Decentralisation

eigrod

Schuhart wrote:

Secondly, the point about who subsidises who seem to be just drawing attention to the fact that the tax paid by people outside Dublin generally stays within their county.

Do people outside Dublin pay taxes ? I got the impression from the numbers of "outside Dubliners" who appear on Winning Streak that they think that buying scratch cards is a legitimate alternative to subscribing to the exchequer.
.
.
.
.
.
I jest (well, sort of )

Victor

gbh wrote:

As for subsidising the regions, I am sayign that the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy, the most glaring example are our TD's and Senators. Are you going to deny this?

Counting TDs only (one would have to research where Senators live), 43 are from Dublin 123 the rest of the country. Those TDs are presumably doing their census and tax returns from their home constituencies. So TDs are part of the subsidisation of the rest of the country.

NewDubliner

gbh wrote:

Well I think the plan is to sell off offices in Dublin. Much of government property in Dublin is in prime city centre locations where prices usually go for about 50million/acre. That would mean selling 20 acres to finance the new buildings. Shouldn't be too difficult.

But the properties that are owned by the government are, for the most part, not the ones occupied by people whose jobs are being given to the provinces. So, any sale of these properties is not a saving, it's a cost. It's money that could have been spent upgrading the road to Cork, for example.

Whatever about rents down the country being cheaper. you can be sure they'll be much higher when the government goes shopping for a lease & higher again once the office is established.

I'm still waiting for your detailed costings and benefits.

No project should be allowed to start unless the costs are known and the value of the outcomes properly assessed. How will we know if the project is off-target?

Macy

gbh wrote:

The benefits of decentralisation are plainly obvious. You'd want to be blind not to see them.

You should have no problem listing them, and putting a value on them so...

BolBill

The GREATEST mistake the government has made with decentralisation is simply : NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WANT TO GO !!!!!!

All they had to do was mail/contact every Civil Servant and ask them to tick a Yes/No box if interested in decentralisation and then they'd have found out how many wanted to leave Dublin. Instead they f-ing announce in a budget behind our backs to smokescreen a sh*te budget.

Its voluntary, Im staying behind to sit at a desk with no work and cant be made redundant - genius plan.

gazzer

What they should have done at the offset was to look at the transfer request list from every depts human resources office in Dublin and work out how many people wanted to transfer to a certain location(s) and work it out from there... It is just a rediculous situation now.

In the IT area i work in i revenue nobody wants to transfer to Kildare... it looks like the only people they are going to get to move are the contractors (mainly Accenture) that are already making inroads into Revenue and replacing the civil servents anyway.

Unless i decided to move(sell my house and fork out stamp duty cos i wont be a first time buyer) to kildare i would have to get a bus into town, a bus to Hueston Station and then a train to Kildare.. If i were to drive i will have to put my name down for the driving test now cos the waiting list is massive.

I dont particularly want to go to Kildare but if i want to stay working in IT thats what i have to do.. otherwise i will be put into an admin position and i have trained too long to go back to that.

NewDubliner

gazzer wrote:

In the IT area i work in i revenue nobody wants to transfer to Kildare... it looks like the only people they are going to get to move are the contractors (mainly Accenture) that are already making inroads into Revenue and replacing the civil servents anyway.

The whole idea is to demoralise & dislodge the existing IT staff so that Accenture can get a clear run. This is to satisfy the PDs obsession with privitisation & out-sourcing. It also suits the mandarins at Finance who want to break Revenue's control of its own IT systems.

Some of the Accenture folks in your department are quite busy documenting your job so that it can eventually be off-shored to a low-cost economy outside the EU.

The new office, if it actually gets built in Kildare, will be a token office, as Accenture are not obliged to move to Kildare as long as the work gets done. A handful of low-spec staff will be employed there to support the local sandwich-manufacturing economy.

Diaspora

After the Deloitte controvercy on IT where Bertie failed to see de lite I can't see the attraction of outsourcing IT

On a more general theme I note this thread has reached 1458 responses and 73 pages over 2 years.

Well done all

As sister thread has been going since 2003 http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2556
and reached a mere 62 replies

NewDubliner

Diaspora wrote:

After the Deloitte controvercy on IT where Bertie failed to see de lite I can't see the attraction of outsourcing IT

It keeps the PDs happy.

To coin a phrase It's the politics, stupid! (GBH - This 'Decentralisation' scheme is nothing to do with economics)

MadMoss

Macy wrote:

Has anyone measured the costs or the benefits?

Yes, I have examined in detail the report done by my Agency and decentralisation costs 3 times what the sale of our building will make. Our cost per person if brought to a total of 10,000 people being decentralised would estimate a total cost of 1.8 billion. This figure has already been discounted by the sale of buildings. Bear in mind this figure would be spread over 10-15 years. My conclusion is that decentralisation doesn't pay for itself it is a net expense.
I hope this sheds light on cost involved.
There will also be ongoing additional expense for my Agency as we are required to make visits all over the country and it will be harder and more expensive to do that from our decentralised location.
The plan makes no financial sense. In fact I think it's a financial disaster for us. I believe this financial burden puts my Agency in jeopardy. I also believe it puts pointless and permanent financial burden on the exchequer.

Rael

Tom Parlon has refused to appear before next week's all party Oireachtas Committee on Finance and Public Service.

Seems Parlon was due to give a status and progress report on Decentralisation so far but has withdrawn due to a "previous engagement outside Dublin".

Allegedly The Director General of Fás: Roddy Molloy & the Chairman of the Decentralisation Implementation Group: Finbarr Flood will not be appearing either on Wednesday according to last night's Eveneing Herald.

Nice to see three of the main players have such a high regard for the scheme when they can't be bothered to show up, or is it an indictment of the ridiculous nature of the Decentralisation scheme?

TempestSabre

AFAIK know our agency is expect to fund the cost of buying a site and building a new building, (our existing building is rented) and then all other costs from our normal operating budget. So services can only suffer as a result.

eigrod

Rael wrote:

Tom Parlon has refused to appear before next week's all party Oireachtas Committee on Finance and Public Service.

Seems Parlon was due to give a status and progress report on Decentralisation so far but has withdrawn due to a "previous engagement outside Dublin".

Allegedly The Director General of Fás: Roddy Molloy & the Chairman of the Decentralisation Implementation Group: Finbarr Flood will not be appearing either on Wednesday according to last night's Eveneing Herald.

Nice to see three of the main players have such a high regard for the scheme when they can't be bothered to show up, or is it an indictment of the ridiculous nature of the Decentralisation scheme?

That's interesting. I posted earlier that I was amazed that there was not 1 reference to decentralisation in the new NDP 2007-2013 unveiled earlier in the week.

I know I could be miles off, but it does seem that the Government have gone underground on this issue since the FAS dispute was "resolved". Will they really go the year until the election without facing up to the massive issues that have been thrown up by this "project" (I use that word very loosely) ?

NewDubliner

eigrod wrote:

I know I could be miles off, but it does seem that the Government have gone underground on this issue since the FAS dispute was "resolved". Will they really go the year until the election without facing up to the massive issues that have been thrown up by this "project" (I use that word very loosely) ?

Every time the government makes an announcement on 'Decentralisation' it's an opportunity for the lies & spin to be exposed. So, the less said, the easier it is to get away with it. But, it hasn't gone away, you know.

Parlon is presently concentrating on other issues that might shore up his vote in Laois/Offaly.

holly_johnson

Rael wrote:

Allegedly The Director General of Fás: Roddy Molloy will not be appearing either on Wednesday according to last night's Eveneing Herald.

Nice to see three of the main players have such a high regard for the scheme when they can't be bothered to show up, or is it an indictment of the ridiculous nature of the Decentralisation scheme?

Rody Molloy is a civil servant too; I knew him in his former Department, so I wouldn't be surprised if he thought Decentralisation was a load of pants too.

Macy

holly_johnson wrote:

Rody Molloy is a civil servant too; I knew him in his former Department, so I wouldn't be surprised if he thought Decentralisation was a load of pants too.

I'd be very surprised. Only 3 people in FAS are driving decentralisation (and caused the dispute), and he's very much one of them.

TempestSabre

I thought I heard hes from Birr? I could be wrong on that though.

Macy

TempestSabre wrote:

I thought I heard hes from Birr? I could be wrong on that though.

From Birr, or it's surrounds.

holly_johnson

Well, he doesn't live there; or at least he didn't when I knew him

Macy

holly_johnson wrote:

Well, he doesn't live there; or at least he didn't when I knew him

No he doesn't, but it'll be nice for him to see out his days up to retirement at his home place...

SuperMacs

MadMoss wrote:

Yes, I have examined in detail the report done by my Agency and decentralisation costs 3 times what the sale of our building will make. Our cost per person if brought to a total of 10,000 people being decentralised would estimate a total cost of 1.8 billion. This figure has already been discounted by the sale of buildings. Bear in mind this figure would be spread over 10-15 years. My conclusion is that decentralisation doesn't pay for itself it is a net expense.
I hope this sheds light on cost involved.
There will also be ongoing additional expense for my Agency as we are required to make visits all over the country and it will be harder and more expensive to do that from our decentralised location.
The plan makes no financial sense. In fact I think it's a financial disaster for us. I believe this financial burden puts my Agency in jeopardy. I also believe it puts pointless and permanent financial burden on the exchequer.

I really find that hard to believe.
People require to be paid more to live in Dublin, due to high cost of living (rent/housing/etc).
Therefore net result is they get paid less for working outside Dublin.
Therefore over the long run it should be cheaper.
Also, is the spreadsheet going to take inot account the still rising cost associated with Dublin. ie. in the next 10-15 years your employee bill for Dublin will rise faster then regional areas.

There are lie, dam lies, and then there are statistics.

TempestSabre

Well if you need to contract out the specialist roles you can't fill to contractors, they'll charge more I'd assume. Are pay scales not the same across the Public Sector Regardless of location?

eigrod

SuperMacs wrote:

I really find that hard to believe.
People require to be paid more to live in Dublin, due to high cost of living (rent/housing/etc).
Therefore net result is they get paid less for working outside Dublin.
Therefore over the long run it should be cheaper.
Also, is the spreadsheet going to take inot account the still rising cost associated with Dublin. ie. in the next 10-15 years your employee bill for Dublin will rise faster then regional areas.

There are lie, dam lies, and then there are statistics.

I'm not entirely sure of the point you are making, but what I understand you to be saying is that there are/will be different salaries for Civil/Public Servants working in Dublin than in rural locations. This is not the case, salary scales are the same irrespective of where one works, and this is extremely unlikely to change in the future.

The salary bill for the Government will only go up if they fill the rural vacancies of those who do not move from Dublin, but continue to pay those in Dublin whose jobs have moved and have little or no work to do. Of course the travel & subsistence payments will also rocket, as staff will be required to travel to multiple & distant locations for meetings, training & other business.

Victor

eigrod wrote:

The salary bill for the Government will only go up if they fill the rural vacancies of those who do not move from Dublin, but continue to pay those in Dublin whose jobs have moved and have little or no work to do. Of course the travel & subsistence payments will also rocket, as staff will be required to travel to multiple & distant locations for meetings, training & other business.

And not to forget the promotions!

I met a woman I used to know. She had a front counter job. It was suggested she could do the job from Sligo(?). :rolleyes:

Diaspora

Not as good as the 230 Bus Eireann jobs promised to Midleton until they realised that the workers were mechanics servicing buses operating exclusively within the GDA.

I am sure with the decline in Rail freight that it would have been possible to transfer the broken down buses by train with the reopened Broadstone Station but unfotunately the workforce didn't want to go.

The_Conductor

SuperMacs wrote:

I really find that hard to believe.
People require to be paid more to live in Dublin, due to high cost of living (rent/housing/etc).
Therefore net result is they get paid less for working outside Dublin.
Therefore over the long run it should be cheaper.
Also, is the spreadsheet going to take inot account the still rising cost associated with Dublin. ie. in the next 10-15 years your employee bill for Dublin will rise faster then regional areas.

There are lie, dam lies, and then there are statistics.

Certain public servants, such as nurses and members of An Garda Siochana, are entitled to a Dublin allowance, in recognition of the greater cost of living in the Dublin area. Civil servants are not entitled to any similar allowances though. I know where you are coming from- in the UK an additional London allowance is paid to civil servants there- however the Irish setup does not allow for a similar setup. There was talk of pressing for a similar allowance 2 years ago, but the majority of the civil servants (who are not Dublin based) voted almost 2-1 against the introduction of such a weighting.

Could you elaborate on: the spreadsheet going to take inot account the still rising cost associated with Dublin. ie. in the next 10-15 years your employee bill for Dublin will rise faster then regional areas.

While the cost of living may be higher in Dublin- accomodation costs (i.e. buildings) down the country are in actually higher, as new buildings must meet far higher conditions than are met by many of those currently inhabited by civil servants in Dublin. In addition there is no difference in salary- so I'm not sure where you are coming from?

Macy

Political pressure beginning to tell? I'm sure it's only one of the issues, but two Dublin back benchers prominent in the FF Backbench group? Particularly interesting to see Andrews leading the way, given his (pathetic) performance attempting to defend and justify decentralisation at that recent meeting in Dun Laoghaire. Maybe the roasting he got had some impact.

Dinarius

From the property section of today's Indo............

"Decentralisation has affect on house prices:

HOUSE prices have risen by 15% in the last 12 months in four key towns which are due to benefit from decentralisation within the next 18 months. The strongest demand has been for four and five bedroom homes in these areas.

According to a survey by Real Estate Alliance, these increases are due to the direct impact of decentralisation. The key towns affected include Carrick-on-Shannon, Mullingar, Athlone and Carlow.

Harry Sothern of Sothern Real Estate Alliance reports that a four bedroom house in Carlow, which sold for €260,000 in 2004, has risen by 23% to €320,000 at present. Over the same period a three bedroom semi has risen 18% to around €228,000.

In Athlone a three bedroom end of terrace house has risen by 21% in the last three years to €219,000. Local agent Healy Hynes of Hynes Real Estate Alliance says that most of this increase came in the last 12 months. He also points out that in the last two years, prices for four bedroom semis in Athlone rose 19.1% to €249,000.

Real Estate Alliance Chairman, Eddie Barrett says that the 1,500 new jobs being created in Carrick-on-Shannon is also increasing demand for new property in the region. He also called for a review of planning restrictions to ensure more rural sites became available for those civil servants who are moving to rural areas as a result of decentralisation.

Donal Buckley"


D.

"Fianna Fail, the builders' friend."

The_Conductor

Off topic, a little humour to lighten our moods.

Decentralisation to Newcastle anyone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5072430.stm

NewDubliner

From the 'Daily Mail'.

Looks like cost is beginning to be taken seriously at last.

Costs review means civil service exodus plan `is now doomed'
Irish Daily Mail
Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Ronald Quinlan
PLANS to continue moving 10,000 civil servants out of Dublin are on hold - amid increasing indications the entire scheme is close to collapse.

The original plan was to move 10,300 civil servants out of the capital to locations around the country by 2007. But now the buying of sites for the Government departments due to decentralise has been suspended while senior officials look again at the costs.

This effective freezing of the acquisition process - until the review of the programme by the Department of Finance is complete - has thrown the entire decentralisation programme into chaos.

Sources said last night that any department that has not already acquired a new site will have to wait while the `financial fallout' of the scheme is assessed by officials.

The latest development comes just six weeks after Taoiseach Bertie Ahern admitted in an interview that the original plan had been too ambitious.

Mr Ahern said it was more likely the plan would not be completed until 2012.

But the decentralisation scheme took a further knock less than two weeks later when it emerged the Taoiseach had decided to rethink plans to relocate 2,300 workers employed by State agencies.

The original decentralisation plan, announced by former finance minister Charlie McCreevy, proposed moving the civil servants from Dublin to 53 locations around Ireland.

Since its inauspicious start, the initiative has failed to take off - with civil servants based in the capital showing worryingly low levels of interest towards the programme.

For example, it emerged earlier this year that just five of the 100 people working for the Valuation Office and nine of the Heath and Safety Authority's staff of 110 want to leave Dublin.

Adding to the Government's woes has been the dispropor- tionate number of low-ranking civil servants willing to move in comparison to senior officials.

And the latest revelation will place additional pressure on the Government as the prospect of next year's general election looms larger on the political horizon.

Among the locations where properties have been identified for the scheme but not yet purchased or leased are: Carrickmacross; Clifden; Edenderry; Enniscorthy; Kilrush (lease); Loughrea; Mullingar; New Ross; Waterford; Wexford; Youghal; Claremorris; Drogheda; Limerick (lease), and Listowel (lease). These properties cannot now be purchased or leased for use by a Government department until the cost review has been completed. according to well placed sources at the Department of Finance.

And in a further twist to the saga, an official statement posted on the Government's decentralisation website indicates no Dublin properties have been freed up by the anticipated exodus of civil servants. The statement reads: `Since it is too early in the process for any significant relocation of staff from Dublin, there has been no property disposed of in Dublin to date as a direct consequence of decentralisation'.

In a further note, the website states: `Ultimately, this will involve the disposal of surplus space. `However, no firm decisions have been taken at this stage as to which particular office buildings will be disposed of post decentralisation'.

Dinarius

This coming Friday, July 4, His Bertieness will plant a tree in Clonakilty to formally launch the decentralisation of the Dept. of the Marine to that location.

The first to move there will be the sea fisheries officers, who are currently in Leeson Lane in Dublin. As with most of the department, they could do their job anywhere, such is its lack of relevance to central Dublin. However, their boss (I can't remember his title) is staying in Leeson Lane. So, dear readers, will it be video-conferencing or shed loads of mileage everytime a meeting is called? I'm guessing they'll take the mileage. Cynic? Moi?

So, sit back and wait for the, "This is just the first of many.........", "We always keep our promises.......", "The opposition said it was a dead duck........they were wrong." etc...etc....

1. As I wrote above a long time ago, they could have moved Marine a few weeks after they announced the programme since they had all the numbers and all the grades. But, Parlon had to build a building. He couldn't rent one. That, of course, has been scrapped and they have leased offices in the West Cork Technology Park.

2. Given the mess their in, they are hoping that this will deflect attention from fiascos like FAS. Very unlikely, in my view. Clonakilty is a perfect example of consent in operation. But, remember that many of the 91 who will ultimately move there are already outside Dublin. e.g. In the CSO in Cork city.

This changes very little. But, the fact that they feel the need to use their trump card (His Bertieness) to do the planting, instead of Plonker Parlon, speaks volumes.

D.

Hotblack Desiato

How many of the 91 went with their job?

How many hundred years of corporate knowledge and training investment flushed away for this "momentous event" to take place?

Parlon et al still seem to think that 90+% staff turnover somehow isn't going to have a dramatic effect on service delivery for years to come.

Dinarius

Very few I think.

The point you make is relevant, which is why it hasn't been discussed. When the dust settles, the damage to the collective memory of the civil service will become painfully apparent.

D.

NewDubliner

When the dust settles, everyone will have forgotten the original promises of what the project was supposed to accomplish & nobody will know if it over-ran its budget.

It will be declared a 'great success'.

Hotblack Desiato

Just like all the previous ones were declared a great success and the associated problems were brushed under the carpet...

NewDubliner

Today FM covered the story, especially SIPTU's criticism.

Interestingly, RTE completely ignored it.

No doubt, Bertie will be pleased as long as the story gets nice coverage locally.

NewDubliner

From the Irish Independent, July 8th.

I think the last paragraph is clumsy spin by Ahern. he doesn't respond to the valid criticisms & just wants to plow on regardless.

BIM employees threatening to go on strike

THE Government's bid to decentralise Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) was dealt a blow yesterday after SIPTU said employees of the State body were prepared to go on strike rather than move to Cork.

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern was in Clonakilty yesterday announcing the tender for the new premises of BIM in the west Cork town. However, SIPTU's Owen Reidy of SIPTU's State and Related Agencies Branch said BIM was already highly decentralised with a presence in Donegal, Galway, Cork, Waterford and Wexford and that none of its employees were interested in moving to Clonakilty. "I am concerned that yet again we will have the situation where the government will invest tax payers money in to acquiring land, building a new premises etc. But it is a white elephant.

"Not one of the workers wish to go and it will remain uninhabited. Common sense should prevail now - and that is to remove Bord Iascaigh Mhara from the decentralisation plans."

Mr Reidy said the move to decentralise BIM to Cork was merely a political stroke for the benefit of Government TDs hoping to retain their seats at the next election.

The union has said if the government insists on pressing ahead it will ballot its members for industrial action. Meanwhile, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said the move was definitely going ahead and stressed that it was unfortunate that SIPTU had decided to take such a stand.

"We have worked with all of the civil service unions to move on. We are providing top quality offices in a top-quality location and we are anxious that people will see the sense of the overall project," he added.

NewDubliner

This from the Irish Examiner, July 8th:

€20m headquarters an ‘uninhabited white elephant’

By Donal Hickey and Harry McGee
A €20 MILLION national marine headquarters, planned for West Cork as part of the Government’s decentralisation programme, will become an ‘uninhabited, white elephant,’ a trade union official claimed, yesterday.

Owen Reidy, organiser of SIPTU’s state and related agencies branch, also described the announcement by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern as a political stroke aimed at garnering votes.

Mr Reidy said not one Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) employee had expressed an interest in decentralisation.

However, Mr Ahern said the facility, to be built in Clonakilty, would be completed by 2008 and would accommodate 210 civil and public servants.

While in the town, Mr Ahern also opened new, interim decentralised offices for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, where all marine functions of the department, including BIM, will be based.

But Mr Reidy said BIM was already highly decentralised with a presence in Donegal, Galway, Cork, Waterford and Wexford.

“Relocating its HQ to Clonakilty will do nothing for the industry, or the organisation. This is merely a political stroke for the benefit of Government TDs hoping to retain their seats at the next election,” he maintained.

Mr Ahern was accompanied by Marine Minister Noel Dempsey, who said the temporary offices, in the West Cork technology park, outside Clonakilty, would initially accommodate 50 staff who would move in over the coming months.

“Within 12 months, there will be a total of 120 staff from the department and the new Sea Fisheries Protection Authority located in Clonakilty,” the minister stated.

“All of the department’s existing marine and fishery functions will be located in Clonakilty by summer 2007,” Mr Dempsey stated.

Meanwhile, the department dismissed any suggestion that the new chairperson of BIM may have a conflict of interest in relation to the offices in Clonakilty.

The Labour Party yesterday said that the technology park in which the offices are located are owned by the SWS Group.

Party spokesperson on communications and natural resources Tommy Broughan pointed out Ruth McHugh, appointed to the chair of BIM last week, is currently the deputy CEO of the SWS Group.

Yesterday, Mr Broughan said that Ms McHugh was a distinguished Cork businesswoman and a person of integrity.

“However,” he continued, “I seriously question the wisdom and judgement of Minister Dempsey in appointing to the chair of BIM a person who is also involved at such a senior level in a property company that stands to benefit from the transfer of departmental office and potentially from the planned decentralisation of BIM to Clonakilty.”

However, the department responded by saying that no conflict of interest arose.

The spokesperson said Ms McHugh had no conflict of interest in the interim or final decentralisation plans for the department or BIM.

Victor

There a distinct 'doh!' factor in this piece.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2765-2262703,00.html

Revenue scuppers switch to new jobs
Richard Oakley

A FRESH row has broken out over the government’s controversial decentralisation plan as staff who volunteered to move to new jobs are told they cannot take them up until their replacements have been found.
IT experts, ready to decentralise to new employers, are being forced to remain in their jobs even though another agency or department has asked them to move immediately.

In some cases, employees have been told they must wait indefinitely as managers attempt to find suitable replacements, in effect holding them in their jobs against their will.

Public service unions say the problem is particularly acute in the Revenue Commissioners but that it is widespread and affects hundreds of state employees. The issue was raised at a meeting between officials and worker representatives recently after a number of staff made complaints.

The IT personnel affected are concerned they could lose their new jobs, which may be offered to others if they don’t take them up soon. They also argue they cannot prepare for their transfers as they do not know when they will be allowed to go.

Management in the public service has defended this latest development. It said its position was in keeping with a Department of Finance protocol on the transfer of IT staff involved in decentralisation.

Billy Hannigan, the assistant secretary general of the Public Service Executive Union, said: “It doesn’t make a lot of sense for this to be happening. The departments and agencies doing this are involved in the decentralisation process and they will need their new staff to transfer when required. Some workers have been told they must stay indefinitely until replacements are found and this is causing stress and confusion. If they are due to go, they should go and the employer should just have to deal with the disruption.”

Sean O’Riordain, general secretary of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants, said the situation was “yet another problem caused by the irrational way decentralisation is taking place”.

The union supports decentralisation in principle, but O’Riordain this weekend released an overview of the process to his members that was critical of the plan.

The government has extended the timetable for many of the moves involved and has claimed decentralisation is oversubscribed, with 10,600 applicants for 10,000 jobs. But O’Riordain outlined numerous problems that he said were causing a “sense of alienation and bitterness among very many thousands of Dublin-based public servants”.

He said: “What is not emphasised is that 5,600 Dublin-based public servants will not move from Dublin with the jobs being relocated from there. Less than one in 10 public servants in Dublin actually want to move.

“The programme is fundamentally dependant on a majority of already decentralised public servants in provincial posts transferring to the new locations and the overall figure of 10,600 includes an undefined element in the wrong grades and in the wrong numbers for the wrong locations.”

O’Riordain added that a surplus of 5,600 staff would be left in Dublin while their jobs relocated elsewhere and were filled by others.

NewDubliner

Victor wrote:

There a distinct 'doh!' factor in this piece.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2765-2262703,00.html

The governent requires Revenue to move all its IT operations including porogramming and development out of Dublin. Around 10% of the existing staff have indicated an interest in moving with their jobs. Most of the highly-trained & experienced IT people want to remain in Dublin with their families.

Has Revenue's plan for complying with government demands been published?

It would be interesting to know the costings.

Kildare town could do with all the extra newspaper & sandwich sales.

MadMoss

NewDubliner wrote:

Has Revenue's plan for complying with government demands been published?

It would be interesting to know the costings.

All Agencies and departments were required to do at least 2 reports on the management of decentralising there respective agency or department. These reports had to include financial estimates of decentralising.
Under the Freedom of Information Act we are all entitled to view these documents. (There is probably a nominal fee though.)

BlackWizard

NewDubliner wrote:

The governent requires Revenue to move all its IT operations including porogramming and development out of Dublin. Around 10% of the existing staff have indicated an interest in moving with their jobs. Most of the highly-trained & experienced IT people want to remain in Dublin with their families.

Has Revenue's plan for complying with government demands been published?

It would be interesting to know the costings.

Kildare town could do with all the extra newspaper & sandwich sales.

I work in revenue at the moment and work with the IT crowd a bit too.

There has been no publications recently. That 10% figure is dead on the button.

We actually dont buy many sandwiches. We eat the tax payers money for lunch everyday.

BolBill

In Agriculture, any COs that put their name forward for the PAS have not had them sent in by Personnel because they have no replacements for them if they leave.

Shambolic or wha' !

The_Conductor

BolBill wrote:

In Agriculture, any COs that put their name forward for the PAS have not had them sent in by Personnel because they have no replacements for them if they leave.

Shambolic or wha' !

Its not shambolic- they made a conscious decision not to send them. PED are playing hardball with Dublin recruitments (as you have gathered from the number of CPSU grades on temporary contracts in Ag headquarters). Regarding the PSEU grades- they did send them to the PAS- but are turning down requests from other departments who are offering people jobs, on the basis that there are not a commensurate inflow of people into HQ who want to decentralise to Portlaoise, and if they allow staff to leave that work in HQ will grind to a halt. While I can see where Personnel are coming from- its not fair on anyone to either have their PAS wishes ignored by not being posted at all- or ignored by being blocked. The CPSU are traditionally a lot ahem... more militant... than the PSEU on issues. Its rather odd that there hasn't been a peep out of them on this.......

The_Conductor

The attached has circulated in 2 government departments in the last two days.

utopian

smccarrick wrote:

The attached has circulated in 2 government departments in the last two days.

Don't see what that has to do with this thread. I presume the "activists" referred to are people not unconnected with the SWP?

The_Conductor

utopian wrote:

Don't see what that has to do with this thread. I presume the "activists" referred to are people not unconnected with the SWP?

PSEU actually.
Branch officers are normally referred to as "activists".
It is slightly off-topic to post it here- but only slightly, as it does refer to Decentralisation, benchmarking, provision of services by the civil service, outsourcing to the private sector and a whole lot of other things.

The reason for the disquiet in the civil service over the current proposals are that the "modernisation" programme forsees large tracts of the service being outsourced with a large number of accountability issues. Given current fiascos- I guess KPMG will not be on the short lists for tendering......

NewDubliner

From the 'Examiner, July 17.

Either someone got out of the wrong side of bed this morning or the door of the editorial office was left open when some FF spin-doctor was passing.

No attempt is made to state how many parking spaces are used by staff whose work involves driving. Nor how many spaces are used by consultants or advisors. It's basicly a tirade.

Civil service parking - Taxpayers left to foot the bill

THE average taxpayer has to pay benefit-in-kind, so there is no reason civil servants should be exempt from paying for parking spaces for which the public has to foot a bill of almost €11 million annually.

The total cost of 3,954 parking spaces for civil servants in Dublin comes to over €8.5m a year.

The cost of those spaces ranges from €31,751 for 10 spots for select members of staff at the Department of Finance in Lower Mount Street to €25,461 for seven spaces in Merrion Square, which works out at almost €500 extra for each of those slots.

Some 2,355 of the leased spaces are in the Dublin 1 and 2 postal areas.

Those cost €5.85m, which is an average of €2,483 per space per annum.

This is more than twice the €1,032 average cost for the 1,599 parking spaces elsewhere in the Dublin area.

Taxpayers in general are paying for the parking of civil servants, which is an aberration. The beneficiaries, who are among the highest-paid civil servants in the European Union, already enjoy 40% higher pay than their counterparts in the private sector in this country.

The total cost of parking spaces for civil servants in other cities outside the capital, such as Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford is €1.9m.

The 337 parking spaces for civil servants in Cork city cost €249,000 annually. The cost of each of those spaces ranges from just under €600 to €1,800 per annum.

There seems to be no limit to the extent to which the Government is prepared to pamper civil servants in relation to pay, pensions and job security.

There was a time when one of the drawbacks of a civil service job was the necessity to accept a transfer, but now it seems that they can refuse to move, even if their whole department is transferred.

They have made an utter farce of the Government’s decentralisation plans.

Maybe if the civil servants had to pay for their parking in Dublin, like other citizens, they might find decentralisation a much more attractive proposition.

But the State not only pays for their parking, it refuses fails to tax them for what is unquestionably a benefit-in-kind.

People in the private sector are told that the concept of a job for life is now outdated, but the civil servants seem to have their jobs for life, regardless of their performance. It is hard to imagine any mistakes for which they could be dismissed. For example, none of those responsible for the €1 billion fiasco in relation to the nursing home charges, or for the computer foul ups at the Department of Health, was dismissed.

Private sector employees are required to declare their parking spaces as a benefit-in-kind for tax purposes. There is no justification for exempting civil servants.

Justice and equity demand that the civil servants should be paying their fair share.

The whole concept of civil service is being turned upside down, with the public essentially serving the civil servants instead of the other way around.

Schuhart

People in the private sector are told that the concept of a job for life is now outdated, but the civil servants seem to have their jobs for life, regardless of their performance. It is hard to imagine any mistakes for which they could be dismissed. For example, none of those responsible for the €1 billion fiasco in relation to the nursing home charges, or for the computer foul ups at the Department of Health, was dismissed.

Private sector employees are required to declare their parking spaces as a benefit-in-kind for tax purposes. There is no justification for exempting civil servants.

Justice and equity demand that the civil servants should be paying their fair share.

In fairness, this part is simply correct.

NewDubliner

Schuhart wrote:

In fairness, this part is simply correct.

Nothing is simple.

Private sector employees are required to declare their parking spaces as a benefit-in-kind for tax purposes. There is no justification for exempting civil servants.

Are you quite sure about this?

According to the Revenue Web Site:

10.11 Car Parking
Car parking facilities provided by an employer to employees
are not treated as giving rise to a taxable benefit.