Decentralisation

Dinarius

Agree on the Five Seven Live interview.

But, in the same segment of the programme what was the guy from HR in FAS doing repeating the government line saying that decentralisation is moving ahead and the government still intends to move FAS to Birr?!

Surely he should have said that it wasn't for him to answer that? He sounded like some FF toad from Offaly.

D.

NewDubliner

Macy wrote:

Hopefully the Government are starting to see sense, after Harney's comments yesterday re: Semi State's.

I would not take much encouragement from what she said as she was tight-lipped about what was cusing the problems or how she thought the problems should be solved.

TempestSabre

Dinarius wrote:

Agree on the Five Seven Live interview.

But, in the same segment of the programme what was the guy from HR in FAS doing repeating the government line saying that decentralisation is moving ahead and the government still intends to move FAS to Birr?!

Surely he should have said that it wasn't for him to answer that? He sounded like some FF toad from Offaly.

D.

I assume HR is simply communicating FAS managment position. Which is that they are there to follow govt policy as directed. Thus far FAS managment (Board) have been almost completely silent in regard to decentralisation, except to indicate any progress thus far on the move to Birr. Which is they've picked a site, but not bought anything as of yet.

TempestSabre

Macy wrote:

The talks at the LRC, and the resultant proposal, only deal with the current FAS dispute, which was over the introduction of the "Birr Clause" in promotional contracts. FAS workers have won the battle - the war is still to get the semi states out of the process. ....

Agreed. Decentralisation was actually not the core issue of the dispute. It was the changing of contracts. So it will be interesting what angle the unions (well Siptu - the other unions seem to doing nothing) take against decentralisation.

Dinarius

Two things..........

1. Stephen Collins' column in Saturday's Irish Times was the most cogent and damning indictment of decetralisation that I have read. I don't have access to IT online, so if someone would care to cut and paste for the benefit of others........? Thanks.

2. Those who have signed up for the decentralisation of Marine to Clonakilty are having a get-together in Clonakilty today. Apparently, the first of them will be in situ by July. They have leased a building in the West Cork Technology Park for a period of two years, in anticipation of building a headquarters during that time.

As has been said before, given that marine is a political non-event and could be run from Antartica, and given also that they have had the required numbers and grades since the beginning, this will succeed.

Marine is, arguably, one of the worst run departments in the entire Civil Service. Ask anyone who has ever had anything to do with it. (The other day I spoke with someone who works in the Arts Council(!) who could give me chapter and verse on its incompetence.) So, it will be no loss to the 'collective memory' of the Dublin Civil Service, nor to its decision making capabilities.

Of course, no one from BIM will be going, but that's another story.

D.

Macy

TempestSabre wrote:

Agreed. Decentralisation was actually not the core issue of the dispute. It was the changing of contracts. So it will be interesting what angle the unions (well Siptu - the other unions seem to doing nothing) take against decentralisation.

It's SIPTU policy to get the semi states out of the decentralisation process, following a motion at last years biennial conference. I doubt they're going to drop the ball on the wider issue - and I doubt the members in the semi-states, including FAS will let them.

SIPTU in BIM have a public meeting tomorrow evening in Dun Laoghaire, so the campaign goes on, only with all workers in work and getting paid.

uncivilservant

Dinarius wrote:

1. Stephen Collins' column in Saturday's Irish Times was the most cogent and damning indictment of decetralisation that I have read. I don't have access to IT online, so if someone would care to cut and paste for the benefit of others........? Thanks.

Decentralisation was another obvious political wheeze designed to win votes in the local elections of 2004 by scattering public servants to 53 locations around the country. It failed miserably in its main objective when the Government parties took a pasting in those elections. Instead of burying it as quickly and decently as possible, the Coalition has desperately tried to prove that the policy lives on.

In the past few days both the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have indicated they are open to some modification of the scheme but they still do not seem to appreciate just how fundamentally flawed it is. The increasingly vocal objections of the unions will probably halt the plan to move the headquarters of Fás to Birr.

Mary Harney has publicly acknowledged that the employees of semi-State companies who want to remain in Dublin do not have the option that civil servants have to transfer to another department. That acknowledgment will probably have the effect of scuppering plans to move a range of other State agencies out of Dublin.

However, the Government still does not seem to appreciate that the plan to move half of the Government departments out of Dublin is even more absurd. If implemented, it would undermine the structure of a Civil Service that has served the country well since independence in 1922. The long-term implications of such a move would have damaging consequences for generations to come.

The point has been made again and again that there is no problem about decentralising specific units of public service, but that to try and move whole departments is a recipe for disaster. The net effect would be that a minister living in one part of the country, with a department based in another, would spend most of his or her time rushing to Dublin to attend Dáil or cabinet meetings, with a few trips to Brussels in between. At a deeper level, the break-up of the Civil Service would limit its ability to perform to the highest level and would lead to an unquantifiable amount of duplication, waste and extra expense.

The main Opposition parties have been tentative in their criticism of the Government's policy towards the public service. Fine Gael did oppose benchmarking but a fear of losing votes paralysed the main Opposition party in its initial response to decentralisation. Labour, with its strong union links, was loath to criticise benchmarking and it appeared tentative on decentralisation for fear of alienating supporters in rural constituencies.

More recently both parties have got over their reluctance to take a stand, with both now saying they would not proceed with decentralisation as planned by the Coalition. Both parties are agreed that it makes no sense to move the central policy-making functions of Government departments out of Dublin, whatever about sending specific service delivery units to different parts of the country.

Decentralisation contributed to the losses suffered in Dublin by the Government parties in the local and European elections, with no corresponding gains in areas set to benefit from the plan. Judging by last week's Irish Times poll, the issue is still damaging the Government, and if it continues planning for decentralisation until the general election, it is asking for trouble.

http://uncivilservant.com/news_reports/from_illogical_to_absurd:_coalitions_public_service_record.html

Dinarius

Uncivilservant,

Thanks.

Didn't read yesterday's Sunday Tribune. Apparently, there is a report in it which says that Fianna Fail are tanking in Dublin. No surprise there - the local elections confirmed that. The question is whether they'll see the light before the next election. I think they will.

D.

eigrod

There was a Decentralisation piece on The Week in Politics last night with Mary Hannafin, Eamonn Gilmore & Gay Mitchell (Parlon must have declined given the pummelling he got on Prime Time last week).

It was so obvious that Hannafin knows that they have got themselves into an enormous mess on this and just don't know how to get out of it without upsetting a dozen or more constituencies around the country.

Even Gilmore and Mitchell wouldn't be drawn into what areas should be dropped because it could have the same impact on their parties.

It was almost funny to see the 3 of them just scared of mentioning even 1 town that should be dropped from the scheme.

To be fair to the presenter (Rodney Rice ? ) he pulled Mary Hannafin up a couple of times on the 10,500 figure, stating that half of them were already outside Dublin, but like those before her, she duly ignored him and continued hammering out the FF/PD mantra of "Decentralisation is Good".

Munya

Ehh lots of pages not sure if my lil ity bity voice will be heard but anywhos, I agree that "Dept of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources would be right at home somewhere like Cork or Galway but CAVAN is a joke!!!"

I also feel that the fact the government hasn’t felt the need to decentralize any amenities is also stupid. It’s bs telling someone that there job has now replaced itself to a place that hasn’t heard of public transport or broadband.

I don’t understand why Bertie doesn’t decentralize / centralize himself. I mean his job hardly calls for a need to be in Dublin does it? Last I heard of ‘aul Bertie he was opening a Salon in Limerick.
Someone needs to give him a Newsflash firstly he’s the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland not Taoiseach of Dublin and secondly being Taoiseach is not a Beauty Pageant It involves actual work! :mad:

Rael

Hi folks,

Quick question for the established Civil Servants out there. Do you find that there has been a large drop in promotions in the Civil Service since the notion of decentralisation was introduced.

According to an AO in my dept, she said that when she joined, about 7/8 years ago, there was loads of open and internal competitions & basically you couldn't move for all the people getting bumped up.

I'm asking because I sat both the CO & EO exams last year(I've also applied for some of the upcoming AO positions because I have the 3rd level qualifications for them) at the same time and scored highly in both. I've spoken to the Public Jobs graduate recruitment section and basically they've said that normally they would have interviewed well past my position but the Dublin panel has been put on hold by Finance until Decentralisation has been sorted.

From speaking to other people in my dept, they were in a similar position 6 years ago(did open CO & EO exams together) and they were called for interview when they were working as COs and were promoted to EO grade within 6 months of joining as a CO. they are know higher grades than EO.

Does anyone see anyway of getting promoted(don't want to throw away my career) or am I just getting worried unnecessarily ?

Rael

TempestSabre

Decentralise...

Its an issue to keep an eye on. If theres a drop in the number of promotions in certain areas.

holly_johnson

I certainly think promotional prosepcts have dropped since the announcement. Unless you're willing to decentralise.... the panels are all for the new locations, little if anything for Dublin. I think it's just a fact of life we'll have to get used to. I don't see myself progressing beyond my current grade for a long time, if at all. And with 29 years left to go, that's a long time left to stagnate. I'm in an IT grade too, so I suppose the time will come when I need to contemplate moving onwards and hopefully upwards.

EDIT: Just read this article on rte.ie:
Wonder if the official side will accept the abolition of the promotion clause?? methinks not.

FÁS workers in Dublin have voted to accept proposals which bring the dispute over decentralisation to an end.
98% of SIPTU members voted in favour of the proposals, which were put forward by the Labour Relations Commission last Friday.
The dispute at FÁS centred on claims that promotions have been made conditional on staff moving to Birr, Co Offaly.
The LRC proposal included dropping the clause relating to promotion from future contracts.
FÁS staff had been staging limited industrial action over the plans to relocate its head office.
The Government wants to move the 400 staff at FÁS head office to Birr by 2009.

NewDubliner

holly_johnson wrote:

I'm in an IT grade too, so I suppose the time will come when I need to contemplate moving onwards and hopefully upwards.

They've gone very quiet about the planned purge of all IT grades from Dublin, but it hasn't gone away.

The privitisation of civil service jobs has been progressing quietly in IT for some years now. The PMDS-driven anti-specialist agenda is now becoming more aggressive. I think you'll find that your IT promotion prospects will be cut off by a combination of PMDS-dogma, external recruitment of contract workers at HEO level and semi-permanent out-sourcing to majors such as Accenture.

The lack of take-up of decentralised posts & the recent failure of the DOF AP(IT) competition to find many suitable candidates will create a vacuum to be filled from the outside.

So, if you have the chance, it's onwards and outwards & maybe back inwards again as a contractor/consultant.

holly_johnson

NewDubliner wrote:

The lack of take-up of decentralised posts & the recent failure of the DOF AP(IT) competition to find many suitable candidates will create a vacuum to be filled from the outside.

Ironic, really, considering that's where I work, and I went for that competition but was "unsuccessful"

TempestSabre

FÁS workers in Dublin have voted to accept proposals which bring the dispute over decentralisation to an end....

Thats a bit misleading. The dispute was over the breaking of agreed process in changing the contracts. Not decentralisation. No other agency had such terms put in their contacts. It was basically blackmailing staff to move. All this does is put FAS back on the same footing with the other agencies.

There is another battle coming on decentralisation itself, however it will effect all the agencies not just FAS. AFAIK Siptu is not against decentralisation, but against forced decentralisation. If there was resonable choice and options open to agencies staff there would be no problem.

Its a complete mess, from every angle. Its been typically mismanaged, and will cost a fortune. What cost the disruptions thus far?

joolsveer

TempestSabre wrote:

Thats a bit misleading. The dispute was over the breaking of agreed process in changing the contracts. Not decentralisation. No other agency had such terms put in their contacts. It was basically blackmailing staff to move. All this does is put FAS back on the same footing with the other agencies.

I believe the HSA is in an identical position to FAS in that Finance have dictated that their contracts are changed in a similar way.

TempestSabre

joolsveer wrote:

I believe the HSA is in an identical position to FAS in that Finance have dictated that their contracts are changed in a similar way.

Have they got new contracts then?

utopian

NewDubliner wrote:

...the recent failure of the DOF AP(IT) competition to find many suitable candidates...

Are you sure about that?

NewDubliner

utopian wrote:

Are you sure about that?

I'll admit it's an office rumour and that 'many' is a subjective term.

The fact that the jobs were not in Dublin would have discouraged some well-qualified candidates.

Does anyone have more info?

Victor

Munya wrote:

I don’t understand why Bertie doesn’t decentralize / centralize himself. I mean his job hardly calls for a need to be in Dublin does it? Last I heard of ‘aul Bertie he was opening a Salon in Limerick.

Bertie is moving west! From Drumcondra to the new residence in the grounds of Farmleigh.

holly_johnson wrote:

Ironic, really, considering that's where I work, and I went for that competition but was "unsuccessful"

That sounds like something for a FOI inquiry.

holly_johnson

Victor wrote:

That sounds like something for a FOI inquiry.

Maybe, but I can hear the answer now:

"The panel were unable to find suitable candidates"

I don't think it was the numbers applying; these jobs were for Kildare not Tullamore, I just think that management knew who they wanted and weren't willing to take anyone else.

NewDubliner

holly_johnson wrote:

I don't think it was the numbers applying; these jobs were for Kildare not Tullamore, I just think that management knew who they wanted and weren't willing to take anyone else.

If the move to Kildare is cancelled, I wonder could these promotions be challenged by people who didn't fancy building a new life in Kildare & didn't apply because of this.

I think the plans for moving all IT jobs out of Dublin have been held back from ratification as the governnment wants avoid even more criticism when the details & costings enter the public domain.

utopian

holly_johnson wrote:

Maybe, but I can hear the answer now:

"The panel were unable to find suitable candidates"

I don't think it was the numbers applying; these jobs were for Kildare not Tullamore, I just think that management knew who they wanted and weren't willing to take anyone else.

I thought interview boards had to keep more complete notes? If you think it was a stitch-up, why not make a request?

holly_johnson

@ NewDubliner:

If the move to Kildare is cancelled, I'm sure i wouldn't be the only one looking to have these people reverted back to their former positions. I know most of them only took the job for the money with no intention of going, as I'm sure is the case in most places.

@ Utopian:

I never said I thought it was a stitch-up, why would they want to stitch me up? I just don't see what purpose an appeal would serve. I didn't get the job, and in my experience querying it never does you any good in the long run. I meant that I can hear the usual stock answer given by management to such questions.

Victor

Not FOI your own application, get someone to FOI the 'composite' of all applications.

Dinarius

Two points.........

1. On the issue of promotion, I am aware of promotions that have been confirmed in the last few days for people (civil NOT public servants) who have no intention of decentralising anywhere. This could be the 'FAS effect', but I can't be sure. Whatever it is, hopefully it is a climb down on the part of Finance.

2. Cavan will happen in a few months. They will open an office there and those unfortunates already living there and still commuting to Dublin will then be allowed to work from there. My understanding is that once this is done, it will be quietly forgotten. Apparently, there is no intention of moving the Executive/Heads of Department there anytime soon.

D.

Dinarius

Another thing..........

The Dublin CAF is proving a disaster. People are moving to new departments either because they are learning the ropes before being decentralised, or because they don't want to decentralise and want to start a new job elsewhere in the CS. Quite a bit of this has happened in the OPW.

However, those moving are not being replaced leaving awning gaps all over the place. Classic!

The vibe seems to be that if you haven't signed up for the Dublin CAF then don't. Sit tight and wait and see.

D.

Aldini98

What difference does it make whether you sign up or not? You're not under any obligation to take positions offered.

NewDubliner

Dinarius wrote:

The Dublin CAF is proving a disaster.

Are they making any effort to match skills with jobs?

For example, IT specialists who want to stay in Dublin, which department should they select?

Macy

joolsveer wrote:

I believe the HSA is in an identical position to FAS in that Finance have dictated that their contracts are changed in a similar way.

FAS couldn't back up that Finance had told them to change them in the first place, even in the Labour Court.

As things stand, no other agency has a clause that compels people on promotion to move to the new location (new starters I'm not sure on). The HSA was misquoted by FAS management as also having the clause - it doesn't, it just says the agency is due to go, not an actual clause compelling the person to go.

I doubt anyone will be introducing them before the outcome of the FAS negotiation process and in all probability another Labour Court Recommendation. But as has been flagged in this thread before, the next issue is likely to be renewals of fixed term contracts in some of the agencies effected.

The Government, and their back benchers, are mistaken in the extreme if they think the settlement on this issue in FAS is the end of the problems in the semi states. Having seen Barry Andrews performance in Dun Laoghaire the other week, the FF backbenchers want to get hold of the facts before making out it is in a public arena (clueless and patronising aren't the words!)

NewDubliner

Macy wrote:

The Government, and their back benchers, are mistaken in the extreme if they think the settlement on this issue in FAS is the end of the problems in the semi states.

I think the plan will be that at the General Election, the Dubin FF candidates will tell Dubliners that it's all off & there's nothing to be concerned about.

Meanwhile, the non-Dublin canvassers will tell the voters that it's full steam ahead and all problems will be negotiated away.

Cost & increased taxes to fund the program will be hushed up.

Dinarius

Macy wrote:

FAS couldn't back up that Finance had told them to change them in the first place, even in the Labour Court.

As things stand, no other agency has a clause that compels people on promotion to move to the new location (new starters I'm not sure on). The HSA was misquoted by FAS management as also having the clause - it doesn't, it just says the agency is due to go, not an actual clause compelling the person to go.

Macy,

I may be misunderstanding you, but I know for a fact that DCMNR operated the 'promotion subject to a willingness to decentralise' policy up until last week. Only in the last week have they changed and that change is being put down to the 'FAS effect', rightly or wrongly.

D.

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

Are they making any effort to match skills with jobs?

For example, IT specialists who want to stay in Dublin, which department should they select?

The AGs office are currently looking for "An EO with IT skills".
Apparently this individual is to replace an EO JSA- but they are not allowed to recruit at this level, as the panel has been exhausted and with decentralisation have been told they will have to recruit from the open service instead. They have further been advised that they position must be offered to the most senior suitable candidate. There are very few situations that an EO in a general service position will have suitable qualifications to be able to hit the ground running in the AGs office in a JSA role.

Irrespective of the existance of the DeCAF (or PAS) system, there does not appear to be any attempt in place at present to match qualifications or skillsets to jobs which are either open or will be remaining in the city.

The fact that the only communication with the people most affected by all of this is via media leaks is also disgraceful.

Re: PSEU and CPSU- why are these unions (who represent the vast bulk of the affected people) not saying anything? Simply because- almost 3/4 of the civil service is not in Dublin at all (we have had I think 8 previous decentralisation programmes since 1977). They claim to be representing the majority of their members (which is entirely true) by supporting decentralisation. That is, they have far more members outside of Dublin who will benefit from decentralisation, than they have members in Dublin who are being hung up to dry over the whole sorry saga. So effectively the lower grade civil servants based in Dublin have *no* representation whatsoever in the decentralisation discussions/negotiations. I am personally aware of several people who have left the PSEU in disgust over the whole affair, and also know of people who are trying to join SIPTU as they are seen as the only union willing to represent these affected people.

NewDubliner

Macy wrote:

The Government, and their back benchers, are mistaken in the extreme if they think the settlement on this issue in FAS is the end of the problems in the semi states.

Parlon has solved the problem:

Sunday Times - 4th June 2006

DEPARTMENT of Finance officials struggling to deliver the coalition government's stalled decentralisation plan have devised a radical proposal to end the current log jam over the proposed moves.

Tom Parlon, the junior minister with responsibility for the programme's implementation, said a new scheme that would allow workers in state agencies to transfer to civil service jobs and vice versa is one of the ways the plan could be moved forward.

Under existing rules staff in state agencies cannot transfer to another state agency or to a government department. Civil servants can move between government departments but cannot transfer to state agencies. This lack of flexibility in the scheme has limited the options open to officials trying to implement the plan.

It has also led to concerns that surplus staff will be left in Dublin with nothing to do while their jobs are decentralised and filled by new recruits.

Parlon told The Sunday Times that changing this rule is "a priority" that finance department officials want to explore with unions. His officials believe easing this rule will make it easier to transfer skilled and professional workers who do not want to move out of Dublin with their existing jobs.

Finance officials are also exploring the possibility of moving people from state agencies to local authorities in Dublin if they refuse to decentralise with their jobs. This could mean, for example, that a road engineer refusing to move with the National Roads Authority from Dublin to Galway could be transferred to a post in one of the capital's local authorities.

"The current block on transferability is a weakness in the plan and it would make sense if this was changed. It would create more opportunities for skilled and professional people who want to stay in Dublin," Parlon said.

Parlon is unlikely to receive support from the unions. Louise O'Donnell of Impact said it had discussed similar plans "only briefly" with finance officials but "nothing concrete" had been put forward. She played down the significance of the suggestion and warned it was unlikely to work given the complexities involved.

Currently 10,500 people have applied for decentralisation, but about 50% of these already live outside the capital and want to relocate from one part of the country to another. This means that in some cases the jobs of staff who do not want to leave Dublin will be taken by others living outside the capital. Thousands of workers left in Dublin may have to be found new jobs.

Parlon defended the government's plan. He denied that statements by Bertie Ahern, the taoiseach, and Mary Harney, the tanaiste, on the timescale for its completion amounted to a scaling back of the scheme.

Gerry Higgins

Dinarius

Given that the majority of union members don't give a damn about the minority based in Dublin, nor do they give a damn about the irreparable damage that this hair-brained scheme will do to the structure of our public services, and given that the unions have, thusfar, shown themselves to be equally concerned with self-preservation and pleasing the non-Dublin majority, I would lay odds that this will happen.

You read it hear first.

D.

holly_johnson

I disagree. I would think that this would be a step too far, even for the useless PSEU. I doubt this will be accepted.

Dinarius

holly_johnson wrote:

I disagree. I would think that this would be a step too far, even for the useless PSEU. I doubt this will be accepted.

I hope you're right!

D.

BolBill

Parlon is a tosser of the highest order though Im sure he (like the other TDs) is making money out of this.

holly_johnson

BolBill wrote:

Parlon is a tosser of the highest order though Im sure he (like the other TDs) is making money out of this.

I won't disagree with that...

NewDubliner

holly_johnson wrote:

I won't disagree with that...

It's never a good idea to underestimate the enemy.

I doubt if he cares what people in Dublin, or indeed anywhere other than Laois-Offaly, think of him.

As long as he can be seen to be fighting for his constituents, regardless of the cost to taxpayers nationally, he'll seize any chance he can to get on TV or be quoted in the papers. He'll endure & bluster his way through any hard questions.

This suggestion that people should be totally interchangeable is designed to suggest that restrictive practices in the public service are impeding the scheme. One of the government's weapons is to whip up anti-Dublin & anti-public service sentiment.

Macy

Dinarius wrote:

I hope you're right!

D.

The main huddle to this transferability is that semi state's are employed by that semi state. This nonsense from Parlon is just an attempt to blame it the unions rather than the Government when this doesn't come off.

Even if the Government would cough up the redundancy to all the workers that would be required to leave one employment to join another, then I don't see the civil service unions would go for it, or ultimately the Government.

SIPTU would have to be recognised in the general civil service - bad for the pathetic CPSU/PSEU part of the decentralisation axis of evil as they'd lose so many members, and bad for the Government when they'd have a union willing to stand up to them (along with some elements of IMPACT - McLoone still hiding from the issue, and he should start remembering he's a trade union official not a professional Government appointee to x number of boards).

But, to repeat the main point, the issue of the unions going for it really is irrelevant as it's not the issue in any case, just a Government wheeze to blame those nasty, selfish trade unionists instead of their own incompetence.

TempestSabre

The politicans are only chasing votes. Any mumbo jumbo that will get votes from anyone is what they'll try. Problem is most people have no interest in the public sector, even if its a waste of the taxpayers money. No ones interested in the reality.

Victor

A few things.

I take it that this is a slightly less bad suggestion than the original scheme, insofaras it allows decentralisation projects to draw from a wider pool pf employees, some of whom may want to move and some of whom do have the required skills. Swapping land surveyors with railway safety engineers still doesn't work.

Why is there an insistence on this thread of referring to state agencies as "semi-states"?

What has been the regime where parts of departments have been hived off into state agencies, e.g. parts of the Dept. of Transport have become the Railway Safety Commission and the Road Safety Authority (joined by others from the NRA, NSC, etc.)

gbh

There are obviously supporters and opponents of decentralisation on this thread.

Some are strongly opposed, and some are in favour.

Some are in favour of decentralisation but not the way its being carried out. If so maybe they could offer an alternative way of completing decentralisation.

Speaking as a 'culchie', I think there's nothing wrong with moving parts of the civil service down the country. After all, culchies who make up something like two thirds of the population pay tax as well and most of that tax pays the wages of civil and public servants. And where are most public servants? Packed into Dublin. And where do they spend our money? In Dublin as well.

So basically the regions are losing money out to the capital, there is a transfer of our wealth to the capital, and the regions are getting poorer as a result. And when investment is spent in the regions and on agriculture, the Dubs get angry.

So maybe those who are opposed to Decentralisation should come clean. Either leave the Civil and Public Service and let others take their jobs. Or else admit that you don't want the regions to benefit from decentralisation. And that really is the essence of your opposition.

And also, either you accept Decentralisation as a good idea or a bad idea. But why focus your ire on someone charged with carrying it out such as Tom Parlon. That's an easy way out, but really advances the debate not one iota.

TempestSabre

I object to spending a billion playing musical chairs. Thats a billion that could be spent on better things. Its won't create many jobs, because they are already filled. It won't improve services, in many cases it will disimprove them, as people will have to travel all over the place for meetings, (depending on the service) quite often back to Dublin. It won't save money because many buildings they claim to be selling aren't even owned, they are rented. The increase in population in small towns will be insignificant as most people will move to the major towns and cities, and the numbers are insignificant to the numbers of immigrants spread all over the country.

As there will be no change in ammenities, or services, or infrastructure most people will still travel to the cities for a lot of their shopping. The big supermarket might build a few new stores and that will be it. All that will be achieved is that you will have spent more tax payers money, and gained a few more votes then they've lost.

They'd be better spending that billion on improving ammenities, or services, or infrastructure in rural Ireland.

ishmael whale

gbh wrote:

So basically the regions are losing money out to the capital, there is a transfer of our wealth to the capital, and the regions are getting poorer as a result. And when investment is spent in the regions and on agriculture, the Dubs get angry.

Unfortunately, almost every part of this post is wrong.

Firstly, tax from the regions doesn’t subsidise Dublin. The reverse is the case.

Secondly, most public servants are located outside Dublin. In fact, most public servants are decentralised of their nature, including the higher paid categories like Garda and teachers.

So basically the regions are gaining money out to the capital, and the capital is poorer as a result. And when investment is spent in Dublin, the regions get angry. That’s why, for example, Dublin Airport is reduced to pitching a tent on the roof of the car park to accommodate passengers while the West coast is peppered with unneeded and underutilised airports.

Decentralisation as a good idea. But decentralisation is about moving decision making to regional authorities, not this nutty idea of moving office staff about which just increases costs for no benefit.

However, I think your post accurately reflects the gross misconceptions that many in the regions have on this topic. I don’t know how this ignorance of the true situation can be overcome, as even when presented with the facts of the matter people seem to feel that they’ve nailed their colours to the mast and would lose face if they admit their error. The massive misconception held by so many in the regions is, of course, the reason that politicians hope to leverage support out of the issue.

They’re playing you for fools, and you’re swallowing it wholesale.

Dinarius

ishmael whale wrote:

But decentralisation is about moving decision making to regional authorities, not this nutty idea of moving office staff about which just increases costs for no benefit.

I totally agree with everything you wrote except the above.

The fundamental flaw in this scheme IS the decentralisation of 'decision making'.

Moving process and procedure to the regions is fine. There are already offices all over the country doing this. VAT is a perfect example.

But, casting the policy making executive to the four winds (which is what I presume you mean by the decentralisation of 'decision making') is nuts! e.g. Microsoft are headquartered in Seattle. Ultimately, all decisions are made there. BUT, those decisions are executed all over the planet.

I know of no organisation, public or private, that this crap is modelled on.

D.

ishmael whale

Dinarius wrote:

The fundamental flaw in this scheme IS the decentralisation of 'decision making'.

Fear not, we're on much the same wavelength. I agree the idea of splintering central government decisionmaking is plain daft.

What I mean is what decentralisation means everywhere except Ireland. I mean regional authorities being given power to decide things within their own area, not locating the Department of Tourism in Killarney as if that was the only place in Ireland that ever saw a tourist.

Hotblack Desiato

Victor wrote:

I take it that this is a slightly less bad suggestion than the original scheme, insofaras it allows decentralisation projects to draw from a wider pool pf employees, some of whom may want to move and some of whom do have the required skills.

There's nothing new in this. Finance and the unions have been talking about this for the last couple of years and got nowhere. There are huge problems in relation to contracts, terms and conditions of employment, etc. Even where jobs are comparable between a civil servant and a state agency employee, they won't be earning the same (cue compensation claims all round if these transfers actually happen...)

Swapping land surveyors with railway safety engineers still doesn't work.

Exactly. But Parlon still doesn't seem to grasp this.

What has been the regime where parts of departments have been hived off into state agencies

They are seconded into the new organisation for a year or two as civil servants, then have the option of returning to the CS or else joining the agency definitively - signing a contract etc. and usually getting a pay rise, but giving up the ability to apply for promotions/transfers back into the CS.