Decentralisation

BostonB

Decentralisation slower than expected - Cowen
Tuesday, 26 June 2007 22:24

Decentralisation is proceeding more slowly than projected due to its voluntary nature and industrial relations issues, according to the Minister for Finance Brian Cowen.

Minister Cowen said that State agencies did not have the same culture of retraining and departmental transfers as exists in the Civil Service.

He said that he expected line ministers to push for decentralisation in their respective departments, but that this could only occur with the agreement of the unions and through established industrial relations machinery.

Culture of departmental transfers. Whats that mean then?

NewDubliner

BostonB wrote:

Culture of departmental transfers. Whats that mean then?

It means nobody really caring what job they do & moving from department to department before they get found out.

Victor

NewDubliner wrote:

It means nobody really caring what job they do & moving from department to department before they get found out.

You mean like the members of the cabinet?

Well if people are unwilling/unable to relocate to the midlands with their jobs, there are enough locals willing (& able) to do the work and they can take the jobs we leave in Dublin.

It would certainly save me an 80 mile each way commute.

If I'm repeating someone elses comments, I apologise, but 1800 odd posts in, life's too short to read them all

BostonB

NewDubliner wrote:

It means nobody really caring what job they do & moving from department to department before they get found out.

Funny. But I thought the staff have no mechanisim to transfer between agencies. Different contracts different terms and conditions etc.

BostonB

Deleted User wrote:

Well if people are unwilling/unable to relocate to the midlands with their jobs, there are enough locals willing (& able) to do the work and they can take the jobs we leave in Dublin.

It would certainly save me an 80 mile each way commute.

If I'm repeating someone elses comments, I apologise, but 1800 odd posts in, life's too short to read them all

Nothings stopping you. Of course in a few years they might move you from the midlands to Kerry.

http://www.publicjobs.ie/

K-9

Smccarrick wrote:

The thread really has descended into a thread where its an us-versus-them thread- people down the country who think they deserve to have jobs moved into their localities- and that those Dubs are simply being intransient in refusing to move, instead of looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is what makes most sense for the country as a whole- and no matter what way you present arguments, the current proposals do not make sense for the country as a whole.

I don't think it's an us v. them thread, definitely not an anti-Dub thread. Just because it doesn't make any sense economically doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing for the country. As i keep being reminded this isn't the private sector.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

How can you justify this? Spite? 'Anti-Dublin' mindset? There is no economic or business justification for the 'decentralisation' current plan.

The statistics show a very low interest among Dubliners to relocate with their jobs. The success of the plan depended mostly on this and to some extent on inter-changeability, but underestimated the very real issues.

No amount of coercion or 'sack-em-all' bluster will make this plan work.

Not at all anti-Dub but if all the jobs where moved to towns/cities in the national spatial strategy there still would be opposition. On the same basis it could be argued this is anti-country!

Economic justification? Well as the private sector Co. relocated in the link I quoted earlier for economic reasons, it was pointed out that that is different and isn't comparable to the decentralisation scheme.

smccarrick wrote:

Under equality legislation I don't think its possible to ask whether people are single/married/cohabiting. The statistics regarding the number of men and women in the civil service are freely available from the Department of Finance- ditto their age profiles. Those are accurate figures. An accurate figure is also that currently there are 973 couples included in the number of jobs that are proposed to be decentralised (on the decentralisation form people were asked to specify if they had a partner working in the civil service and if so what their RSI number was/is). Note: thats just the people who filled out the decentralisation form- a majority of the Dublin based staff didn't bother (this number is known, but is not freely available)

smccarrick wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by smccarrick
As I pointed out in this thread several times- totally aside from the people whose jobs are being decentralised having no say in the matter- the simple fact of the matter is that 64% of the civil service are women, the vast majority of whose partners may be employed elsewhere (but even when they are also civil servants- for the most part will not be working in the same government department). A further aside is that 43% of all civil servants are over the age of 50. There was an embargo in place in the civil service for 5 years from 2000 onwards- which did not help the demographics of staff employed there.

smccarrick wrote:

Well, strange that you should bring it up- but there is an abnormally large number of single people working in the civil service.

So there is no accurate figures on the married/cohabitating couples and single people in the civil service. But I do think it is a reasonable assumption to make, as you did yourself, that a lot would have partners etc.i.e. the 64% Women.

smccarrick wrote:

Would you like to clarify what your opposition to redeployment of staff is? Surely it makes sense to have staff gainfully employed?

Nothing really, but of course I'd prefer to avoid it:D. If my employer moves to Dublin I would have the chance to relocate but not redeploy. Yes, I would have redundancy for my 4 years ( not much ) but I wouldn't have the option of redeployment. Redeployment will rarely have a perfect job close to you, especially in specialised areas like the civil service. Really can everybody expect to have the same job close to us so that we can redeploy?

Victor wrote:

You mean like the members of the cabinet?

Well they can't redeploy/decentralise or stay in their job by choice. They don't have great job security either!


I did get a bit carried away there with the public service but it was in a debate with BostonB. Apologies

NewDubliner wrote:

Quote:
Decentralisation slower than expected - Cowen
Tuesday, 26 June 2007 22:24

Decentralisation is proceeding more slowly than projected due to its voluntary nature and industrial relations issues, according to the Minister for Finance Brian Cowen.

Minister Cowen said that State agencies did not have the same culture of retraining and departmental transfers as exists in the Civil Service.

He said that he expected line ministers to push for decentralisation in their respective departments, but that this could only occur with the agreement of the unions and through established industrial relations machinery.

He does have a point, State agencies wouldn't have the same experience on decentralisation as has been pointed out here they are not the Civil Service.

It will only occur with the agreement with unions and through ind. relations machinery.....Is that a bad thing?

Smccarrick wrote:

Also- the IT sections seem to be resting in Maynooth temporarily- and are sort of saying that they have no intention of moving further afield, they want to go to Backweston instead (and keep the old Irish Sugar buildings etc).

Somebody said this thread was anti-Dub?

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

It will only occur with the agreement with unions and through ind. relations machinery.....Is that a bad thing?

The unions can only get the best deal they can for the Dublin members whose jobs are being taken away. They cannot oppose the plan on the grounds that it would lead to less efficiency and increased service costs. No amount of job security will compensate a career IT specialist who's moved to a boring paper-clip counting job.

The rural towns are blinded by the government promises and have no notion that the somebody will have to pay. We're still paying more for the decentralisation of of the legal aid board to Cahirciveen.

BostonB

Seanies32 wrote:

...
Economic justification? Well as the private sector Co. relocated in the link I quoted earlier for economic reasons, it was pointed out that that is different and isn't comparable to the decentralisation scheme.

Well not in the same economic sense. It will be more expensive to run the section/dept in the new location when all factors are considered. Whereas with a private company the aim is generally to save/make money. You could argue that decentralisation will promote growth in the decentralisated location. But thats hard to quantify, and especially when the numbers are tiny, compared to immigration for example, and many people will still commute to the decentralisation location. If the location was part of the NDP it would have a cumlinative effect with oher development. But the current decentralisation plan isn't part of that, so its effect is completely diluted. IMO

Seanies32 wrote:

...
He does have a point, State agencies wouldn't have the same experience on decentralisation as has been pointed out here they are not the Civil Service.

IMO what hes saying doesn't make sense. Same experience? They have no experience. Because you can't transfer between agencies. End of story. They would need to put a mechanisim in place to do this and they haven't. It would be more accurately to say they can't transfer because the Govt haven't got the finger out to achieve this. Besides theres been no study of what roles are common between them either so who knows if theres a mismatch of skillset that would make this unworkable anyway.

Seanies32 wrote:

...
Somebody said this thread was anti-Dub?

Perhaps. The current plan leaves no scope or appreciation for people who can't move out of Dublin or surrounding areas.

Macy

Seanies32 wrote:

He does have a point, State agencies wouldn't have the same experience on decentralisation as has been pointed out here they are not the Civil Service.

State Agency employee's are employed by those individual agencies. This was originally done to give these employee's lesser terms and conditions than true Civil Servants. It is the Department of Finance that should've realised this when they drew up the plan (and to be fair, there is evidence that the Civil Servants did point this out, but were ignored by McCreevy and Parlon). Cowen's had how many years now to deal with this issue? They haven't even tried to address it with talks with the unions. Infact the Department of Finance doesn't even recognise SIPTU (the main union in the State Agencies involved) for negotiation purposes, so there isn't even the mechanism to directly talk to that Union as things stand!

It also ignores that many of the state agencies already have a presence around the country. For example, in FAS 2,100 of the staff are already based outside of their Head Office. BIM would have regional area offices. Bus Eireann employee's would be based around the country.

NewDubliner

I was watching 'The week in politics' last night.

Willie O'Dea successfully maintained the government smokescreen and neither RTE nor FG asked any really hard questions, they just hadn't done their homework. Value for money & effect on efficiency are now forgotten as the government juggernaut rumbles on.

O'Dea scored a sneaky point by insisting that the moves were entirely voluntary without mentioning the promotion embargo and imminent white-walling of many Dublin specialists.

BostonB

I think decentralisation will happen slowly, but it will happen. In 10yrs for now it will be seen for the white elephant it is.

NewDubliner

BostonB wrote:

I think decentralisation will happen slowly, but it will happen. In 10yrs for now it will be seen for the white elephant it is.

I disagree that it will be seen as a 'white elephant'. In 10 years time, everyone will have forgotten what the project's goals were, some people will have moved job from Limerick to Listowel, others from Cahirciveen to Killarney and it will be declared a 'great success' and 'far-sighted'. But, in 10 years time, people will be paying more tax and public services will be worse than now. Everyone will blame the public service workers.

In 10 years time, the government will probably be campaigning to move people out of their on-off houses and out of their SUVs and back to the cities where economies of scale will make it easier to provide public transport, water, sewage, broadband, health, social and electricity services.

NewDubliner

From RTE:

This could have implications for the proposed banishment of all Civil Service IT workers from Dublin.

Court rules on FÁS decentralisation plans
Monday, 27 August 2007 17:29

The Government's decentralisation programme has suffered a significant setback as the Labour Court ruled that State agency FÁS cannot make promotions conditional on the recipient being prepared to relocate from Dublin.

Staff at the state agency had taken industrial action in protest that the introduction of the so-called 'promotions clause'.

In his recommendation, Labour Court Chairman Kevin Duffy said that staff applying for promotions had the right to be judged on suitability and merit alone.
Advertisement

He said that if staff exercised their right not to move to Co Offaly, they would be denied access to promotions to which they could normally aspire.

He said that given the importance of career progression for those involved, such a state of affairs is incompatible with any reasonable notion of voluntarism.

The Labour Court acknowledges that similar promotion clauses were introduced in the civil service but says there is a difference of scale between employment in the civil service and individual state agencies.

There is also a greater possibility of interdepartmental transfers in the civil service.

eigrod

Will be interesting how this ruling will be applied to Confined Inter-Departmental Promotion Competitions on the Civil Service side which have had this stipulation attached to it also, although the ruling stated that the scale of the Civil Service makes it different to State Agencies.

Looks like it's the death knell for the scheme on the State Agency side anyways.

The_Conductor

eigrod wrote:

Will be interesting how this ruling will be applied to Confined Inter-Departmental Promotion Competitions on the Civil Service side which have had this stipulation attached to it also, although the ruling stated that the scale of the Civil Service makes it different to State Agencies.

Looks like it's the death knell for the scheme on the State Agency side anyways.

Latest Dept. of Agriculture Internal HEO ICT competition states that successful candidates have to sign up to 3 years in Portlaoise, which may be proceeded by lengthly stays in Maynooth and Backweston, Co. Kildare. Wonder does the current ruling have any bearing on this?

NewDubliner

smccarrick wrote:

Latest Dept. of Agriculture Internal HEO ICT competition states that successful candidates have to sign up to 3 years in Portlaoise, which may be proceeded by lengthly stays in Maynooth and Backweston, Co. Kildare. Wonder does the current ruling have any bearing on this?

It could have the effect of exposing the double standard that ICT staff are supposed to be general service in every way except when the government realises that they're actually quite valuable specialists and that various people have been tagged as 'IT' so as to try and ensure their essential skills are not lost in the decentralisation churn.

eigrod

The whole process is at a very interesting crossroads now. With Parlon gone, is there any other scapegoat out there willing to grasp the ****ty end of this stick now ? Can't see anyone in the Green Party doing so, given that they called for it to be scrapped in their pre-election manifesto.

Time for Departmental Sec Gens, who clearly are against this since day 1, to start putting a bit of pressure on their Ministers as it's making for very difficult working environment in many departments for staff who want to move but can't be certain that they will and for staff that don't want to go at all.

BostonB

I get the impression that the Govt pretty much feel they have a free hand to do anything they want now. All the promises, corruption, failing to deliver in so many area's. But still get voted in. Why not keep not keep decentralization rolling.

Liam Byrne

BostonB wrote:

Why not keep not keep decentralization rolling.

:eek: Waaah! Spelling it like that, I almost thought we'd all be moving to the U.S. for jobs (which could actually be the case if the mismanagement of the country continues :rolleyes: )

BostonB

Its some spelling check thingy in Firefox. Defaults to US.

MG

It's interesting comparing decentralisation to the Shannon AL contraversy. It seems to me that the lobby behind thwarting decentralisation is far more powerful than the Shannon lobby but gets far less attention. In fact, the media seem to be very much behind the Trade Union lobby against decentralisation.

Specifically on the Labour Court recommendation, it seems correct that promoton should be based on ability rather than location (another days debate - does promotion happen on merit in the Civil service????). However, surely the consequence of this, and unfortunately the way it has always been, is that in reality one has to stay in Dublin to get promotion and therefore the whole process actually is location dependant.

The_Conductor

MG wrote:

It's interesting comparing decentralisation to the Shannon AL contraversy. It seems to me that the lobby behind thwarting decentralisation is far more powerful than the Shannon lobby but gets far less attention. In fact, the media seem to be very much behind the Trade Union lobby against decentralisation.

Specifically on the Labour Court recommendation, it seems correct that promoton should be based on ability rather than location (another days debate - does promotion happen on merit in the Civil service????). However, surely the consequence of this, and unfortunately the way it has always been, is that in reality one has to stay in Dublin to get promotion and therefore the whole process actually is location dependant.

You aren't allowed to apply for promotion in the civil service unless 1) you've been in your current grade for a specific length of time, 2) your sickness and leave record are exemplary, 3) your annnual appraisal is above a certain level, 4) you sit written tests on aptitude, numerical ability and verbal reasoning, 5) you submit to a structured interview, 6) You must give a presentation to an interview panel of scenarios relevant to the promotion you are applying for.......

If you manage to clear 1-6 above, you 'may' be placed on a promotion panel (then again you may not). I'd like someone to say that merit is not involved there.......

Edit- in the current situation, one has to agree not to stay in Dublin in order to get a promotion (irrespective of whether or not they are currently in Dublin). There is no case at present where you can be in Dublin and intend to stay in Dublin- and still go for promotion- so its the opposite of what you are suggesting. The Dublin based people have been hung out to dry. Mind you- the civil service is not based in Dublin- over 2/3 of civil servants are outside the greater Dublin region- so the current scheme suits them fine- and the unions don't really care, as it benefits more people than it screws......

S.

NewDubliner

MG wrote:

........the media seem to be very much behind the Trade Union lobby against decentralisation.

It think this is inaccurate. There is no anti-decentralisation lobby.

There are many people who oppose the wasteful spending represented by the current scheme.

There are many different kinds of people who oppose it, from motorists who'll suffer from increased traffic congestion caused by it, people whose taxes will increase, those who will suffer from diminished services and finally, the staff whose careers and family lives will be ruined.

Firetrap

No, I don't think there's a lobby either. To be honest, I don't think people who aren't directly affected by decentralisation give it any thought at all. It is nice to see a setback like the FÁS one though :cool: I wonder will any TD take up the mantle of Tom Parlon (who?) and try to convince all and sundry that it really is a great idea to move to Dungarvan/Clonakilty/Hackballscross

The problem with decentralisation is that no political party will have the guts to call it off for fear of invoking the ire of the natives of the towns earmarked for decentralising departments. I'm sure that privately a lot of Fianna Fail TDs know it's a dead duck and that they bit off more than they could chew but they're never going to admit that.

NewDubliner

Firetrap wrote:

I wonder will any TD take up the mantle of Tom Parlon

Tom Parlon was special, it would be hard for anyone to be as unconvincing as him. But I think Willie O'Dea and Michael O'Cuiv are in the running. Both have the 'screw Dublin and give us the jobs' attitude.

MG

smccarrick wrote:

You aren't allowed to apply for promotion in the civil service unless 1) you've been in your current grade for a specific length of time, 2) your sickness and leave record are exemplary, 3) your annnual appraisal is above a certain level, 4) you sit written tests on aptitude, numerical ability and verbal reasoning, 5) you submit to a structured interview, 6) You must give a presentation to an interview panel of scenarios relevant to the promotion you are applying for.......

If you manage to clear 1-6 above, you 'may' be placed on a promotion panel (then again you may not). I'd like someone to say that merit is not involved there.......

It'sinteresting that the first criterion you mention is length of service. As I said that's another day's debate.

smccarrick wrote:

Edit- in the current situation, one has to agree not to stay in Dublin in order to get a promotion (irrespective of whether or not they are currently in Dublin). There is no case at present where you can be in Dublin and intend to stay in Dublin- and still go for promotion- so its the opposite of what you are suggesting. The Dublin based people have been hung out to dry. Mind you- the civil service is not based in Dublin- over 2/3 of civil servants are outside the greater Dublin region- so the current scheme suits them fine- and the unions don't really care, as it benefits more people than it screws......

S.

If you read my post, you will see that I agree with the Labour COurt recommendation that decouples promotion and leaving Dublin. The point is that to achieve promotion now, are you almost effectivelty oblioged to stay in Dublin? You mention that 2/3 of civil servents are outside the greater Dublin region ( I'll take that as being correct, I've never been able to find that out), but would it be fair to say that the higher grades (i.e. promotion opportuinities) are primarily based in Dublin?

MG

NewDubliner wrote:

It think this is inaccurate. There is no anti-decentralisation lobby.

There are many people who oppose the wasteful spending represented by the current scheme.

There are many different kinds of people who oppose it, from motorists who'll suffer from increased traffic congestion caused by it, people whose taxes will increase, those who will suffer from diminished services and finally, the staff whose careers and family lives will be ruined.

I have to disagree, though I will say that they are far more subtle than the Shannon lobby. Effectively, the unions & public representatives in Dublin are doing exactly the same as in Shannon by opposing relocating job outside of their area.

The public service unions are lobbying hard against it because their members don't want to move house etc. Very few people against it oppose it because it is "wasteful", they oppose it because it doesn't suit them. Unfortunately the debate about decentralisation has rarely touched on the public good.

Personnally, I'd decentralise all the jobs to Belfast and unite the Shannon & Dublin lobbies

Hotblack Desiato

MG wrote:

It'sinteresting that the first criterion you mention is length of service.

Unlike years ago, it's not a criterion, it's a prerequisite. Usually two years in your present grade is requried, but service longer than that does NOT gain you anything. On the contrary, there have been several age discrimination cases lost by government departments who failed to give staff with high seniority a fair crack at promotion.

The point is that to achieve promotion now, are you almost effectivelty oblioged to stay in Dublin?

No, although the scatter-gun approach to decentralisation will mean that in future, staff serving in the regions who wish to be promoted will have to be prepared to move to another location (other than Dublin).

You mention that 2/3 of civil servents are outside the greater Dublin region ( I'll take that as being correct, I've never been able to find that out)

It IS correct, just something the anti-Dublin crowd keep very quiet about.
There are Social Welfare, Revenue, Garda, Fas, etc. etc. offices all over the place.

but would it be fair to say that the higher grades (i.e. promotion opportuinities) are primarily based in Dublin?

Only really at assistant secretary level (i.e. 2 or 3 levels below the Minister)
and above. Probably less than 100 people in the country across all government departments. You have to have a capital somewhere :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

MG wrote:

Effectively, the unions & public representatives in Dublin are doing exactly the same as in Shannon by opposing relocating job outside of their area.

That's rubbish, the only union really opposed to decentralisation is SIPTU and they represent only a handful of civil servants, if any (they are stronger in the state agencies like Fas however.)

The actual civil service unions - CPSU are in favour, PSEU "neither for nor against" officially but in practice in favour (doing little on behalf of their Dublin members) and the AHCPS, representing senior grades and by far the smallest of the three is opposed, but mainly on the grounds of waste of money.

The public service unions are lobbying hard against it

I categorically assure you, the civil service unions are doing no such thing.

Very few people against it oppose it because it is "wasteful", they oppose it because it doesn't suit them. Unfortunately the debate about decentralisation has rarely touched on the public good.

There are many good reasons to oppose the present programme... does it matter which one you concentrate on? They're all valid.

I must have read by now well over a hundred articles in the various national newspapers about the waste of money and damage to public services that this programme is bringing.

NewDubliner

This is the editorial from the 'Examiner'. Totally ignores the cost and benefit issues and insinuates that the selfish staff should go wherever they're told for the 'greater good'. I think there's still quite a bit of Cork begrudgery in the (Cork) Examiner.

Decentralisation fiasco - Proposal doomed to sit in dust

THE Labour Court ruling that FÁS cannot make promotion conditional on staff being prepared to move to the training body’s proposed new headquarters in Birr, Co Offaly, is the final nail in the coffin for the Government’s decentralisation policy.

Announced on December 3, 2003, during a budget speech by then finance minister Charlie McCreevy, with his customary bluster and dismissive sabre rattling, the policy has been consigned to the back of the bottom drawer in the Government’s must-do filing cabinet.

Decentralisation’s demise is a pity. It is not the only good idea languishing in that dusty hospice for ambition — but condemned it most certainly is.

Any doubts about the status of the proposals can be put aside after even a fleeting glance at the official Government decentralisation website. It was most recently modified on October 16 — almost a year ago — an urgency reflected in the fact that the site admits it has had fewer than 850 visitors.

This urgency is infectious as the Public Appointments Service website decentralisation news update was last amended in September 2006.

Though as much a strategy to win the recent election as a realistic proposal, Mr McCreevy ignored imperatives outlined in spatial strategy policy, undermining that essential process in a profound way.

So what went wrong? Did Mr McCreevy overestimate the appetite of civil servants and the employees of State agencies for an alternative to life to the one they led in Dublin; for a life of blackberry picking, nights of amateur drama productions in windy parish halls and intermediate football? Did he underestimate the grip the charms of the capital and easy access to third-level education had on those he wished to transfer?

What he — and the Taoiseach who must have given his blessing — did underestimate was the opposition of those expected to move from Dublin.

Equally, Mr McCreevy overestimated his capacity to deliver despite bringing the flexibility of a contortionist to the definition of what decentralisation actually was.

The Public Appointments Service tells us that more than 10,500 civil and public servants applied to relocate. The website tells us that movement of staff within and between departments and offices continues with more than 2,100 staff “already assigned to posts which will decentralise”. This all sounds dandy but remember the site was last updated in September 2006.

All of this is a pity and once again shows our way of doing business in an archaic and poor light. Decentralisation — essentially an excellent and inevitable idea — has fallen on the notion of job ownership.

Those employed in the positions considered suitable for decentralisation believed — and were vindicated by the Labour Court — that the jobs were their personal property and not a function of public service, a function of how this society manages and sustains itself.

They believed that their rights outweighed the rights of the society that employs them to try to evolve in a sustainable way.

Self-interest has won the day but, once again, any criticism must be severely qualified by the acceptance that the notion of the greater good has been consigned to a place far more remote and dusty than even the very back of the bottom drawer in the filing cabinet.

However, the sorry episode has provided some light relief for the workers in the private sector. More used to seeing jobs decentralised — without any negotiation — to Bangalore rather than Banagher and unfamiliar with the comforts and security offered by the Labour Court, they can only wonder: how do they get away with it?

Victor

Lets move the Examiner Sports Desk to Kilkenny.

Firetrap

Interesting. Have they hit a brick wall when it comes to moving staff in state agencies?

Govt cannot force State agency staff - Cowen
Thursday, 30 August 2007 22:54

The Minister for Finance, Brian Cowen, has accepted that the Government cannot force public servants to leave Dublin by making promotions conditional on decentralising to the regions.

Mr Cowen was responding to a Labour Court recommendation which criticised the State training agency, FÁS, for introducing a so-called 'promotions clause' into future employment contracts.

FÁS staff were told they would only be eligible for promotion if they were prepared to move to Birr, Co Offaly.
Advertisement

Labour Court chairman Kevin Duffy said decentralisation of State bodies cannot be handled in the same way as the civil service because of the difficulty of staff transferring to a different agency if they chose to stay in Dublin.

He also recommended that effecting decentralisation on a voluntary basis can best be achieved by identifying realistic alternative career options for those who do not want to move.

Mr Cowen said that each State agency and its parent department would now have to take account of the Labour Court ruling.

He said the Government accepts the recommendation of the Labour Court, and believes it reflects concerns previously expressed by the Decentralisation Implementation Group.

The Tánaiste has asked his Department to engage with the unions representing staff in the State agencies generally to establish how progress can be made on this aspect of the Labour Court recommendation.

Mr Cowen went on to stress that decentralisation was progressing 'well' in the civil service.

He said that approximately 40% all civil service posts due to relocate are already filled, and he estimated that around 2,000 of these posts will have moved to their new locations by the end of the year.

Hotblack Desiato

Firetrap wrote:

Interesting. Have they hit a brick wall when it comes to moving staff in state agencies?

Yes, definitely.

Also bear in mind that the 40% of civil service posts which have been filled, have mostly been filled by staff already working outside of Dublin.

In effect, it's a very expensive game of musical chairs where people shift from one provincial post to another one slightly closer to their home. Very few people will be moving their home, the so-called economic benefits for these towns do not exist.

At least one recent newspaper article specified "maintaining property prices" as a supposed benefit of decentralisation, how is that a benefit for local would-be first time buyers?

The hard questions left unanswered, as ever, are how they are going to fill the provincial vacancies left by "decentralisers", and what is going to happen to the surplus Dublin staff.

The_Conductor

Irish Times poll of the day today is: Should the government proceed with its Decentralisation plans? Its almost amusing reading the comments.......

http://scripts.ireland.com/polls/breaking/index.cfm

NewDubliner

smccarrick wrote:

Irish Times poll of the day today is: Should the government proceed with its Decentralisation plans? Its almost amusing reading the comments.......http://scripts.ireland.com/polls/breaking/index.cfm

Interesting that while the majority vote is in favour, the comments are mostly negative. Typical of a situation where the proponents can't produce any rational arguments in favour of the current scam/scheme. But they still want it.

K-9

There is absolutely NO reason, other than those afore mentioned, to spread government human resources all over the map especially when their past record shows they have been up and running smoothly and efficiently in Dublin for decades.

Plenty of good reasons given but thats the worst!

Anyway, I think decentralisation is one of those issues that people are not going to agree on. In a way as posted on the poll site it is similar to Aet Lingus and Shannon. Not exactly the same reasons of course, but the staff in the airport are quite similar to staff in the decentralisation programme. There are interesting similarities.

Profit comes into the Aer Lingus debate but it shouldn't necessarily be the main concern for decentralisation. They wouldn't want to move even if the plan was to move the hub to Dublin. Its a tough situation but on this thread every poster in the last few months seems to be anti decentralisation and aren't going to be turkeys voting for Xmas!

NewDubliner

Anyway, I think decentralisation is one of those issues that people are not going to agree on.

This because the 'pro-decentralisation' lobby refuses to engage in rational, fact-based debate and constantly move the goalposts when each argument is challenged and discredited.

Profit comes into the Aer Lingus debate but it shouldn't necessarily be the main concern for decentralisation.

This is shifting the goalposts. One of the main planks of the government's argument has been that its scheme would lead to reduced costs.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

Unfortunately the debate about decentralisation has rarely touched on the public good.

This is true - the debate is always debated as a HR issue. Its all about whether the staff want to move or not. When you reflect on it, that's actually irrelevant. If the State saved money by sending people to Urlingford, then the public interest would be to send them to Urlingford whether they wanted to go or not. If (as is actually the case) it costs a squad of money to shift people out of Dublin and there's no discernable benefit other than a load of fat County Councillors getting their mugshot in the local paper at the opening of the new offices, then clearly we should not do it even if the staff were chomping at the bit.

MG wrote:

It's interesting comparing decentralisation to the Shannon AL contraversy. It seems to me that the lobby behind thwarting decentralisation is far more powerful than the Shannon lobby but gets far less attention.

I'd suggest reflecting on this again. The Shannon lobby managed to stunt Irish aviation for decades, all for the sake of a packed payroll in Clare. The massive cost inflicted on the nation for this modest gain strikes me as evidende of considerable influence. They even managed to get Government to lobby against Open Skies - which is really flat-earth stuff.

On the other hand, decentralisation is like Fianna Fail's Iraq war. Whatever political gain or objective they were trying to achieve has long vanished in the mist. However, despite being a very obviously costly and pointless policy, they cannot reverse it. If there was a coherent anti-Decentralisation lobby with influence, the Government would have rowed back the minute McCreevy got EU Commissioner. Alternatively, they'd do it right now to allow the dust to settle before the next election. Instead, they are scrabbling around trying to send some fecker to somewhere West of Maynooth at any price rather than admit they should just never have published such a daft scheme in the first place.

The Heathrow slots moving from Shannon is actually the first time a West of Ireland lobby has been comprehensively told to feck off. I've a feeling this is simply because the Northern card trumps the Western card. Belfast now carries more political weight than Shannon - unsurprisingly.

Firetrap

I also think a lot of people can't get past the whole "Dublin has all the jobs" mentality. Whilst I do think that having certain departments or sections of them outside of Dublin is a good idea if thought out and done properly, Decentralisation as it's currently set out is not the way to go. I also frequently read snide comments in the media about staff in the public service who are supposedly all inefficient, lazy, overpaid and have great pensions. This is a compensation for being told they've to move to a different job in the arse end of Donegal.

Hotblack Desiato

Seanies32 wrote:

Anyway, I think decentralisation is one of those issues that people are not going to agree on.

I think everyone on this thread agrees that decentralisation is not a bad idea in principle.

In practice the current plan is an expensive, unimplementable, inefficient mess that will inflate the cost and reduce the effectiveness of public services for decades to come.

Given the increasing links between 'targets' and cost-of-living pay rises in the public sector, it's the staff who will end up carrying the can for politician's folly.

In a way as posted on the poll site it is similar to Aet Lingus and Shannon. Not exactly the same reasons of course, but the staff in the airport are quite similar to staff in the decentralisation programme. There are interesting similarities.

There is nothing more than a superficial similarity which is misleading.
Aer Lingus will gain efficiency from moving from Shannon.
Public services will lose efficiency by moving to 53 scattered locations.

NewDubliner

ninja900 wrote:

There is nothing more than a superficial similarity which is misleading.Aer Lingus will gain efficiency from moving from Shannon.
Public services will lose efficiency by moving to 53 scattered locations.

I think the point the 'pro-decentralisation' poster was trying to make was that it didn't matter if the scheme resulted in higher taxes or reduced efficiency, it is 'good for the regions' and that overrides any business logic.

BostonB

NewDubliner wrote:

...it is 'good for the regions' and that overrides any business logic.

Has it any significant impact in the regions compared to the impact of net immigration in those same regions?

NewDubliner

BostonB wrote:

Has it any significant impact in the regions compared to the impact of net immigration in those same regions?

The present scheme has no mechanisms to estimate costs and benefits nor to measure the outcome. If it turns out to be a costly failure, there's no plan 'b'.

The arguments from the pro-decentralisation lobby run like this:

"It could be of some benefit to the regions."

"It might lead to reduced costs. Or, it might not."

"People can work outside of Dublin".

"We must do it."

K-9

ninja900 wrote:

Aer Lingus will gain efficiency from moving from Shannon.
Public services will lose efficiency by moving to 53 scattered locations.

Yes, they probably will gain efficiency but the staff still aren't happy!:D

Shows you sometimes staff aren't the best barometer.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes, they probably will gain efficiency

Or more likely, in the case of the Civil & Public Services, probably not.

How will you estimate the efficiency gains and and how will you measure the cost of achieving them?

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

Or more likely, in the case of the Civil & Public Services, probably not.

How will you estimate the efficiency gains and and how will you measure the cost of achieving them?

Its very much a case of those who are advocating the scheme delibertly not having a manner of measuring these gains/losses, so that a measure of success or failure on economic grounds cannot be measured. Of course, they would have you believe that economics have nothing whatsoever to do with it- that every little bohereen should have a small office on it, with locals employed- not those Dublin jackeens, who we really don't want in our communities anyhow. Shure, our local politicians have told us that these jobs can be done by anyone- so why not encourage as many of our youngsters as possible to stay in the area instead of migrating to Dublin/other towns/cities?

We've already decentralised 75% of the civil service and large tracts of the public sector out of the greater Dublin region- sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Towns like Longford and Ballinasloe feel very aggrieved by the current proposals- as the DSFA are moving staff from Longford to Carrick, and the Department of Agriculture from Ballinasloe to Portlaoise...... Local politicians never highlighted this happening- and people do feel agrieved.

When will this country ever wake up and see politicians for what they really are?

MG

ninja900 wrote:

Unlike years ago, it's not a criterion, it's a prerequisite. Usually two years in your present grade is requried, but service longer than that does NOT gain you anything. On the contrary, there have been several age discrimination cases lost by government departments who failed to give staff with high seniority a fair crack at promotion.

Does this not perhaps weigh on the mind of the decision makers?

ninja900 wrote:

That's rubbish, the only union really opposed to decentralisation is SIPTU and they represent only a handful of civil servants, if any (they are stronger in the state agencies like Fas however.)

The actual civil service unions - CPSU are in favour, PSEU "neither for nor against" officially but in practice in favour (doing little on behalf of their Dublin members) and the AHCPS, representing senior grades and by far the smallest of the three is opposed, but mainly on the grounds of waste of money.

I tend not to distinguish between civil and public servants, semi state workers, rather seeing all as government employees. SIPTU are the largest trades union in the country. The AHCPS represents the most powerful government officials. To me that’s a lobby and a damn powerful one.

Schuhart wrote:

This is true - the debate is always debated as a HR issue. Its all about whether the staff want to move or not. When you reflect on it, that's actually irrelevant. If the State saved money by sending people to Urlingford, then the public interest would be to send them to Urlingford whether they wanted to go or not. If (as is actually the case) it costs a squad of money to shift people out of Dublin and there's no discernable benefit other than a load of fat County Councillors getting their mugshot in the local paper at the opening of the new offices, then clearly we should not do it even if the staff were chomping at the bit.

I’d actually disagree with this. The last thing it’s been debated as is a HR issue, which is natural as it would not be wise for civil & public servants to actually come out and say that real reason they don’t want to leave is that they are comfortable with their lives right now and don’t really fancy moving down to the sticks. Much better to come up with vague notions about inefficiencies. Meanwhile, multinational manage to work in separate locations and most are outsourcing work in India and China, while running a European accounting centre from an IDA industrial estate. Some other ideas for vague excuses are:

1The administration is in its early months and there's an awful lot to do at once.
2. Something ought to be done but is this the right way to achieve it?
3. The idea is good but the time is not ripe.
4. The proposal has run into technical, logistic and legal difficulties which are being sorted out.

A transfer to Urlingford to the first person to figure out which most appropriate figure gave me these ideas……….

Schuhart wrote:

The Heathrow slots moving from Shannon is actually the first time a West of Ireland lobby has been comprehensively told to feck off. I've a feeling this is simply because the Northern card trumps the Western card. Belfast now carries more political weight than Shannon - unsurprisingly.

Agreed. And the acid test of the power of the anti decentralization lobby will be to see if they are given the same message.

NewDubliner

MG wrote:

Agreed. And the acid test of the power of the anti decentralization lobby will be to see if they are given the same message.

There is no anti-decentralisation lobby. There is a lobby that opposes government waste.

A scheme which has no reference to cost or benefit cannot succeed.

This is not a vague notion, it's a certainty.

Just as Aer Lingus has told the mid-west to cop-on, so should the government.