a stadium, a metro, a new road or an airport there would at least be something tangible to show for the money. Indeed, there would be examples of how it had been done in other countries to allow us to learn how & when it could succeed here.

I've been assured by a FF councillor that 'Decentralisation will be worth it at any price'. So that's all we need to know

NewDubliner

In the week when Finbarr Flood has been appointed 'independent' chairman of the DIG:

From the Irish Independent:

Public servants told: move or you lose promotion

THE Government is to impose a "no move, no promotion" regime on civil servants in a bid to accelerate its controversial decentralisation programme.

The Cabinet has agreed to back a tougher approach by Finance Minister Brian Cowen. He will implement a solution if long-running negotiations with civil and public service unions don't bring agreement in the coming weeks.

Ministers were told at their weekly Cabinet meeting there is a risk the move will lead to industrial unrest among civil and public service workers, with the danger of disruption to the public.

The hardline stance seems certain to put the coalition on a major collision course with the unions over promotions for staff who don't want to move out of Dublin.

It also runs counter to promises made initially that all transfers under the scheme - aimed at moving 10,300 civil servants out of the capital - would be voluntary.

The Department of Finance has been trying to ensure that a substantial proportion of promotions are made on condition that those appointed commit themselves to taking a decentralised post.

The confrontation between Government and unions is looming at a crucial time for the whole decentralisation process, as buildings are being acquired in several of the 53 locations around the country earmarked for the big move.

The department is concerned that if the promotion issue is not sorted out, implementation of the whole programme will be delayed, resulting in extra costs as new buildings are only partially occupied over an extended period.

Mr Cowen's predecessor in finance, Charlie McCreevy, made decentralisation the cornerstone of his last Budget in Decemnber 2003 but the process has been dogged by setbacks.

The department said there were "some indications" that the Public Service Executive Union (PSEU), representing the executive grades, was willing to reach agreement but it added: "The same cannot be said at this stage for the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants (AHCPS) and the Civil and Public Services Union (CPSU).

"Unless there is serious movement on their part, an agreed approach may not be possible, making an imposed solution the only way to ensure there are no further delays."

If no deal is done with the unions, Mr Cowen wants all appointments from inter-departmental panels to be made on the basis of the appointees agreeing to move to a post in a decentralising unit or existing provincial office. This covers about 40pc of promotions, rising to 50pc in 2007. Promotions will initially continue to be made in the normal way.

But for a period, "to be agreed in negotiations" prior to the actual move, some and eventually all promotions will be made on the basis of a commitment to relocate until all of a department's decentralisation requirements in the relevant grade at its new location are met.

The department admitted there was a risk that the "imposition" of a solution "may lead to industrial relations problems".

But it said that as contracts for accommodation were now close to finalisation in many cases, there was "a pressing need" to ensure the programme was carried out in "an orderly and timely" way.

Gene McKenna
Political Editor

ishmael whale

...Ministers were told at their weekly Cabinet meeting there is a risk the move will lead to industrial unrest among civil and public service workers, with the dnger of disruption to the public...

Why are they deciding they need to push through this nonsense? Why not show this kind of decisiveness in dealing with the aviation sector, where it might actually have achieved some benefit?

NewDubliner

ishmael whale wrote:

Why are they deciding they need to push through this nonsense? Why not show this kind of decisiveness in dealing with the aviation sector, where it might actually have achieved some benefit?

One possibility is that the government is deliberately goading the staff to walk out on the negotiations so that the FF/PD junta can get out of the huge mess they got themselves into.

Come the election, they can then blame 'selfish, overpaid Dublin civil-servants' for sinking their wonderful plan for saving rural Ireland.

RicardoSmith

I get the impression that it will all fast tracked so that the process is too far along to backtrack regardless.

NewDubliner

RicardoSmith wrote:

I get the impression that it will all fast tracked so that the process is too far along to backtrack regardless.

It depends what you mean by 'process'. If you simply mean 'committed money to buildings' or 'made big promises to their supporters ', they've dug themselves in deep.

If you mean 'recruited approprtiately experienced staff for the jobs' or 'balanced the budget', then, no, they've barely made any progress.

That's why they're waving a big stick.

RicardoSmith

Sites are being bought, risk assesment reports are being produced, new contracts, promotions are subject to accepting "relocation". Plans for the relocation are being drafted by everyone. That kinda seems like the start of a process no? The crunch will come when the buildings have to be started as thats when additional funds are required. Then someone has to pay for that.

NewDubliner

RicardoSmith wrote:

... risk assesment reports are being produced, ....plans for the relocation are being drafted by everyone. ...

Ah yes, but have you seen any of these reports and plans?

Did you notice anything missing?

RicardoSmith

NewDubliner wrote:

Ah yes, but have you seen any of these reports and plans?

Did you notice anything missing?

Yes.
Nothing that would stop the move.

NewDubliner

RicardoSmith wrote:

Yes.
Nothing that would stop the move.

Sadly, this could be very true, if it's been decided to ignore massive unbudgeted costs and the absence of appropriate staff for the jobs being relocated.

BolBill

Nice to see yet another example of the public knowing about things before the governments own employees.
Decntralisation WAS a great idea, until they realised that they wont get the numbers they require, they can't sack anybody and now they are desperate so they'll stop promotion. Its just another example of the FF/PD government and its inadequacies. When has there been a government that makes blatant errors EVERY week? Ahern is a joke, he cant even read properly, nevermind speak. As the European election showed, if there was a general election tomorrow, FF could say bye bye to government.

NewDubliner

This from the PSEU website: http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent28.doc. Apparently it's hoped to solve the lack of ICT expertese among staff willing to leave Dublin by promoting them......

The Official Side Representatives referred to an earlier report of the Decentralisation Implementation Group as it referred to ICT Units and staff. They indicated that a draft paper would be presented shortly as the individual Departments had been asked to develop plans. As an indicator of likely recommendations, it was noted that this paper would refer to the use of the CAF as far as possible, that efforts to facilitate ICT and non-ICT staff in moving into ICT areas would be made but that non existing ICT staff could be, and would be, subject to aptitude testing. However, it was anticipated that this process was unlikely to secure sufficient suitable applicants and, therefore, it was likely that some inter-departmental promotions would be offered to attract staff into ICT Units who would be willing to re-locate.

The PSEU Representative, while noting that ICT staff were members of General Service grades, made the point that such conditional promotions would exacerbate the potential problem of surplus staff in Dublin and that the surplus staff themselves would be unlikely to be found alternative ICT work and would, in most circumstances, be faced with re-deployment into generalist non-ICT work.

It was agreed that these issues would have to be discussed further when the draft paper was received.

uncivilservant

From the Irish Independent website (I couldn't find it in the actual paper):

YESTERDAY'S Public Service Executive Union conference heard from some senior civil servants in favour of decentralisation, for different reasons.

Lawrence O'Loughlin said he endured a four and a half hour trip every morning from the Burren in north Clare to his job at the Department of Finance in central Dublin, driving part of the way and then travelling by train in the expectation that his job would be decentralised to Tullamore.

Cork delegate Nigella Murphy said decentralisation would rebalance "the inequality which has penalised people like me in the country. Our union sub is as good as those of the Dublin members."

I'd like to post more from the article... but that's it. A fine piece of balanced reportage if ever I saw one.

ishmael whale

Cork delegate Nigella Murphy said decentralisation would rebalance "the inequality which has penalised people like me in the country. Our union sub is as good as those of the Dublin members."

I would just like to confirm that, indeed, ensuring value for money for trade union subscriptions is the prime function of Government, and takes precedence over issues like transport infrastructure, efficient management of the health service, development of the education sector and other such peripheral matters.

Lawrence O'Loughlin said he endured a four and a half hour trip every morning from the Burren in north Clare to his job at the Department of Finance in central Dublin, driving part of the way and then travelling by train in the expectation that his job would be decentralised to Tullamore.

I hate singling out an ordinary punter, but I take it he knew the media were present. 'I live in the Burren, so I took a job in Dublin because McCreevy said it would be moving to Tullamore.' Does anyone else find this a bit odd?

I can understand someone saying "I work in Dublin, but I can only afford a house in Edenderry/Kinnegad/Navan" or whatever. But this just seems kind of wierd. I mean there's already decentralised offices in Limerick, Ennis and Shannon to name but a few and, indeed, a fair array of employment opportunities around Limerick/Shannon generally. Commuting from Clare to Dublin just isn't a typical life experience, and is not caused by some economic inbalance that needs a public policy response.

uncivilservant

http://www.utvlive.com/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=59381&pt=n

The Public Service Executive Union has voted in favour of a watering down of their decentralisation policy.

A shortfall of applications for posts in decentralised areas has led to a heated debate at the PSEU conference which is being held at the Bunratty Shannon Shamrock Hotel.

Union members voted 2 to 1 in favour of only those employees who are promoted between departments having to decentralise.

Patricia Tobin the President of the Public Service Executive Union, says the conference in Bunratty has been productive.

I wasn't aware they had a policy.

imarc

The big stick they're waving about promotions won't work with everyone. I work for a state agency where promotions are a very very rare thing indeed :mad:

seanogal

Cromwell lives on.I always thought his policies were frowned upon on this island.

NewDubliner

I think we can look forward to to some very interesting anomoles.

Take for example, the ICT staff who've always had a hard time getting promoted in competitions which are biased towards non-specialist staff. If they decide to stay in Dublin, they get put onto odd jobs & have no chance of promotion. If they decide to move, they get to keep their old jobs.

Meanwhile, the 'mobile' non-ICT-specialists who've learned to chant the required PMDS/Partnership mantras will be offered promotion into ICT jobs over the heads of the more experienced/skilled ICT staff......

NewDubliner

From Online.ie:

A lack of specialist expertise in the civil service led to a waste of billions of euro taxpayers' money, it emerged tonight.

And how many specialists will we have in the right job after decentralisation?

The former Fine Gael leader also said projects may have been brought to the table severely under budget for political reasons, but he said that had yet to be proved.

Hmm, €900m sounds a bit low.......

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

From Online.ie:
And how many specialists will we have in the right job after decentralisation?


Hmm, €900m sounds a bit low.......

Sorry for being a total and utter cynic- but how many specialists are there in the right jobs prior to decentralisation........
I am aware of lab technicians, food scientists, a forester, several certified accountants, social workers, special needs teachers etc- all of whom have been refused permission at one time or another to move to areas where they have a speciality or training.......

There are very many highly educated and skilled people in manilla administrative roles, because of a policy in several government departments of not wanting to know what the qualifications of their staff are, much less match them up with an area where they would be well placed to offer invaluable advice and assistance. It can be very demoralising...... You really do get fed up Yes, there will be more fed up and demoralised people, incredibly underemployed. The media and the government just don't really seem to care. Until such a time as civil servants are seen as individual people, doing their every day duties to the best of their abilities- instead of a nameles entity ripe of beating up in the media and the public, things are just not going to change.....