Decentralisation

Schuhart

MG wrote:

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.

Think again. The story that sparks this most recent bit of interest is a Labour Court ruling that people who opt to remain in Dublin must have access to promotion in Dublin. That’s purely a HR issue – it actually makes no operational sense at all. If the office is going to Birr then clearly, from an operational viewpoint, no-one should be promoted in Dublin. But that operational issue is hardly mentioned at all.

MG wrote:

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.

The multinational parallel just doesn’t work. That relates to firms finding locations where the labour costs as cheap, providing a financial cushion for any higher costs involved from an inconvenient location.

Objectively, the decentralisation idea is a crock. It brings costs and no benefits, and I don’t see a need to make excuses for it. But that’s not to say that an idea that is a crock won’t grow political legs – as is the very case with decentralisation as, despite it being such an obviously bad idea, it hasn’t yet been reversed.

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.

Indeed, except the only way of actually achieving the original target is to make the moves compulsory. That might be even less feasible than sacrificing Aer Lingus on the altar of Shannon. Hence, it may simply drag on, as it has, with small groups of people fired into any location West of Maynooth in the hope that will look like progress.

NewDubliner

Schuhart wrote:

Think again. The story that sparks this most recent bit of interest is a Labour Court ruling that people who opt to remain in Dublin must have access to promotion in Dublin. That’s purely a HR issue – it actually makes no operational sense at all. If the office is going to Birr then clearly, from an operational viewpoint, no-one should be promoted in Dublin.

Moving the HQ from Dublin to Birr makes no operational sense either & maybe the labour court had this in mind.

The Dublin staff are victims of a failed stroke intended to save Tom Parlon's seat.

Schuhart

NewDubliner wrote:

Moving the HQ from Dublin to Birr makes no operational sense either & maybe the labour court had this in mind.

I very much doubt it, as the Labour Court would simply have no remit on that. What I expect they have ruled on is the extent to which access to promotion is a reasonable expectation for someone who decides not to volunteer to serve in the new location – which is purely a HR thing.

As to the decision to locate FAS in Birr – clearly no business case has been presented that suggests this to be a sensible use of public funds.

Firetrap

It's an interesting logic. There are plenty of departments/agencies already located outside Dublin where access to promotion is limited. The bottom line is that if staff want to move up the career ladder, they have to accept posts in Dublin.

I don't think the average man on the street gives a toss about decentralisation or cares about paper pushers being turned into probation officers overnight. Would it be safe to say that most of the people who read and contribute to this thread do so because they're directly affected by it? IMHO the only way it'll ever register with Joe/Josephine Soap is if the sheer economic lunacy of the scheme makes a significant impact in the popular media...think about all those sites bought but not built on, the shiny but strangely empty offices, all the staff still in Dublin being paid to do nothing, the extra staff being taken on to fill new posts. If the exchequer returns continue to fall, the government will have to be more careful about where it spends its money.

K-9

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?

So you answer a question by asking another!

As you say, its hard to measure the efficiencies etc. Not arguing that.

Aer Lingus staff do not want to move, its the private sector now. The move to Belfast will result in extra efficiencies/revenue for Aer Lingus. They still are protesting.

Arguments have been made regularly here that decentralisation is inefficcient and will cost extra in the long run, which is a good point.

But the staff in both cases do not want to move! One is efficient and revenue based, the other isn't.

The common denominator is the staff and not wanting to be a turkey voting for Christmas!

Why would anybody, private/semi-private/public want to move their base and home? Its a valid reason but one that isn't put forward by any of the unions,associations etc. I wonder why?

BostonB

Seanies32 wrote:

...
The common denominator is the staff and not wanting to be a turkey voting for Christmas! ..

Exactly. A vote for decentralisation or moving to Belfast for that matter is to vote yourself out of a job.

Seanies32 wrote:

...Why would anybody, private/semi-private/public want to move their base and home? Its a valid reason but one that isn't put forward by any of the unions,associations etc. I wonder why?

I'm open to correction but AFAIK its because the bulk of the unions mempership are already down the country and in favour of decentralisation. The majority of the people moving around are not people moving to and from Dublin (truely decentralising) but from one country location to another. In effect its only the minority who are based in Dublin and who wish to remain there who have issues with decentralisaion. The union are sitting on the fence and trying and please everyone.

BostonB

Firetrap wrote:

It's an interesting logic. There are plenty of departments/agencies already located outside Dublin where access to promotion is limited. The bottom line is that if staff want to move up the career ladder, they have to accept posts in Dublin....

I thought the reverse was true. Was that not the issue with the FAS promotions? No promotion unless you signed to move to Birr?

I agree that none of this is of interest to the average Joe. No one seems interested that a billion or more is going to be spent without any clear breakdown of costs, or clear deliverables in terms of value gained (to the tax payer). Its a big black hole.

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

Would it be safe to say that most of the people who read and contribute to this thread do so because they're directly affected by it? IMHO the only way it'll ever register with Joe/Josephine Soap is if the sheer economic lunacy of the scheme makes a significant impact in the popular media...think about all those sites bought but not built on, the shiny but strangely empty offices, all the staff still in Dublin being paid to do nothing, the extra staff being taken on to fill new posts. If the exchequer returns continue to fall, the government will have to be more careful about where it spends its money.

But politics will override a lot of those concerns. Wrong, yes, reality, yes.

Most of the posters on this thread are never going to agree with it because they are directly affected by it to. There is nothing wrong with that, as I keep saying, but very few seem to accept that and post it.
Those are the 2 main realities of decentralisation.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

So you answer a question by asking another!

I didn't answer any question, I drew attention to the fact that you'd ignored cost-effectiveness.

Seanies32 wrote:

As you say, its hard to measure the efficiencies etc. Not arguing that....Arguments have been made regularly here that decentralisation is inefficient and will cost extra in the long run, which is a good point.

So why do it? If the the same job will cost more and be less efficiently executed post decentralisation?

The onus of proof that it will be be worth it is on the decentralisation lobby.

Seanies32 wrote:

But the staff in both cases do not want to move! One is efficient and revenue based, the other isn't.

One is a commercial entity and the there is not. You're generalising on efficiency. Are you suggesting that the departments being moved are inefficient ones? Are you arguing that they will become more efficient post-decentralisation? Evidence please?

Seanies32 wrote:

The common denominator is the staff and not wanting to be a turkey voting for Christmas!

The big difference is that one move is based on commercial logic, the other is not.

Firetrap

BostonB wrote:

I thought the reverse was true. Was that not the issue with the FAS promotions? No promotion unless you signed to move to Birr?

That is true with FÁS. It was nice to see that one blowing up in the face of the FÁS people. I was just pointing out as a sort of an aside the set-up in some places (not naming names) where there's a Dublin office and regional offices. Because of the set-up, staff in the regions have much more limited scope for promotion and if they do want to get promoted, they'd have to apply for posts based in Dublin. A sort of reverse decentralisation if you like!

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

So why do it? If the the same job will cost more and be less efficiently executed post decentralisation?

The onus of proof that it will be be worth it is on the decentralisation lobby.

But if its as inefficient and expensive as you say they are hardly going to highlight it are they? It is up to the unions representing you to highlight it and publicise the stupidity, IYO, of it.

So unions and anti decentralisation it is your interest to highlight the inefficiencies etc. If yous don't it will definitely go ahead

Some evidence and facts please! Convince the public!

newdubliner wrote:

One is a commercial entity and the there is not. You're generalising on efficiency. Are you suggesting that the departments being moved are inefficient ones? Are you arguing that they will become more efficient post-decentralisation? Evidence please?

The big difference is that one move is based on commercial logic, the other is not.

No, you took me up wrong. Not comparing efficiencies or revenue etc.

Comparing the reaction of both sets of workers!

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Some evidence and facts please! Convince the public!

Do you have any? You're the one promoting the project.

The fact is that there is no evidence of any business logic supporting the project.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Do you have any? You're the one promoting the project.

The fact is that there is no evidence of any business logic supporting the project.

I'm not promoting it. I see the reality and politics of the situation.

So, do you's have any facts then?

Moaning about it isn't going to do much.

Do you's have any independent sites that I can go on with facts about the inefficiencies etc.?

Victor

I'm not a state employee and have an interest in this thread, simply becuase I think the scheme is barmy.

Firetrap wrote:

That is true with FÁS. It was nice to see that one blowing up in the face of the FÁS people. I was just pointing out as a sort of an aside the set-up in some places (not naming names) where there's a Dublin office and regional offices. Because of the set-up, staff in the regions have much more limited scope for promotion and if they do want to get promoted, they'd have to apply for posts based in Dublin. A sort of reverse decentralisation if you like!

But not every headquarters is in Dublin. I imagine there are quite senior people among the 75% of the civil service outside Dublin.

A real problem is, in any culture, in any industry you are likely to find the best and brightest in the big cities. Move your headquarters to a small town and you separate your enterprise from the best and brightest.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

So, do you's have any facts then?

I do. The absence of cost/benefit analysis. But you keep ignoring this fact.

Seanies32 wrote:

Do you's have any independent sites that I can go on with facts about the inefficiencies etc.?

Do you have any independent sites with facts concerning the costs and benefits?

So many of the 'pro' lobby insist that the Civil Service should be compared to a business & people should go where they're told....except that the same 'pro' lobby does not want to engage with any cost/benefit analysis of the project.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Do you have any independent sites with facts concerning the costs and benefits?

Thanks for the correction. English grammer and spelling board is it? :rolleyes:

NewDubliner wrote:

I do. The absence of cost/benefit analysis. But you keep ignoring this fact.

So many of the 'pro' lobby insist that the Civil Service should be compared to a business & people should go where they're told....except that the same 'pro' lobby does not want to engage with any cost/benefit analysis of the project.

Cost/benefit analysis would not matter. People say that if it was planned better, more efficient, more revenue based etc. etc. decentralisation would work. That's why they don't approve of it.

Yet with Aer Lingus, the operations are being moved to Belfast for the benefit of the company because it is effective on a cost/benefit analysis basis. The employees are protesting and don't want the move. Of course any parallels with decentralisation is dismissed, as that's the private sector and the move is efficient etc. etc.

The point is the staff still don't approve.

Decentralistion wouldn't be accepted even if all the cost/benefit analysis in the world was done and said it was correct. A lot people affected by it don't want to have to move for their jobs, careers etc. if at all possible. They don't want to sell their houses, change childcare etc.

Those are the real issues, and no cost/benefit analysis is going to change it. Why don't the anti-decentralisation just come out and say it?

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Those are the real issues, and no cost/benefit analysis is going to change it. Why don't the anti-decentralisation just come out and say it?

Because that would allow blame for the failure of the project to be shifted from the government's mismanagement (i.e. no cost/benefit analysis) to 'selfish' Dublin Civil Servants.

The 'pro' lobby is motivated by spiteful begrudgery against Dublin people, why don't they just come out and say it?

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

Those are the real issues, and no cost/benefit analysis is going to change it. Why don't the anti-decentralisation just come out and say it?

As I've already said, for one, if a cost/benefit analysis showed a positive return then most certainly the project should proceed and feck what the staff say. The bizarre situation in this agenda is we know it costs a packet for no benefit and the only thing delaying it is staff objections - which count as the scheme was announced as voluntary.

We know the scheme is pointless because the only assessment done (which was done after the scheme was announced) was a study to see if accommodation costs would be cheaper. The short answer is no savings can be expected for decades - and that's just pure accomodation costs. They did no assessment of whether the reason office space in Dublin cost more might reflect that its a more useful product.

On waste, we have the examples of both the abolition housing grants and the simplified agriculture payments left staff unoccupied in decentralised units, with no apparent pressure to find them new work. In Dublin, they could have been just reallocated to new work or Departments. Trying Googling for the stories - the Agriculture staff were in Castlebar and the Housing Grants staff in Ballina. And these are just the stories that made the media. No-one is asking too much about what exactly the 'advance' groups of staff chucked out of Dublin are doing to fill their days. Its not important - once you've someone on the State payroll in a small town the objective is achieved.

Why make excuses for decentralisation? The plan is just nuts.

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

Yet with Aer Lingus, the operations are being moved to Belfast for the benefit of the company because it is effective on a cost/benefit analysis basis. The employees are protesting and don't want the move. Of course any parallels with decentralisation is dismissed, as that's the private sector and the move is efficient etc. etc.

The point is the staff still don't approve.

Seanies32- I am good friends with 2 Aerlingus pilots and numerous cabin crew who are living in the border regions and would very much prefer to work out of Belfast than Dublin. The employees are protesting because Aerlingus wants them to give up their Dublin based jobs and to sign new contracts, on lesser terms than they are currently on, in order to work from Belfast. The new contracts are what is being offered to newly recruited staff in Belfast- and are effectively undercutting the Dublin airport based staff, thus generating considerable cost savings for Aerlingus.

Certainly it is effective on a cost/benefit basis for Aerlingus to do this- making people quit and then offering them their jobs back for less money and on lesser superannuation and other terms than they previously earned. This is what staff are protesting over- not over the prospect of working out of Belfast, which many of them are thrilled at, but at the underhand manner in which they are being manipulated. Shannon is a bit of a red herring for most of these people, but its a convenient flag for them to hoist to their masts as a manner of trying to get Belfast off the rails......

Certainly its more efficient to offer people their jobs back for a lesser sum of money....... That Aerlingus is a private company and the civil service is the public sector has nothing whatsover to do with this- and comparing Aerlingus' problems with decentralisation is a massive slight to the workers in Aerlingus who are being abused by management.

BostonB

That point was made earlier...

Seanies32 wrote:

S...The common denominator is the staff and not wanting to be a turkey voting for Christmas! ...

BostonB wrote:

Exactly. A vote for decentralisation or moving to Belfast for that matter is to vote yourself out of a job...

Its not going to happen over night, but you can see where its going.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Because that would allow blame for the failure of the project to be shifted from the government's mismanagement (i.e. no cost/benefit analysis) to 'selfish' Dublin Civil Servants.

The 'pro' lobby is motivated by spiteful begrudgery against Dublin people, why don't they just come out and say it?

But people would prefer if they where honest and explained the human cost involved. They would take the cost/benefit analysis, efficiency etc. arguments more seriously then.

At the moment a lot of people probably think, "they're just selfish moaning civil servants". So why not combine the personal side, which mightn't necessarily be entirely selfish and the mismanagement etc.?

I know the Mail and Independent would love the human element and add on a few bits about mismanagement etc.

There's also people New Dubliner who no matter even if it was a fanatastic move, careerwise, socially etc. will not countenance it because they are anti country!

There is an element anti-Dub, but generalising isn't going to get support for the anti-decentralisation lobby and your argument is it? A bit of PR and spin may help more in convincing supporters of the issue rather than just saying they're anti Dub!

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

But people would prefer if they where honest and explained the human cost involved. They would take the cost/benefit analysis, efficiency etc. arguments more seriously then.

The staff have explained this. It's been in the papers.

Seanies32 wrote:

There's also people New Dubliner who no matter even if it was a fanatastic move, careerwise, socially etc. will not countenance it because they are anti country!

I'm only as anti-country as you are anti-Dublin.

Certainly one reason to be anti-country would be if non-Dubliners, who want to have civil service jobs have no scruples about cost/benefit. We'll all end up paying more tax and having poor services as a result.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

The staff have explained this. It's been in the papers.

I'm only as anti-country as you are anti-Dublin.

Certainly one reason to be anti-country would be if non-Dubliners, who want to have civil service jobs have no scruples about cost/benefit. We'll all end up paying more tax and having poor services as a result.

Well read through the thread and compare the anti country and anti Dublin comments and see which is more prevalent.

Most Non-Dubliners will apply for civil service jobs regardless of location. Are non-Dublin civil servant applicants now to blame? Conspiracy theories! :rolleyes:

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Well read through the thread and compare the anti country and anti Dublin comments and see which is more prevalent.

The prevalent view is that government projects should be properly managed.

Blame rests on the shoulders of anyone who supports waste of taxpayer's money.

Victor

Seanies32 wrote:

Yet with Aer Lingus, the operations are being moved to Belfast for the benefit of the company because it is effective on a cost/benefit analysis basis. The employees are protesting and don't want the move. Of course any parallels with decentralisation is dismissed, as that's the private sector and the move is efficient etc. etc.

AL isn't moving anyone.

The Shannon staff will continue to serve the Shannon-London route, operating to Gatwick instead of Heathrow.

Any staff employed on the Belfast-Heathrow route are in new jobs, under new contracts of employment (some people may of course transfer voluntarily or be reassigned by agreement). It is the less generous terms that hte unions are complaining about in this case.

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

As I've already said, for one, if a cost/benefit analysis showed a positive return then most certainly the project should proceed and feck what the staff say. The bizarre situation in this agenda is we know it costs a packet for no benefit and the only thing delaying it is staff objections - which count as the scheme was announced as voluntary.

It would proceed and rightly so.

Schuhart wrote:

We know the scheme is pointless because the only assessment done (which was done after the scheme was announced) was a study to see if accommodation costs would be cheaper. The short answer is no savings can be expected for decades - and that's just pure accomodation costs. They did no assessment of whether the reason office space in Dublin cost more might reflect that its a more useful product.

What, so the building boom and increase in office rents in Dublin or the last 10 years is because the civil service is more useful there? ???

I'm sure there was arguments for it but??? Methinks I can see why they did not assess why the civil service being more useful has not affected office space costs greatly in Dublin!

Schuhart wrote:

Its not important - once you've someone on the State payroll in a small town the objective is achieved.

Having large numbers on the State payroll regardless of location regardless of location has been an objective too.

Schuhart wrote:

Why make excuses for decentralisation? The plan is just nuts.

Thank you for your unbiased and open minded assessment!

smccarrick wrote:

Seanies32- I am good friends with 2 Aerlingus pilots and numerous cabin crew who are living in the border regions and would very much prefer to work out of Belfast than Dublin. The employees are protesting because Aerlingus wants them to give up their Dublin based jobs and to sign new contracts, on lesser terms than they are currently on, in order to work from Belfast. The new contracts are what is being offered to newly recruited staff in Belfast- and are effectively undercutting the Dublin airport based staff, thus generating considerable cost savings for Aerlingus.

Certainly it is effective on a cost/benefit basis for Aerlingus to do this- making people quit and then offering them their jobs back for less money and on lesser superannuation and other terms than they previously earned. This is what staff are protesting over- not over the prospect of working out of Belfast, which many of them are thrilled at, but at the underhand manner in which they are being manipulated. Shannon is a bit of a red herring for most of these people, but its a convenient flag for them to hoist to their masts as a manner of trying to get Belfast off the rails......

Certainly its more efficient to offer people their jobs back for a lesser sum of money....... That Aerlingus is a private company and the civil service is the public sector has nothing whatsover to do with this- and comparing Aerlingus' problems with decentralisation is a massive slight to the workers in Aerlingus who are being abused by management.

I can see where the pilots are coming from. Some of the staff are from the border counties and indeed the local papers in Donegal have pointed out how our local politicians have been quite about Shannon. Its because this policy will be of more interest to Donegal than Shannon.

Is the new contracts the only reason they are protesting over Shannon?

Thanks for pointing out that private or public sector has nothing to do with the argument.

Posters here have pointed to being abused by management etc. over decentralisation.

Firetrap

Since we're talking about Aer Lingus....here's what would happen if it was decentralised. A new HQ is set up in Sneem Co. Kerry, not for any apparent reason but because it hapened to nearest to the pin that Charlie McCreevy dropped on the map.

Pilots unwilling or unable to move there are told they'll be given "meaningful" jobs if they stay in Dublin, though the government can't tell them what these meaningful jobs are. What a nice reward after training to be pilots and building up expertise. On the bright side, they haven't taken solitaire off the office computers yet.

In the meantime, some cabin crew and the lad who cleans the toilets are only too delighted to be moving back down home to Kerry. Their reward for being willing to move from Dublin to Sneem is a promotion. Also thrilled that Aer Lingus HQ has moved to a town nearer to home are people working in offices in adjoining counties. They know sweet feck all about aviation, but it'll be nice to be able to pop home at dinnertime rather than having to drive 20 miles to work.

One six week crash course later and this motley crew is ready to take to the air. It doesn't matter that they can barely read half the dials on the dashboard. As far as the government is concerned, there are bums on seats in an office in Sneem.

Victor

And of course, Sneem has no airport, so you'll have to build one.

And the airport in Dublin can be sold off for apartments.

BostonB

Firetrap wrote:

...
One six week crash course later and this motley crew is ready to take to the air. It doesn't matter that they can barely read half the dials on the dashboard. As far as the government is concerned, there are bums on seats in an office in Sneem.

...and the backlog in flights is getting bigger.

Victor wrote:

And of course, Sneem has no airport, so you'll have to build one.

And the airport in Dublin can be sold off for apartments.

Except that you forgot you don't own it, it was rented.

K-9

Victor wrote:

The Shannon staff will continue to serve the Shannon-London route, operating to Gatwick instead of Heathrow.

So are these routes been taken from somewhere else, or are they new, additional, routes?

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

Pilots unwilling or unable to move there are told they'll be given "meaningful" jobs if they stay in Dublin, though the government can't tell them what these meaningful jobs are.

I take your point overall. However, as has been posted regularly here, AL is the private sector, they would have to move or get redundancy. They wouldn't be offered "meaningful" alternatives. Unless another airport was built or more routes where opened to allow the feasibility of the original loaction staying open.

Firetrap wrote:

In the meantime, some cabin crew and the lad who cleans the toilets are only too delighted to be moving back down home to Kerry.

So is that anti-25/31 county discrimination? Decentralisation doesn't affect 1 county or location in particular.

firetrap wrote:

Also thrilled that Aer Lingus HQ has moved to a town nearer to home are people working in offices in adjoining counties.

Didn't bother many civil servants in the past that they had to move 200 miles away to get a Civil Service job. So they are probably thrilled that now they don't have to move or they can commute. What's wrong with that?

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

Didn't bother many civil servants in the past that they had to move 200 miles away to get a Civil Service job. So they are probably thrilled that now they don't have to move or they can commute. What's wrong with that?

Whats wrong?- its simply not decentralisation- thats what. Decentralisation is the Dublin based people being moved out of Dublin to other locations- not people who are already based in other locations simply moving somewhere else. Incidentally, the Department of Finance has refused to release details of how many of the jobs which have been announced were filled by pre-existing Dublin based staff (as oppossed to people purpose recruited, or people already decentralised). In short- the current decentralisation proposals are to move the jobs out of Dublin, but not the people...... So you could potentially end up with another 12,000 odd people on the payroll, for no good reason, other than to be at the end of a phone to answer questions from their replacements who really haven't got a clue about the job they have "volunteered" to do. Those who are meaningfully employed are similarly expected to spend what can be several hours a day untangling messes as they occur in sections/divisions/departments that they are no longer working for. And thats all before you even try to start to cost the whole forsaken mess........

Victor

Getting off topic, but...

Seanies32 wrote:

So are these routes been taken from somewhere else, or are they new, additional, routes?

Shannon-Heathrow (4 flights a day) is being swopped to Shannon-Gatwick (4 flights a day).

All other flights involved are extra.
Belfast-Heathrow
Belfast-Amsterdam
Belfast-Budapest
Belfast-Rome
Belfast-Nice
Belfast-Geneva
Belfast-Faro Algarve
Belfast-Malaga

Click on routemaps here: http://www.aerlingus.com/

Ryanair is much more important to shannon than AL http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/dests.php?flash=chk&pos=HEAD

For all Shannon destinations, click on 'view Route Map' http://www.shannonairport.com/flight-info/timetable/index.html

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

In short- the current decentralisation proposals are to move the jobs out of Dublin, but not the people...... So you could potentially end up with another 12,000 odd people on the payroll, for no good reason,

Mad! So where are the 12,000 going and what type of jobs are being offered?

Victor, without going off topic too much, you'd wonder why they are protesting especially with Ryanair being very committed to Shannon? You notice all the new flights are from Belfast?

Maybe they are annoyed that the new jobs associated with those flights are being lost to Belfast? So not alone are they losing the valuable Heathrow route they are losing extra revenue and jobs to Belfast for new routes!

It's not just a pilots issue! The new routes they they would have assumed would be departing from Shannon have been decentralised, in a way, to Belfast and off course they are not happy. So even if Belfast is more efficient and revenue earning for AL the staff still aren't happy. Which goes back to: even if decentralisation was subjected to cost/benefit analysis etc. the staff would still not be happy!

Firetrap

Seanies32 wrote:

Didn't bother many civil servants in the past that they had to move 200 miles away to get a Civil Service job. So they are probably thrilled that now they don't have to move or they can commute. What's wrong with that?

The difference is, that when these civil servants took their jobs in Dublin, they were moving into a department where there were staff who had been there for years and had built up expertise in that area. Over time, they too gained experience and learned from these staff and hopefully moved up the ranks.

The difference with this decentralisation is that departments are being moved and the bulk of the staff who worked in their Dublin equivalents aren't moving with them. Therefore, you'll have inexperienced and/or unsuitable staff getting promoted for no other reason than they're willing to move to the new location. In addition, these departments are going to gain new staff who don't necessarily know a lot about the work being carried on in their new workplace.

Leaving aside your assertion that because non Dublin civil servants have to move from home to Dublin for their jobs, does it not bother you that there will be people who don't have a bull's notion about taxation, social welfare, health, mapping, health & safety, finance, agriculture etc. dealing with these issues. Nobody can learn everything there is to know about some of these fields in the space of a few months. Decentralisation in its current form means that there'll be a massive turnover of staff from one department to another, the likes of which has never been seen before.

Meanwhile, all the people who don't move are still in Dublin. What do you do with them? They still have to be paid. Where do you accommodate them? Surely not in newly rented office space or in some of those buildings that the government was hell-bent on selling to finance the scheme?

As for the vacant positions in the decentralised locations....what happens there? All those new staff that'll have to be taken on will cost the exchequer a fair few bob, especially now that the economy isn't doing so well.

Decentralisation per se isn't a bad idea but the way the government set about doing it was wrong wrong wrong. The idea that 10,000 civil servants would happily up sticks and move their families 200 miles from home is ludicrous. Even all these people who had to move to Dublin for their jobs eventually settle there, lay down roots etc and are no more willing to move than true blue Dubs. What the government should have done was choose suitable departments for decentralisation in accordance with the National Spatial Strategy (remember that?) and gradually build them up until they were viable.

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

The difference with this decentralisation is that departments are being moved and the bulk of the staff who worked in their Dublin equivalents aren't moving with them. Therefore, you'll have inexperienced and/or unsuitable staff getting promoted for no other reason than they're willing to move to the new location. In addition, these departments are going to gain new staff who don't necessarily know a lot about the work being carried on in their new workplace.

Take your point

Firetrap wrote:

Leaving aside your assertion that because non Dublin civil servants have to move from home to Dublin for their jobs, does it not bother you that there will be people who don't have a bull's notion about taxation, social welfare, health, mapping, health & safety, finance, agriculture etc. dealing with these issues.

Haven't most of these been decentralised already?

Firetrap wrote:

Meanwhile, all the people who don't move are still in Dublin. What do you do with them? They still have to be paid. Where do you accommodate them? Surely not in newly rented office space or in some of those buildings that the government was hell-bent on selling to finance the scheme?

Agree there, keeping the staff who didn't want to move was madness. Voluntary redundancy should have been offered. Cheaper in the long run.

Firetrap wrote:

As for the vacant positions in the decentralised locations....what happens there? All those new staff that'll have to be taken on will cost the exchequer a fair few bob, especially now that the economy isn't doing so well.

If they are younger than the staff they are replacing, they will gain the experience and they will need to be replaced later than the staff they are replacing. But of course the old staff are still there. Bloody unions and Govt.!

Firetrap wrote:

The idea that 10,000 civil servants would happily up sticks and move their families 200 miles from home is ludicrous. Even all these people who had to move to Dublin for their jobs eventually settle there, lay down roots etc and are no more willing to move than true blue Dubs.

That would still be a problem even if was planned well. The Govt. can only look after the employees involved, not their families as well. I think the majority of civil servants who had to move to Dublin for a job have decentralised, as has been pointed out here repeatedly.

Firetrap wrote:

What the government should have done was choose suitable departments for decentralisation in accordance with the National Spatial Strategy (remember that?) and gradually build them up until they were viable.

Still wouldn't reduce the problem. As you say they are settled in Dublin, national spatial strategy or not!

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Agree there, keeping the staff who didn't want to move was madness. Voluntary redundancy should have been offered. Cheaper in the long run.

Can you provide figures to back this up?

Firetrap

Seanies32 wrote:

If they are younger than the staff they are replacing, they will gain the experience and they will need to be replaced later than the staff they are replacing. But of course the old staff are still there. Bloody unions and Govt.!

Can you clarify this point?

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

I think the majority of civil servants who had to move to Dublin for a job have decentralised, as has been pointed out here repeatedly.

Exactly- but they haven't decentralised under the current scheme- the current scheme is actually the 5th such scheme in the last 30 years, and there was an embargo in place on recruitment in the civil service for years- so pretty much anyone who wanted to move had the opportunity to do so many years ago.

Vis-a-vis voluntary redundancy for those who wished to stay in Dublin, the scheme trumpeted by Fianna Fail was entirely voluntary in nature, and the cost of new buildings was allegedly to be offset by the sale of property in Dublin- i.e. it was alleged that the scheme would operate on a cost neutral basis. There was no money set aside for the training of staff in locations other than where they are supposed to work, redundancies for the Dublin staff etc.

Redundancies are expensive. There are several precedents in both the private and the public sectors of up to 12 weeks pay per year of employment + statutory redundancy for those being laid off (that example is from the private sector). Redundancy payments are also taxfree (unlike other payments which get taxed at the higher rate of tax). There are figures available showing the average age of civil servants (I think its about 53 or 54- its much older than the workforce in general because of the freezes on recruitment)- allowing that a sizeable number of them may have joined the service at ages 16-18- that would indicate that the vast majority of them have over 30 years service. Nothwithstanding the redundancy payments, they would loose pension entitlements if they left before 40 years of service, and over 90% are PRSI A (not contributors- so it would also entail topping up the pension schemes by possibly as much as 3.2-3.4 billion........

The figures are massive.......

No-one sat down to price these things- it was assumed that people could be cajoled/bullied into "volunteering" to decentralise to a random spot on the map- totally ignoring the age profiles, the expertise, the implications/reprecussions of civil servants biting the bullet and not volunteering.

Its a mess- a costly unmittigated disaster, but like the evil undead, its never quite going to go away because the government made committments that they just cannot get out of.

I really don't see how it can succeed with every good will in the world.

Personally- I applied for decentralisation, I chose 5 of the 50 odd locations that I would be willing to decentralise to. I was forced to withdraw my decentralisation application in order to attend an openday in the Revenue Commissioners (I have a degree in accountancy- so I would naturally be interested in the Revenue Commissioners). I was offered a position in the Revenue Commissioners. My own department refused to release me. I resubmitted my decentralisation application- however it was on a first-come-first-served basis, so I was no longer a priority as my grade had become over subscribed in all the locations I was interested in (in over 90% of cases by people who were not currently working in Dublin at all). So- I'm stuck, and my job is going to one end of the country- while my wife who is contractually obliged to decentralise, her job is going to the other end of the country........ We've been in this black hole for 3 years now. Its like having a life sentence over you.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Can you provide figures to back this up?

Well, as has been posted before there's a good chance it would, if it avoids employing an extra 12,000 staff. Could also be cheaper than keeping the staff who don't want to decentralise in Dublin, paying them, accomodating them and paying more office rent etc. etc.

Again, I go back to your point about cost/benefit analysis. Of course it should have been done, but, do you agree that even if it came out for decentralisation there still would be opposition to it?

Firetrap wrote:

Can you clarify this point?

Unfortunately redundancy wasn't offered, and there could be 12,000 additional staff. So not alone do you have new staff who have to trained for new jobs, you also have staff doing nothing or being transferred to unsuitable employment. Redundancy should have been offered as an alternative as well.

smccarrick wrote:

Personally- I applied for decentralisation, I chose 5 of the 50 odd locations that I would be willing to decentralise to. I was forced to withdraw my decentralisation application in order to attend an openday in the Revenue Commissioners (I have a degree in accountancy- so I would naturally be interested in the Revenue Commissioners).

You had to withdraw your application because you attended an open day?

smcarrick wrote:

I was offered a position in the Revenue Commissioners. My own department refused to release me. I resubmitted my decentralisation application- however it was on a first-come-first-served basis, so I was no longer a priority as my grade had become over subscribed in all the locations I was interested in (in over 90% of cases by people who were not currently working in Dublin at all). So- I'm stuck, and my job is going to one end of the country- while my wife who is contractually obliged to decentralise, her job is going to the other end of the country........ We've been in this black hole for 3 years now. Its like having a life sentence over you.

Obviously, your wifes situation should have been taken into consideration. That is very harsh. I take it the 5 locations you applied for would have been close to your wifes new location? Can't believe you'd have to withdraw your application to attend an open day, my God, it's just an open day!

Could you not argue something along the lines of: well you would have been allowed to decentralise, so why could you not be released to the Revenue.

Firetrap

Seanies32. Could you please go back and edit the above post. My name has been attached to the bottom two quotes you're answering when in fact they should be attributed to smccarrick.

Don't you think redundancy (as you're calling it) is a very drastic measure just so that decentralisation works? If 12,000 people were laid off in any other industry in Ireland, there would be an outcry from politicians from every party.

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

Seanies32. Could you please go back and edit the above post. My name has been attached to the bottom two quotes you're answering when in fact they should be attributed to smccarrick.

Don't you think redundancy (as you're calling it) is a very drastic measure just so that decentralisation works? If 12,000 people were laid off in any other industry in Ireland, there would be an outcry from politicians from every party.

Done. Apologies.

Just because there would be an outcry doesn't mean it's wrong. It's a solution to having an additional 12,000 people.

Firetrap

It's a solution yes but it is an idiotic solution and it is wrong. The best solution of all would be for the government to call a halt to decentralisation but nobody in Leinster House has the guts to do so.

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

It's a solution yes but it is an idiotic solution and it is wrong. The best solution of all would be for the government to call a halt to decentralisation but nobody in Leinster House has the guts to do so.

What, more idiotic than moving the jobs but not the people?

They where offered the choice of moving location or staying and moving to another job. Redundancy should have offered.

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

What, more idiotic than moving the jobs but not the people?

They where offered the choice of moving location or staying and moving to another job. Redundancy should have offered.

You have part of the picture there- while it was idiotic moving the jobs but not the people, it was doubly ridiculous to scatter them to the 4 corners of the wind- they should have focused on the National Spatial Strategy, and tried to build up sufficient density in the "Gateway Towns" so they would be capable of achieving critical mass which would have made them viable alternatives to Dublin for the private sector. Tax incentives are only one element of the picture- throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away- it simply gets people used to the idea of hand-outs.

People were offered the chance of moving from Dublin, or staying- there was no mention anywhere of moving to specific jobs. Most of us are allegedly fully interchangeable. I myself was offered a job in the Revenue Commissioners, but my own Department refused to release me. Where else will you find an EO who is a qualified forester and an accountant, willing to work an admin job on an EOs salary- thats why my Department refused to release me. Yet- there is someone in Portlaoise, without any qualifications whatsoever, who will allegedly be as capable of doing my job as me. I wonder.

Vis-a-vis those of the 12,000 in Dublin who also have partners who are supposed to decentralise- there are just under a thousand couples involved. Its acknowledged that there is an issue there by the Department of Finance- however there are no proposals as to how to address it. I am personally aware of one lady who works in Co. Galway weekdays, and travels back to her husband and 3 kids every Friday evening. She spent 2 years taking the train, but gave up and has recently organised digs down there. The proposals, including those of which have already been implemented, are tearing families apart. Its not fair to expect people to accept their family lives being destroyed in this manner. The usual answer to this is- well, quit your job and live off the one salary. Ireland is an expensive country- its not really an option- without massive cutbacks in peoples standards of living.

In theory decentralisation could be a very good manner of developing a limited number of regional towns and cities. However- most of the civil service was decentralised a long time ago- its only the rump thats left in Dublin- so most people who wanted to leave Dublin did so a long time ago. Its no wonder that there simply are no numbers being put in the public domain regarding jobs already filled in these decentralised locations- how many are actually filled by erstewhile Dublin based staff versus how many were filled by country based staff simply relocating closer to home or purpose recruited new staff. That would be a very interesting number.

Re: Withdrawing my decentralisation application in order to attend an open day- it was an open day for Dublin based civil servants who had not expressed an interest in decentralising. On that basis- I was notified that I would have to rescind my decentralisation application- before an invitation to the open day would issue. I did so- and as a result of the open day (and subsequent interviews) was offered a position, which my own Department refused to release me for.

Decentralisation is a mess- and the intransience on the part of the Government and the individual Departments involved, mean a lot of undue hardship on all staff involved. It really is a mess.

Firetrap

The problem with offering redundancy to all these unspeakably awful people who won't move out of Dublin is that by consigning them to the scrap heap, you're also immediately taking out a large number of people who can't be easily replaced. You're not talking about factory operatives here. You're talking senior people in higher grades. Very few of them have applied to move. It's like going into a hospital and getting rid of all the surgeons and consultants and putting in junior doctors in their place.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Well, as has been posted before there's a good chance it would, if it avoids employing an extra 12,000 staff. Could also be cheaper than keeping the staff who don't want to decentralise in Dublin, paying them, accomodating them and paying more office rent etc. etc.

So you don't have any figures.

Not good enough.

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

You have part of the picture there- while it was idiotic moving the jobs but not the people, it was doubly ridiculous to scatter them to the 4 corners of the wind- they should have focused on the National Spatial Strategy, and tried to build up sufficient density in the "Gateway Towns" so they would be capable of achieving critical mass which would have made them viable alternatives to Dublin for the private sector. Tax incentives are only one element of the picture- throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away- it simply gets people used to the idea of hand-outs.

Letterkenny is part of the national spatial startegy in conjunction with Derry. Don't think there'd be a mad rush to go there, regardless of resources etc.

smccarrick wrote:

People were offered the chance of moving from Dublin, or staying- there was no mention anywhere of moving to specific jobs. Most of us are allegedly fully interchangeable. I myself was offered a job in the Revenue Commissioners, but my own Department refused to release me. Where else will you find an EO who is a qualified forester and an accountant, willing to work an admin job on an EOs salary- thats why my Department refused to release me. Yet- there is someone in Portlaoise, without any qualifications whatsoever, who will allegedly be as capable of doing my job as me. I wonder.

Maybe the offering of the option to stay or move is part of the problem?

smccarrick wrote:

Vis-a-vis those of the 12,000 in Dublin who also have partners who are supposed to decentralise- there are just under a thousand couples involved. Its acknowledged that there is an issue there by the Department of Finance- however there are no proposals as to how to address it. I am personally aware of one lady who works in Co. Galway weekdays, and travels back to her husband and 3 kids every Friday evening. She spent 2 years taking the train, but gave up and has recently organised digs down there. The proposals, including those of which have already been implemented, are tearing families apart. Its not fair to expect people to accept their family lives being destroyed in this manner. The usual answer to this is- well, quit your job and live off the one salary. Ireland is an expensive country- its not really an option- without massive cutbacks in peoples standards of living.

Married families with both parents in the civil service definitely should have been considered better. The Govt. definitely needs to come up with more practical proposals for situations like those.

smccarrick wrote:

Re: Withdrawing my decentralisation application in order to attend an open day- it was an open day for Dublin based civil servants who had not expressed an interest in decentralising. On that basis- I was notified that I would have to rescind my decentralisation application- before an invitation to the open day would issue. I did so- and as a result of the open day (and subsequent interviews) was offered a position, which my own Department refused to release me for.

That is completely wrong. Surely there must be some sort of comeback for you here. It sounds mad that it was an open day for jobs for civil servants not interested in decentralising, yet the Revenue offered you a job outside Dublin.

firetrap wrote:

The problem with offering redundancy to all these unspeakably awful people who won't move out of Dublin is that by consigning them to the scrap heap, you're also immediately taking out a large number of people who can't be easily replaced. You're not talking about factory operatives here. You're talking senior people in higher grades. Very few of them have applied to move. It's like going into a hospital and getting rid of all the surgeons and consultants and putting in junior doctors in their place.

Yes, but you're employer has decided to move. Your job has moved. If you will not move with it there is only so much the employer can do.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

So you don't have any figures.

Not good enough.

Let me see, employing an additional 12,000 staff for say 30-40 years, as against offering redundancies to 12,000 staff...... What do you think?

What about your cost/benefit analysis? If it comes out in favour of decentralisation will everybody say "well that's ok now, then we'll all move seeing as the benefits outweigh the costs"?

very miffed dub

Seanies 32

My impression on your posts on this topic are that they are divisive and argumentative.

I've really really tried to stay away from this topic but I was lured back because of your ludicrous posts.

Fact 1: When I applied for my current job, it stated that it was based in Dublin....... not 200 miles away from my friends and family. People from outside Dublin had a choice to apply for the job but as usual the terms and conditions applied. The job was in Dublin so people had a choice to apply or not!! When decentralisation was announced I was given a choice......move to the new location [uproot 4 kids in education.....1 in PrimarySchool, 2 in Secondary School (2nd and 6th year) and one half way through a Science degree in DCU] or take pot luck in the Personnel Lottery for people who didn't want to move out of Dublin.

Fact 2: Dublin based (highly knowledgable) Civil Servants who didn't want to decentralise were given no options even though Decentralisation was supposed to be voluntary.....WHAT A JOKE!!! We were forced to accept our new jobs because they were offered - not because we wanted them!!The only other option was the section from Hell (every Department has one), the DOLE or prolonged sick leave!!

Fact 3: A lot of Dublin staff applied for Decentralisation (in Meath and Kildare) because they felt pressurised and wanted to remain in their specific Govt. Dept. They were prepared to endure it because they wanted to stay within driving distance of Dublin. How many of these positions have actually been fillled? Very few!!!

Fact 4: Loss of knowledge and expertise. This is unquantifiable. Try phoning a Govt. Dept. where you'll be told........."sorry I don't know the answer to your question because I"m new and I haven't a clue what your query is about". Maybe you won't be told that but I can guarantee it's happening. My list of useful telephone contacts (across lots of Govt. Departments) is dwindling every day because experienced staff are being moved to other sections to accommodate "decentralisation" The experienced staff are being replaced with staff whose primary motive is to move closer to 'home'.

My primary goal has always been to deliver a quality knowledge based answer to a particular person asking the question. Unforunately this is not happening now because the new staff 'don't have a clue'. Would you be satisfied that you are getting an inferior service because of DECENTRALISATION??