Decentralisation

Dinarius

If you take a 20 clerical staff out of, say, Adelaide Road, and plonk them in Clonakilty, it has GOT to be cheaper. If you can sell the building to pay for it, then in the long run, yes it should pay off.

D.

NewDubliner

Dinarius wrote:

If you take a 20 clerical staff out of, say, Adelaide Road, and plonk them in Clonakilty, it has GOT to be cheaper. If you can sell the building to pay for it, then in the long run, yes it should pay off.
D.

Assuming that the 20 staff go with their jobs & that the Dublin office is then empty.

Where's the saving in taking 20 staff out of Cahirciveen, moving them to Killarney, training them in new jobs & then hiring & training 20 new staff for Cahirciveen while leaving another 20 with nothing to do in Dublin?

Now, what about IT, Ordinance survey, Fas, the Probation Service and Bus Eireann?

ishmael whale

Enda Kenny's proposal is at least a move in the right direction, but its still short of a coherent policy. Hopefully this isn't as good as it gets.

If he was saying that he'd proceed on the basis of where it would save money, that would be one thing. But he seems to be saying he'd proceed where he can get enough volunteers. That amounts to saying that any civil servant anywhere in the country (not just Dublin) has the right to demand the taxpayer to stump up a few hundred thousand to move their job to the town of their choice.

Its not as pat as saying office accomodation must surely be cheaper in regional towns, and assuming that the differential is enough to justify the investment. Firstly, there's cost involved in operating from multiple locations. Secondly, the country already seems to be starting to be littered with underutilised staff from previous decentralisations whose jobs have vanished but who cannot easily be relocated to other work. Department of Agriculture staff in Castlebar who are no longer needed due to the simplified EU grant system are a case in point - they are still on the payroll, but doing no work. Also, they presumably leave vacant office space in Castlebar which cost real money to provide and is now wasted.

Equally, the move of the Legal Aid Board to Cahirciveen led to the overhead that the Board now needs two offices, as it still retains a significant Dublin presence.

These practical factors have to be remembered. Decentralisation has not been a happy experience to date and, if anything, seems to have lead to increased costs.

pete

From last Friday's Irish Times:

The number of staff in the aid division of the Department of Foreign Affairs willing to transfer to Limerick has fallen since December, but a spokesman for Minister Dermot Ahern insisted the move would still go ahead.

He was responding to a statement from Fine Gael TD Bernard Allen on the proposed decentralisation of Development Co-operation Ireland.

"The decentralisation process has now slipped into reverse. The number of staff from within DCI volunteering to move, from a total staff of 123, has dropped from 28 to 24," Mr Allen said.

These figures take account of six specialist staff who have withdrawn their applications since December.

uh oh...

edit: timing related to this, i wonder?

pete

pete wrote:

uh oh...

edit: timing related to this, i wonder?

And it seems they're not alone

More than 200 civil servants have withdrawn their applications for decentralisation since the scheme was launched in 2003 by finance minister Charlie McCreevy, according to new figures from the Department of Finance.

The department said it did not know how many government workers were now willing to relocate to other parts of the country. Since 2004, the Central Applications Facility (CAF) has received more than 10,700 applications from civil and public servants willing to decentralise.

Since then, however, the government has made no effort to find out if the applicants are still interested in moving to a different area. A spokesman for the Department of Finance said there was ‘‘no point in stress-testing the numbers’’ until the means to transfer jobs were in place.

Bear in mind that this doesn't include people who have 'expressed an interest' but have no intention of going anywhere.

ishmael whale

I laughed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50913512&postcount=7

NewDubliner

ishmael whale wrote:

I laughed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50913512&postcount=7

Well, the 'Sunday Tribune' reports that Carrick on Shannon is proving very popular............with staff already working in Longford (& probably living in C-on-S)

caldwelk

Carrick on Shannon is proving very popular, only with staff already in Longford and Sligo though. Out of the 220 jobs for Carrick, I think the figures are about 150 staff from Sligo and Longford want to go.

Dublin staff are not being decentralised, people currently living in the West and working in Sligo or Longford will have a shorter drive to work. That's all.

The financing solution of selling expensive Dublin office space and purchasing a cheaper building in Carrick on Shannon doesn't add up either. It only works if all 220 staff move from Dublin.
As it is, the 150 or so staff that want to stay in Dublin must be accomodated somewhere. A new office building will have to be purchased or existing buildings will have to be extended. Will these costs be published as Decentralisation expenses?

Also, the expenses allegedly being offered for people to travel to Dublin to train are about €90 - €100 per week. Will people from Sligo and Longford really be willing to leave families, etc to stay in Dublin for 1 - 2 months to train for money that barely covers their rent?
Will people from Dublin be willing to move to Carrick on Shannon for 1 - 2 months to train people for the same money?

This scheme is like something out of the Simpsons.
Crazy!!!!!!!!!!!

ishmael whale

While I always enjoy those ‘decentralisation is vanishing up its ass’ stories, I still think the question is more about why bother trying to do it at all. Its an utterly pointless programme, that does nothing to promote meaningful regional development.

If, on the other hand, they spent a few bob moving the Garda Training College from Templemore to Waterford City and integrated it with WIT, it could give a genuine boost to both institutions, to the city and to the South East region.

Let me make it clear that I’m not personally of the opinion that upgrading WIT to University status is the next priority in the third level sector. But at least investing money in such an upgrade would make a meaningful contribution to regional development. Moving the Ordnance Survey to Dungarvan just won’t.

I take it the comment by Cowan in the first story to the effect that some of the sites will now be leased, where the original intention was to buy, indicates that they want to leave the door open to pulling back from some locations after the election - i.e. have lots of hustle and bustle in a field for the next 12 months to give the impression an office is coming, with no long term commitment.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1568749&issue_id=13723
Decentralisation 'to go ahead' despite €50m cut
THE Government insisted last night that its decentralisation plans have not been scaled back, despite cutting €50m from the project's budget this year.
The revised estimates of spending, published by Finance Minister Brian Cowen yesterday, showed the decentralisation budget is now €105m - down from an original Budget allocation of €155m. …….

Yesterday a spokesman for Mr Cowen said the extra €50m would be added to the decentralisation programme allocation in future years. The review follows an examination of progress on acquiring and developing property this year.

The change in this year's Budget would not affect the rollout of the programme, he added. "Some contracts are not going to close until 2007. There are a number of sites that are now going to be leased," he said.

But Fine Gael claimed the decentralisation programme was in total disarray as it was never properly planned. In 2005, capital expenditure on decentralisation was 70pc off target. In 2006, barely two months since the Budget, the programme was already 33pc off target, FG finance spokesman Richard Bruton said.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1568703&issue_id=13723
Nine out of 10 civil servants choose to stay in capital

ALMOST nine in 10 Department of Education staff don't want to move to decentralised offices in Athlone and Mullingar. Latest figures show that fewer than 47 of the 381 employees in Dublin are willing to relocate with their job. In some sections, including the 22-strong schools' inspectorate division, not one member of staff has applied for a transfer.

In a further blow to decentralisation plans, the purchase of a site in Portarlington, earmarked for four state agencies, including two in the education area, has fallen through at an advanced stage. Education Minister Mary Hanafin has provided a breakdown of her staff's decentralisation intentions in a written parliamentary answer to Fine Gael finance spokesperson Richard Bruton.

Mr Bruton is concerned at the gaps in expertise that will emerge if large numbers of experienced staff don't move with their post and warned of a "loss of institutional memory". He said the Government's decentralisation scheme, as originally intended, was "unravelling".

Under the scheme, 300 Department of Education staff are due to move to Mullingar and 81 to Athlone. But fewer than 35 staff have signed up for Mullingar. Only 12 of those whose jobs are going to Athlone have agreed to move.

The decentralisation to Athlone is scheduled for the last quarter of 2008, with the move to Mullingar following that. Meanwhile, the Office of Public Works is seeking an alternative site in Portarlington for four State agencies, including the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and the National Educational Welfare Board.

Just one in 50 of Enterprise Ireland's staff has volunteered to 'decentralise' to Shannon and FAS has only persuaded 11 of its employees to move to Birr, Co Offaly, where it plans to employ 383 within three years. So far 11 of the 400 Dublin-based FAS staff, nine people from other state agencies and 58 in the wider public service had indicated they would transfer to Birr.
© Irish Independent
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/ & http://www.unison.ie/

http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=70746&pt=n
THURSDAY 23/02/2006 08:09:03
Less than half of DCI staff willing to move under decentralisation

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has admitted less than half of the staff at Development Cooperation Ireland are willing to move to Limerick as part of the Government's decentralisation programme. Just 41 people have expressed an interest in the move which is scheduled to be completed early next year. According to the DCI website there are 123 Dublin based positions which will be relocated in around twelve months time.

However speaking in the Dail Dermot Ahern said just 26 positions at the new offices are to be filled by existing staff who`ve expressed an interest in moving to Limerick. A further 15 people, who are based abroad have also expressed their interest in moving to Limerick and the Minister says these officers will be assigned on a phased basis. He says the process to recruit staff for the remaining positions will now be accellerated and that the aim is to have most of them filled by the second half of this year.

SeanW

Now, Decentralisation has shown to be a disaster for Longford.

More Civil Servants want to leave Longford than come from Dublin.

Oh dear :mad: WTF is going on here, Longford is a lovely place to live with good schools, not much traffic, decent rail links, crime well under control, plenty of one-off houses for people who want that sort of thing ... and yet decentralisation for Longford seems to be doing more harm than good ...

It's settled, FF\PD has just lost my vote.

pete

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0303/presswatch.html

ESB staff offered €40,000 in transfer to Eirgrid

ESB staff who look after the high-tension transmission system are being offered €40,000 to technically transfer to the new State body called Eirgrid, which is being hived off from the State power company, writes the Irish Independent. The cash offer, which could cost up to €4m, has been made to around 100 ESB employees. They will have the option of transferring to the grid operator, Eirgrid, but it will not involve changing location. The special cash offer has been approved by Energy Minister Noel Dempsey and senior officials in his Department, according to today's edition of 'Industrial Relations News'(IRN). It may spark similar claims in other State agencies or companies facing restructuring or decentralisation. If civil and public servants facing decentralisation to 29 locations outside Dublin settled for similar payments it could cost the Exchequer up to €350m. Most 'disturbance' money was abolished in State and private companies many years ago - unless staff faced additional commuting costs. It is now creeping back in some of the State companies.

oh boy.

NewDubliner

pete wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0303/presswatch.html
oh boy.

Speculation. No PS union has asked for money to move. The fact is that those who do not want to move happen to like where they live and want to stay near their extended families.

ishmael whale

In any case, would I be right in saying that civil servants, as distinct from general public sector employees, don't fall within the scope of the usual industrial relations machinery, so this 'precedent' doesn't really apply.

Equally, if the scheme is voluntary presumably there's no case for money. Why would you compensate someone for moving from Longford to Carrick on Shannon if they volunteered to do it?

Dinarius

FAS workers to vote on industrial action today. Union rep interviewed on Morning Ireland this morning. 8 out of 300 want to move.

D.

pete

A claim made by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Tom Parlon to Mullingar Chamber of Commerce that 250 civil servants have applied to take up some of the 299 decentralised positions in Mullingar has been contradicted in the latest figures released by the Department of Education.

In fact, figures within the Department of Education suggest that less than 35 Education staff members have actually signed up for Mullingar, while no one from Internal Audit, Youth Affairs, ICT Policy, Statistics and Management Advisory Committee Support, the schools inspectorate division have even signed up for a Mullingar position.

The actual figures show that fewer than 47 of the 381 employees within the Department of Education and Science currently located in Dublin actually want to move to Mullingar and Athlone under the scheme.

According to the figures, only 5% of the Department of Education places in Mullingar are actually filled as things stand, creating huge holes in Minister Parlon's claims last month.

At the time he lashed back at reports that only four per cent of the applicants from civil servants willing to decentralise were for posts in Mullingar, claiming that 100 civil servants are signing up to the decentralisation programme every month.

Now it seems that problems filling the 300 places by the 2008 deadline, may be in jeopardy, if the recent reports are to be believed.

However, these figures only cover staff from within the Department of Education, and Minister Parlon is arguing that interest in moving to Westmeath under decentralisation is still popular among civil servants.

http://www.unison.ie/westmeath_examiner/stories.php3?ca=38&si=1574390&issue_id=13764

Victor

How were the specific locations for specific offices picked? Has it been FOIed?

pete

Victor wrote:

How were the specific locations for specific offices picked? Has it been FOIed?

probably at cabinet; probably not foi-able

MadMoss

As a staff member of a State Ageny which is due to be decentralised, i would like to query if other State Agencies or Government Departments staff are getting the same treatment as I am.
Anyways, my Agency has made two reports to the Decentralistion Committee regarding our plans for decenralistion. The first plan was issued to all staff. However the second plan (, which was sent to he committee in Nov 05,) was not copied to the staff. I can only presume management have something in the report which would further damage moral in our Agency. We were originally told they would issue a copy to staff.
Is this a typical situation in Agencies and departments earmarked under the decentralisation scheme?
Later

NewDubliner

MadMoss wrote:

I can only presume management have something in the report which would further damage moral in our Agency. We were originally told they would issue a copy to staff.

Assuming that the reports were competantly written and not affected by any sycophancy towards the project, it's also possible that they contained warnings, additional costs and risk-indemnities that the government would not want published close to an election.

Right now I think they're trying to keep the lid on.

Macy

Dinarius wrote:

FAS workers to vote on industrial action today. Union rep interviewed on Morning Ireland this morning. 8 out of 300 want to move.

D.

It's 6 out of 450, and the vote is on tomorrow and Thursday - result Friday am. One of the 6 has since retired, another of the 6 is the HR Director.

FAS isn't implementing a Labour Court Decision that they broke agreed procedures when implementing a Birr Clause in all new and promotional contracts.

The_Conductor

pete wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0303/presswatch.html
ESB staff offered €40,000 in transfer to Eirgrid

ESB staff who look after the high-tension transmission system are being offered €40,000 to technically transfer to the new State body called Eirgrid, which is being hived off from the State power company, writes the Irish Independent. The cash offer, which could cost up to €4m, has been made to around 100 ESB employees. They will have the option of transferring to the grid operator, Eirgrid, but it will not involve changing location. The special cash offer has been approved by Energy Minister Noel Dempsey and senior officials in his Department, according to today's edition of 'Industrial Relations News'(IRN). It may spark similar claims in other State agencies or companies facing restructuring or decentralisation. If civil and public servants facing decentralisation to 29 locations outside Dublin settled for similar payments it could cost the Exchequer up to €350m. Most 'disturbance' money was abolished in State and private companies many years ago - unless staff faced additional commuting costs. It is now creeping back in some of the State companies.


oh boy.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "disturbance money" or "decentralisation". It relates to a precedent which was set when we gave away a quarter of Telecom Eireann to the Employee Share Ownership Scheme (ESOP)- through either outright giving away of a certain percentage of the company, or bending the tax laws to make it so that they could get the tax payers to fund the ESOPs purchase of further shares (the employees were the only people who benefitted from TE's float). In the case above the idea is that the 100 people are being given a lump sum of 40 grand a piece to compensate them to move to Eirgrid, which is expected, as a national resource, to remain in state hands- while the ESB, as a generator, is expected to be sold off at some stage (and the employees are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of picking up a tidy sum (perhaps as much as 25% again?) from the sale. The 40 grand is compensation for the poor staff members who will have to work on the electricity grid without the benefit of this cash hand-out at some point in the future.......

Totally aside from the presumption that workers in state companies have any more entitlements to a share in the company (than do the average tax payer- who own the companies after all)- they are paid to do a job, and paid handsomly- if they were not they would walk, they would have no difficulties whatsoever finding work in today's vibrant economy. I disagree with the entire concept.

If a similar logic were to be taken- would decentralising civil servants be entitled to a share of the proceeds of buildings that were sold in Dublin- and would those who nominated to stay in Dublin be handed an upfront lumpsum to compensate them as they would no longer be employed by a Department that was disposing of property?

The story on RTE was a bad story, on a slow news day, filed by some idiot who either had not a clue what they were talking about or, worse still, did not care and were willing to foist sensationalist stories on a gullible public.

Do you know what we need- a gang of taxpayers to march on the Dail and demand that the government do what they are paid to do- govern, and get up of their arses and see whats happening in the real world. Even the OECD has warned that our current incumbents are spending money like there is no tomorrow- if we are borrowing .6% of our GDP during boom times, such as now- what the hell is going to happen when things cool down a little. Replay to the early 1980's? Think about it- interest rates are going up. The ECB were debating a .5% increase last week- not the .25% expected by pundits- and have released a statement saying as much. Its now thought that interest rates could well reach 4.5% by June '07. At this level house prices can hardly be expected to continue their current spiral- and consequent stamp duty receipts will fall. All of us who have managed to buy in the last few years will be slaughtered with our mortgage interest repayments- and our disposable income will fall- hitting VAT. Government income will fall- just when they expect all of this folly to really get into a high gear. Who will pick up the pieces? You and me, the PAYE taxpayers, and why not, sure we always do. Who will the government blame- those ungrateful 12,500 civil servants who never wanted to move down the country in the first place...... easy scape goat.

This country is such a god forsaken mess. If I was old enough I'd take early retirement and piss off to South America and hideout in some tinpot dictatorship. What a mess.....

Dinarius

Two years ago my wife, then an AO, did an exam which, if she did OK, would put her on an interview panel list for future promotion to AP. She passed.

Just over a year ago, she applied for and succeeded in a competition for Acting AP and has been working in that capacity ever since.

In January of this year, she got a letter asking her to attend for interview. Prior to the interview, she asked if a willingness to decentralise (we're going nowhere) would be attached to any AP positioned offered. She was told that it would not. On this basis, she did the interview - a tough four hours of written and oral presentations, followed by a 50 minute interview. This was prefaced by five days of intensive preparation.

Needless to say, she is not best pleased now. Obviously, she is better off than those who applied in their existing AO capacity. They don't even have the benefits of Acting AP status. But, if she knew then what she knows now, she probably wouldn't have put herself through it.

For what it's worth, she's going to speak to the union about it. Probably a waste of time, but she might as well get their view.

If, as anticipated, most of those who got through the interview refuse to decentralise, what will happen? Will posts remain vacant?

Should she say yes, she will decentralise and then refuse to move? Admittedly, this is not really her style! ;-)

This is nuts.

D.

gazzer

How come FAS are being ballotted for strike action and no other government departments.. the reason i ask is because i work for a government department and any promotion that i have (or will be) been offered since last year was on the basis that i go where the job is going. Ive no desire to leave Dublin so for me a promotion is not going to happen...

I just accepted this reality as part and parcel of decentralisation even though it is meant to be voluntary its not really if you want to improve your job prospects...Do FAS not realise that every other government department is only giving promotions to those who will move also???

Dinarius

Just heard on the 1.00 news that the FAS ballot has been postponed until next Wednesday because some of the ballot papers went missing.

D.

Macy

SIPTU's FAS branch is the only one that has challenged the decentralisation clause. The Labour Court found that FAS breached agreed procedure's in implementing the clause, so SIPTU want the status quo back in place - i.e. no Birr Clause. Then the second part of the Labour Court recommendation can be implemented.

From what I can see, the civil service unions have meekly accepted decentralisation, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did agree to such conditions being implemented.

btw FAS ballot has been postponed until next week. Ballot papers went missing from a locked safe in one of the Head Office buildings. Nothing else was taken from the safe, including the money that is also held in it.

Macy

Seems that a letter issued by the Branch Organiser, and the Branch Organiser being on RTE is enough for them to appear, as if by magic.

Dinarius

Macy wrote:

Seems that a letter issued by the Branch Organiser, and the Branch Organiser being on RTE is enough for them to appear, as if by magic.

?

D.

Macy

Dinarius wrote:

?

D.

The Ballot papers re-appeared in the safe over lunch. Nearly straight after the news appearance :rolleyes:

Dinarius

Thanks.

Wonder if they'll still hold the ballot today?

Should be covered in 5-7 Live.

D.

NewDubliner

Macy wrote:

From what I can see, the civil service unions have meekly accepted decentralisation, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did agree to such conditions being implemented.

It's easier to oppose in the Fás case as it's a seperate entity. In the general service, the unions have to consider the wishes of people not living or working in Dublin who want to take advantage of the sceme. For example, people working in Cahirciveen who want to decentralise to Killarney.

Macy

NewDubliner wrote:

It's easier to oppose in the Fás case as it's a seperate entity. In the general service, the unions have to consider the wishes of people not living or working in Dublin who want to take advantage of the sceme. For example, people working in Cahirciveen who want to decentralise to Killarney.

They are actually supporting other people taking their Dublin members jobs. Any ballots should've been Dublin only, as these are the people who are losing their jobs.

Macy

Dinarius wrote:

Wonder if they'll still hold the ballot today?

No, ballot next Wednesday now, as the ballot is compromised and polling times have been missed.

littleone

As a civil servant due to decentralise later this year, I was just wondering if anybody has any knowledge of the training allowance for regional based staff that had to relocate to Dublin for training prior to the move?

ishmael whale

Thanks for drawing our attention to this aspect of the situation. It looks like such allowances have been a feature of past allegedly successful decentralisations on an ex gratia basis. So presumably moving people from Longford to Carrick on Shannon via Dublin has always been a feature of ‘decentralisation’. Is there any hope that a comprehensive analysis of costs will ever be undertaken of this expensive waste?

There seems to be no final agreement on the training allowance that will be paid, but an offer will be made. In the past it was €152 per week for a householder and €95 per week for a non-householder. But, personally, I think you’d be better off joining the Gardai. They really need to locate staff all over the country, and the pay is better than the civil service.

http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent39.doc
…. At the most recent meeting of the Decentralisation sub-committee of General Council, the Official Side indicated that they would require Departments to minimise the amount of time that staff in this situation were required to spend in Dublin and that, subject to Department of Finance sanction in each case, Departments could be allowed to pay a training allowance to staff who are required to re-locate to Dublin for a period prior to transfer to their preferred location. The issue of the rate of this allowance was left for further discussion.

A meeting on the issue of the rate took place on 11 August 2005. The Official Side Representatives stated that the special training allowance that had been paid in such cases in respect of previous phases of decentralisation had last been up-rated in 2002. At that time the rate struck was €152 per week for a householder and €95 per week for a non-householder. The formula that had been used to up-rate the value of this allowance in the past was to take an average of the increase in Domestic Subsistence Overnight rates and the increase in household costs as measured in the Consumer Price Index. However, they stated their position as one which did not propose to up-rate the value of these allowances beyond those of 2002. In doing so, they outlined their view that this was a special ‘ex-gratia’ payment, that they had never accepted a direct relationship to prevailing subsistence rates but, rather, they recognised that they should make some contribution to the extra costs incurred by people in this situation.

The Staff Side Representatives stated that this was unacceptable. It was pointed out that the people in question were not volunteering to re-locate to Dublin but were being required to spend time there in the most expensive location in the country. As the employer was requiring such staff to come to Dublin, the view was that it was reasonable to expect the employer to meet the costs incurred and the most appropriate means of doing this would be to pay Domestic Overnight Subsistence rates plus travelling costs….

http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent46.doc
Meeting of the General Council Sub-Committee on Decentralisation

10 February 2006
……….
8. The Official Side Representatives stated that they had now been given authority by the Government to make an offer of flat payments for each person required to go to a location, other than the location for which they applied, in order to secure training to facilitate their re-location under the programme. They indicated that they would write to the Staff Side with details. In the meantime they proposed – and it was agreed – that a sub-group be set up to have discussions on the proposals in order to advance quickly to a possible agreement.

Dinarius

Could someone please direct me to a site which gives a breakdown of the decentralisation locations and the numbers of acceptances at each one?

Many thanks.

D.

ishmael whale

The only detailed figures that I’m aware of are here:

http://www.decentralisation.gov.ie/applications/takeup/

They date from September 2004 and as we know Parlon has been blowing about an extra 100 applications a month, but I suspect the essential picture remains the same.

About half the applications are from Dublin based civil servants, but a large whack of them are in respect of the locations closest to Dublin. The further you move from Dublin, the less likely you are to find a Dublin based civil servant applying. The slack is made up, as we’ve seen from the thread, by people applying to move between decentralised locations. I take it Parlon’s hundred a month fall into these proportions – hence the lack of updated figures as the one thing the programme doesn’t need is transparency.

jd

So Dept of finance had msisgivings...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2081941,00.html

Dublin plan warnings ignored


A DEPARTMENT of Finance memo that the government has tried to keep secret for more than two years reveals that the cabinet ignored the advice of civil servants in drawing up decentralisation plans in 2003.

.

.
Finance refused to release the memo because it would give ammunition to trade unions that want changes to decentralisation. But its arguments have been over-ruled by the Office of the Information Commissioner, which ordered the memo’s release to The Sunday Times.
.
.
.

Heads of department told finance that a previous programme of decentralisation had resulted in “a significant loss of corporate experience”. They said moving a whole department out of Dublin would result in “major difficulties in consulting ministers and the attorney-general and a loss of influence within the administrative machine and on opinion formers in Dublin”.
.
.
.
Unions and opponents of decentralisation say the documents prove the scheme was introduced for political reasons and not for the economic, social and infrastructural benefit of the country, as was claimed.
Siptu, Impact and the Association of Higher, Civil and Public Servants said the concerns raised by Quigley are now real problems that the government is ignoring, and pledged to use the disclosure to bolster campaigns against the decentralisation process.
Siptu is preparing a campaign to have state agencies removed from the decentralisation plan, and has threatened industrial action if its members are compelled to move.

ishmael whale

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=2571&ArticleID=1388730 .... Such is the popularity of Carrick-on-Shannon as a place in which to live and work, that it quickly became over-subscribed in the number of public servants wishing to locate here through the decentralisation programme.

Another persuasive factor would be the location of Department of Social and Family Affairs offices in both Sligo and Longford which would both have employees from the Co Leitrim area and who would have sought a transfer to the new office here….

I know it’s a provincial newspaper, and local public opinion opposes a higher degree of censorship than George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. But can they really acknowledge the fact that the move to Carrick-on-Shannon depends on moving people from decentralised offices in Sligo and Longford and just pass on as if this was just by-the-by?

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=2594&ArticleID=1385977 HSA to shift jobs to Kilkenny within months
The cynics were wrong. The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) is moving from its Dublin headquarters to Thomastown.

More than 20 new jobs are coming to Kilkenny with a further 120 on the way by 2008. The authority will open an interim office in Kilkenny City in the coming months. Those who said that the move, part of the government's decentralisation scheme, would never happen, have been proved incorrect. This will be in advance of the transfer of another 120 staff from the headquarters at Hogan Place, Dublin 2 to Thomastown.

The information is contained in a response to a parliamentary question by Deputy John McGuinness. The answer revealed that 41 civil servants and 10 other public servants have applied to make the move to Thomastown. Enterprise Minister Micheál Martin told Deputy McGuinness that the HSA had recruited or promoted 18 of its own staff who were committed to making the move.

I take it this is just for the optics. They’ll chuck 20 people into an office, and worry about moving down the rest after the election. No-one will ask what exactly these 20 people are doing or how much it costs to have people in two locations or whether this advance move was part of the original plan or simply a PR stunt.

Macy

FAS Ballot was passed. 87% in favour of action, 13% against. Turnout nearly 70%.

caldwelk

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2092856,00.html
Sorry, it won't download as a link.

I saw this article in the Sunday Times headed "€1,500 for civil service move"
It says "THE Department of Finance has offered a one-off payment of €1,500 to state employees who have to move to Dublin for training before being decentralised." The payment will not be taxed.

I'm a civil servant and it's the first that I've heard of it. Thank you CPSU union for keeping me informed as usual.

holly_johnson

caldwelk wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2092856,00.html
Sorry, it won't download as a link.

I saw this article in the Sunday Times headed "€1,500 for civil service move"
It says "THE Department of Finance has offered a one-off payment of €1,500 to state employees who have to move to Dublin for training before being decentralised." The payment will not be taxed.

I'm a civil servant and it's the first that I've heard of it. Thank you CPSU union for keeping me informed as usual.

I heard about this yesterday. This hasn't been agreed, it was tabled at a decentralisation meeting, so perhaps that's why it wasn't released. I wonder how the paper heard about it??

pete

caldwelk wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2092856,00.html
Sorry, it won't download as a link.

I saw this article in the Sunday Times headed "€1,500 for civil service move"
It says "THE Department of Finance has offered a one-off payment of €1,500 to state employees who have to move to Dublin for training before being decentralised." The payment will not be taxed.

I'm a civil servant and it's the first that I've heard of it. Thank you CPSU union for keeping me informed as usual.

€1,500 - that's what, less than 2 months dublin rent? or about 25 nights in a B&B?

just how much training are people expected to need?

davidoco

There seems to be a big difference in opinion from semi state bodies moving and Departments or sections of Departments moving. Most Departments have plenty of staff willing to move and fill posts.

There are still 4,236 (September 04 figures) Dublin civil servants out there looking for a decentralised post.

pete

ishmael whale wrote:

The only detailed figures that I’m aware of are here:

http://www.decentralisation.gov.ie/applications/takeup/

They date from September 2004 and as we know Parlon has been blowing about an extra 100 applications a month, but I suspect the essential picture remains the same.

About half the applications are from Dublin based civil servants, but a large whack of them are in respect of the locations closest to Dublin. The further you move from Dublin, the less likely you are to find a Dublin based civil servant applying. The slack is made up, as we’ve seen from the thread, by people applying to move between decentralised locations. I take it Parlon’s hundred a month fall into these proportions – hence the lack of updated figures as the one thing the programme doesn’t need is transparency.

see also http://www.decentralisation.gov.ie/documentlibrary/Feb%202006%20Assignments%20Summary%20Table.htm

pete

davidoco wrote:

There seems to be a big difference in opinion from semi state bodies moving and Departments or sections of Departments moving. Most Departments have plenty of staff willing to move and fill posts.

There are still 4,236 (September 04 figures) Dublin civil servants out there looking for a decentralised post.

Don't confuse "expressing an interest" with "committing to moving". Most people I know who submitted a list of preferred locations to the CAF have done so to protect their current post in the short term (ie they won't be transferred out and replaced with a willing decentralisee if they say they're going with their dept). We'll have to wait and see how things pan out when departments start looking for formal commitments from their staff.

Also I can't help but wonder how many of those 4,236 dublin expressions of interest have applied for the same commuter-belt posts?

Marica

davidoco wrote:

There seems to be a big difference in opinion from semi state bodies moving and Departments or sections of Departments moving. Most Departments have plenty of staff willing to move and fill posts.

There are still 4,236 (September 04 figures) Dublin civil servants out there looking for a decentralised post.

This is because the situation is very different for staff of State agencies. Most staff in the agencies are public servants, not civil servants. Civil servants all effectively have the same "employer", the Department of Finance, regardless of what Department they currently work in. They are centrally recruited through open competition and then assigned to a particular department. Their terms and conditions, grades, pension scheme, etc, are uniform across departments, and they can transfer from one department to another without loss of service, changing pension scheme, etc.

Staff of State agencies are employed by the individual agency. Agencies recruit their own staff, have different terms and conditions and operate their own pension schemes. As an employee of an agency you have a contract with that agency as your employer and it is not possible to transfer from Agency A to Agency B as they are different entities (no more than it is possible to transfer from one company to another in the private sector). Likewise, it is not possible to just transfer from a civil service post into an agency post. Agencies, because they were usually established to do a specific function, tend to have recruited staff with particular skills/qualifications to work in specialist roles. This is where the problem is with including the agencies in the decentralisation programme. A typcial scenario:

Agency A is listed for decentralisation to a town beyond the commuter belt. It has, say, 100 staff, none of whom have signed up to move. Of those 100 staff, 25 are administrative and 75 are professional/technical, ie qualified in particular disciplines and recruited to do specific jobs. 120 people have applied through the CAF to move to that location so on paper the move is oversubscribed and Tom Parlon is delighted. However, on closer inspection of the figures, 100 of the applicants are administrative civil servants of various grades from CO to AP, and 20 are professional/technical grade civil servants from various backgrounds, none of whom have the specialist skills or qualifications needed to perform the work of Agency A. Even if they were an exact skills match, the can't transfer anyway as Agency A is an entirely separate legal entity from the civil service. And what would happen Agency A's existing staff? Even if they applied to go elsewhere through the CAF, they can't transfer into the civil service (and the CPSU, PSEU and AHCPS will make sure of that!) and they can't transfer to another agency.

Including the agencies in the decentralisation programme was a mistake. Personally I think the Department of Finance mandarins who drew up the lists of organisations and locations didn't realise at the time (probably because they had no experience of working outside the civil service) that State agencies were a completely different kettle of fish from the civil service. By the time they were made aware of this fact, it was too late to go back as it would look like a climbdown. Decentralising civil servants will be problematic and disruptive enough, but at least there are no legal and contractual barriers to surmount. They haven't even begun discussing how these obstacles might be overcome yet the OPW is going around buying sites for agencies in the designated towns.

Decentralisation is good in principle: if they had selected a smaller number of reasonably-sized towns and initially targeted a more modest number of civil service posts to move over a more realistic timeframe it could have worked, but the government chose to politicise it and against even the advice of senior Finance personnel, push it through with a battering ram.

holly_johnson

Marica wrote:

This is because the situation is very different for staff of State agencies. Most staff in the agencies are public servants, not civil servants. Civil servants all effectively have the same "employer", the Department of Finance, regardless of what Department they currently work in. They are centrally recruited through open competition and then assigned to a particular department. Their terms and conditions, grades, pension scheme, etc, are uniform across departments, and they can transfer from one department to another without loss of service, changing pension scheme, etc.

Staff of State agencies are employed by the individual agency. Agencies recruit their own staff, have different terms and conditions and operate their own pension schemes. As an employee of an agency you have a contract with that agency as your employer and it is not possible to transfer from Agency A to Agency B as they are different entities (no more than it is possible to transfer from one company to another in the private sector). Likewise, it is not possible to just transfer from a civil service post into an agency post. Agencies, because they were usually established to do a specific function, tend to have recruited staff with particular skills/qualifications to work in specialist roles. This is where the problem is with including the agencies in the decentralisation programme. A typcial scenario:

Agency A is listed for decentralisation to a town beyond the commuter belt. It has, say, 100 staff, none of whom have signed up to move. Of those 100 staff, 25 are administrative and 75 are professional/technical, ie qualified in particular disciplines and recruited to do specific jobs. 120 people have applied through the CAF to move to that location so on paper the move is oversubscribed and Tom Parlon is delighted. However, on closer inspection of the figures, 100 of the applicants are administrative civil servants of various grades from CO to AP, and 20 are professional/technical grade civil servants from various backgrounds, none of whom have the specialist skills or qualifications needed to perform the work of Agency A. Even if they were an exact skills match, the can't transfer anyway as Agency A is an entirely separate legal entity from the civil service. And what would happen Agency A's existing staff? Even if they applied to go elsewhere through the CAF, they can't transfer into the civil service (and the CPSU, PSEU and AHCPS will make sure of that!) and they can't transfer to another agency.

Including the agencies in the decentralisation programme was a mistake. Personally I think the Department of Finance mandarins who drew up the lists of organisations and locations didn't realise at the time (probably because they had no experience of working outside the civil service) that State agencies were a completely different kettle of fish from the civil service. By the time they were made aware of this fact, it was too late to go back as it would look like a climbdown. Decentralising civil servants will be problematic and disruptive enough, but at least there are no legal and contractual barriers to surmount. They haven't even begun discussing how these obstacles might be overcome yet the OPW is going around buying sites for agencies in the designated towns.

Decentralisation is good in principle: if they had selected a smaller number of reasonably-sized towns and initially targeted a more modest number of civil service posts to move over a more realistic timeframe it could have worked, but the government chose to politicise it and against even the advice of senior Finance personnel, push it through with a battering ram.

I thought that state agency staff could move into the Civil Service if they didn't want to move? Also, you say Decentralisation is good in principle (as long as the state agencies are not included). I dispute this. It is not only state agencies that have technical grades, the civil service has more than its share, and look at what is happening to them, IT staff in particular. Our jobs are going, we don't want to go, but we have no choice either. So as far as I am concerned, we are all in the same (sinking) boat.

Macy

Marica wrote:

Personally I think the Department of Finance mandarins who drew up the lists of organisations and locations didn't realise at the time (probably because they had no experience of working outside the civil service) that State agencies were a completely different kettle of fish from the civil service. By the time they were made aware of this fact, it was too late to go back as it would look like a climbdown. Decentralising civil servants will be problematic and disruptive enough, but at least there are no legal and contractual barriers to surmount. They haven't even begun discussing how these obstacles might be overcome yet the OPW is going around buying sites for agencies in the designated towns.

Totally agree with the vast majority of your post. However, on the above, Department of Finance staff did point out about the State agencies. A memo was released under FOI recently where they expressly said that State Agencies shouldn't be included because of this. It was the politicians that chose to ignore this fact and pushed the State Agencies into the equation too, against the advice of their own staff.

jdwals

The Department of Finance officials knew as much about Decentralisation as the rest of us until it was broken to key officials before budget day. Even the Secretary Generals or equivilent of the Departments/Agencies involved did not know until they were told just before it was announced.
This was a solo run by the Government who dreamed up this idea with the one and only objective of securing votes in the next election. There was no other consideration involved.
It is not for the good of the staff, it is not for the good of the civil service and it is not for the good of the country.
If anyone doubts this try to get any of the following that should have been done in advance of the announcement:
Costing. Cost benefit analysis. Identification of potential locations and evaluation of why one location is better than the other. Analysis of number of probable staff applications. Location of potentialy interested staff (Dublin Vs outside of Dublin).
These do not exist.
This Government can't sneeze without employing a consultant. But yet, for the biggest and most expenisve project in the history of this state there was absolutley no pre-evaluation carried out.
Before people get the idea I am against decentralisation - I am not. I think it has some good merits - but done right. And this has not been done right.
This has already cost the tax payer millions both in actual cost and reduced productivity and will cost millions more before it concludes in what ever shape or form. Another long one in a long line of disasters on the part of this current Government.

Macy

holly_johnson wrote:

I thought that state agency staff could move into the Civil Service if they didn't want to move?

No. There is no agreement for transferability. And given the way the CPSU and PSEU have fought to protect their status in the Civil Service, it's unlikely that there will ever be agreement on this.

holly_johnson wrote:

Our jobs are going, we don't want to go, but we have no choice either. So as far as I am concerned, we are all in the same (sinking) boat

I'd agree, but it's about time you all told your union that in no uncertain terms. Heads should be rolling in the unions, as it's clear their not serving their Dublin members interests.