Decentralisation

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

By "Dublin mindset" I mean the arrogant view that the Government should favour Dublin all the time over the regions in terms of encouraging multinationals to set up there and regional development. It has been going on for far too long and has resulted in many areas outside of Dublin being ignored. It is ridiculous that Wexford should have an unemployment rate stuck in the bad old days of 9%, while Dublin's is just 2%. I hope decentralisation will help the economic-development of regions like mine, whatever Derek McDowell make think about "dingy pubs" outside of Dublin.

I'm perfectly aware what "Dublin mindset" means, thanks. I'm just amazed that you're not aware that a corner of the country on the sea isn't considered being on or at the periphery of that country, even if you live in it. Pointless discussing that, it's not what the thread is about - decentralisation is by its very nature about more than one small area of the country.

bonkey

smccarrick wrote:

Once again, as I mentioned previously on this thread- please research your data before throwing totally wild assumptions up in the air as fact- when, as you plainly see, it just is not the case..........

Ummm....I should point something out here....

You list the numbers of unemployed, and the national percentage of unemployed people per region.

Unless there's some magic mathematical system involved here that I don't know about , its impossible to determine the percentage unemployment rates, (nor even comparative unemployment rates) for both areas from the in-post information, nor from the information in the PDF that you have printed.

Without information on the size of the eligible work force in both areas (or just the employment figures), there is simply no way of determining the unemployment rates.

Dublin has - as you say - 26% of the unemployed. However, if its population is greater than 26% of the nations (which I believe it is), then it is definitely below the national unemployment average....which means its not unlikely that it is somewhere not-too-distant from what arcade was saying. I'd put it at about 3% at a guess.

Meanwhile, Wexford listed in your figures as having 7,000 unemployed, but with a population of just over 18,000. Now clearly, those figures don't gel, but it is suggestive that Wexford is some sort of above-average-unemployment spot (which I believe it is).

So while you may be correct that arcade is pulling his 9% and 2% figures out of the air....neither your maths nor your supplied figures show that, nor do they allow the actual figures to be calculated.

jc

<edited for stupid mistakes>

jd

bonkey wrote:

Meanwhile, Wexford listed in your figures as having 7,000 unemployed, but with a population[/i] of just over 18,000. Now clearly, those figures don't gel, but it is suggestive that Wexford is some sort of above-average-unemployment spot (which I believe it is).

Last census, Wexford County had a population of 116,000, and the town a population of about 18k (ignore what they give for the borough council area).

I'm not sure what is the size of the labour force in Wexford County .

pete

i don't think smccarrick was attempting to compare like with like - i believe the point was the simple fact that based on CSO figures there are a hell of a lot more unemployed people in Dublin than in Wexford.

Irrespective of this, smccarrick's "figures from thin air" point stands.

bonkey

jd wrote:

Last census, Wexford County had a population of 116,000, and the town a population of about 18k (ignore what they give for the borough council area).

Ah. Ok. My bad.

I still stand by the point I was making, which is that if you're gonna say that someon is pulling numbers out of the air, you should supply the numbers which actually show it.

jc

pete

bonkey wrote:

Ah. Ok. My bad.

I still stand by the point I was making, which is that if you're gonna say that someon is pulling numbers out of the air, you should supply the numbers which actually show it.

jc

Shouldn't the onus be on the person quoting the figures to provide their sources?

bonkey

pete wrote:

i don't think smccarrick was attempting to compare like with like - i believe the point was the simple fact that based on CSO figures there are a hell of a lot more unemployed people in Dublin than in Wexford.

There are a hell of a lot more employed people in Dublin too, so I fail to see what relevance that point would have.

Dublin, in the last census is listed as having approx 1,123,000 inhabitants. Wexford as having 116,600.

By an approximate bit of math, one would expect Wexford to have 1/10 (.1)the unemployment numbers as Dublin does. This is not the case - it has about 2/13 (.166) the unemployment numbers of Dublin .

Some quick math later, and we can therefore conclude that Wexford has just over 1.5 times the unemployment rate of Dublin. So - not the 4x that arcade was saying, but still an appreciable difference...assuming that the areas referred to in both documents are the same, and that neither town has an unusual density of non-working-force populace.

Irrespective of this, smccarrick's "figures from thin air" point stands.

As I said...he may be correct, but he didn't show why arcade's figures were out of thin air...he showed somewhat related figures, did some calcualtions, and claimed that they showed more than they did.

jc

bonkey

pete wrote:

Shouldn't the onus be on the person quoting the figures to provide their sources?

Look - how many times do I have to explain this.

If smcCarrick said "I'm ignoring your figures until you provide references for them", then yes indeed, the onus would be on arcade.

If he had provided figires that actually showed arcade was wrong in his assertion, then there would be no problem.

I simply pointed out that he dismissed figures by providing information which does not refute what he was dismissing.

Face it...its the type of tactic that you'd jump all over arcade for if he used it....

jc

pete

bonkey wrote:

There are a hell of a lot more employed people in Dublin too, so I fail to see what relevance that point would have.

Consider the context arcadegame2004 was using his 'statistics' - Wexford has 9% unemployment, Dublin has 2%, therefore 10,000 jobs should be removed from Dublin. What that wonderful piece of logic leaves out is the fact that Dublin has a far higher actual number of unemployed than Wexford.

As I said...he may be correct, but he didn't show why arcade's figures were out of thin air...

I would contend that it's because arcadegame2004 didn't provide any sources for his figures. As it happens, I seem to recall seing the 9% figure mentioned in a south-east newspaper from a couple of years ago, but i've no idea what the current statistics are like. And I'm guessing neither does the original poster.

pete

bonkey wrote:

Look - how many times do I have to explain this.

To me?

Just the once.

ishmael whale

arcadegame2004 wrote:

By "Dublin mindset" I mean the arrogant view that the Government should favour Dublin all the time over the regions in terms of encouraging multinationals to set up there and regional development. It has been going on for far too long and has resulted in many areas outside of Dublin being ignored. It is ridiculous that Wexford should have an unemployment rate stuck in the bad old days of 9%, while Dublin's is just 2%. I hope decentralisation will help the economic-development of regions like mine, whatever Derek McDowell make think about "dingy pubs" outside of Dublin.

Apart from the statement that Wexford has a high unemployment rate, Arcadegame's post is utterly at variance with reality. Dublin grows despite efforts to attract jobs elsewhere. The extract below about how the jobs in eBay were nearly lost to the country is illustrative of this.

Substantial grants are offered to companies to locate in the regions. Other instruments through which regional policy has been forwarded include bankrupting An Post with a regional office network it doesn’t need, wasting resources on hugely uneconomic rail services and regional airports, and constraining the development of air services to Dublin with the ludicrous Shannon stopover.

Substantial efforts are made to move resources to the regions. They fail, and not because of a ‘Dublin’ mindset, but because of a parochial mindset that prevents any regional centre developing the necessary economies of scale to attract investment. The national spatial strategy attempted to address this issue to some extent.The proposed decentralisation simply ignores that strategy and repeats the mistakes of the past.

A few extra jobs decentralised to Wexford will make no significant impact on that county’s fortune. Hundreds of jobs in the EPA and Department of Agriculture have already been decentralised there, obviously to little avail.

What keeps the country going is the wealth generated in Dublin, supplemented by a few other centres, and efforts are made to share this wealth about. The main reason that we don’t have more regional development is because those efforts are too heavily influenced by the parochial approach taken by many regional development advocates, not because of a ‘Dublin mindset’.


http://weblog.techno-culture.com/2003/09/16.html#a2769
“………… Ireland nearly lost this important and high-profile project when both the IDA and government tried to strong-arm eBay into going to a rural location (reportedly Athlone, in today's reports), something which drove them to a serious and nearly exit-stage-left level of annoyance and frustration. Reports today are that the company will get a smaller grants package and go where it wanted to: Dublin…………”

enda1

Exactly. Wexford is an economic blak spot in the country. Fierce trade unions and as above worker militancy discourage large foreign or even Irish companies from setting up there. Also it is not always the governments job to sort out social problems. Wexford people have to sort some of it out themselves.

Wexford also has low secondary school completion rates and low third level participation rates. There is litttle other than government grants and rosslare harbour to encourage a company there (especially the highly skilled pharmacutical and blue chipped companies).

The_Conductor

Ok-

From the quarterly national household surveys from the CSO:

http://www.cso.ie/publications/labour/qnhs.pdf

Employment Participation rate: 59.8%

(that is the % of the population of over 15 years of age actively engaged in employment (current number of people in the labour market = a little over 3 million)

Total in Employment: 1,836,200

Total Unemployed: 84,200

Population of Dublin: 1,122,821

Percentage of labour force in Dublin: 31.48%

Population of Wexford: 116,596

Unemployment in Dublin: 44,953 (53.4% of total)

Unemployment in Wexford: 7,031 (8.3% of total)

Percentage unemployment in Dublin: 3.4%

Percentage unemployment in Wexford: 4.6%

National unemployment rate: 4.6%

Highest unemployment area: Border areas – 6.6%


S.

arcadegame2004

Unemployment in Wexford: 7,031 (8.3% of total)

Oh dear...0.7% wrong!

cyclopath2001

I think we should have some sympathy for ArcadeGame and the plight of Wexford, but it's sad that he's been taken in by the relocation scam & the unsupported claims for its benefit.

The debate is too often skewed away from the fact that the neither the costs nor the benefits of the government decision are known & probably never will be.

It must be recognised that it's not right that Dublin public servants should be singled out to solve, at personal expense, the problems of Wexford.

uncivilservant

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Oh dear...0.7% wrong!

Hardly. You seem to be quoting the wrong figure.

Try again, and if the sums are too complex just call.

The_Conductor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Oh dear...0.7% wrong!

Nope:

Unemployment rate in Wexford = 4.6%
Unemployment rate in Dublin = 3.4%

The highest unemployment rate in the country is not in Wexford- its in Monaghan, and its 6.6%, not the 9% you are quoting.

I would also draw your attention to something you have to take into account when working your stats- different labour force participation rates in different parts of the country. I.e. You are only unemployed, if not gainfully employed but currently seeking employment. If you are neither employed, nor actively seeking such employment, you are not considered unemployed. Thus 64% of the population of Dublin is considered to be part of the labour force, while the figure is 53% for Wexford (reflecting larger numbers of single people and households with both partners employed in Dublin than in Wexford). This can be a matter of either economic necessity or choice- and is not quantified by the CSO.

To ignore factors such as the above when analysing the labour force participation rate, is meaningless.

I'd also be very curious to see where you are getting your figure of 9% unemployment from- as I am unable to find it in official sources. Note: the nos. of unemployed quoted by the CSO for Wexford- are for the entire county (i.e. the 7,031 unemployed people is all those signing on at Wexford, Gorey, Enniscorthy and New Ross) (and are broken down by town) not just for Wexford itself- the figure for Wexford town itself is in fact 2,715)

Read the figures again in the two links I quoted.

S. McCarrick

ishmael whale

Apparently an early retirement scheme for public servants is being introduced (which, the press release says, should not be confused with an early retirement scheme – em). Encouraging early retirement is certainly a novel approach to the looming pensions crisis.

Why the need to persist in incurring costs to continue a decentralisation policy so devoid of merit?

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=2612&CatID=1&StartDate=1+January+2004&m=n

“McCreevy Announces Further Public Service Pension Reform
……
Introduction of cost-neutral early retirement: A facility to allow public servants to retire (from age 50/55, as appropriate) with actuarially reduced superannuation benefits. This facility will be made available, immediately, to serving staff and the option will be extended to staff who resigned with an entitlement to preserved superannuation benefits as and from 1 April 2004. This facility should not be confused with a Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme, similar to that which existed in the public service in the 1980s.
……………”

The_Conductor

ishmael whale wrote:

Apparently an early retirement scheme for public servants is being introduced (which, the press release says, should not be confused with an early retirement scheme – em). Encouraging early retirement is certainly a novel approach to the looming pensions crisis.

Why the need to persist in incurring costs to continue a decentralisation policy so devoid of merit?
……”

Actually- this is different from "Early Retirement" in the traditional public sector sense- in that superannuation benefits would be reduced by an actuarial table with an ammended CCOPS formula. While someone who retires at 50 would have another 15 years to go to age 65, they would not necessarily receive the 5/8's pension a reduction of 15 years in draw down date would entail, but a smaller sum, to be decided by a revised common actuarial figure- to take into account of their obviously much longer life expectancy...... ok maybe I could have phrased that a bit better- but you get the picture.....

Traditionally (aka the previous Early Retirement scheme in the 80's) when someone was retiring early and being allowed draw their pension early- their entitlement was actually topped up with X number of years, so their final pension figure was more closely aligned with what they would expect, had they 40 years of service (the compulsary amount for a full civil service pension).

There were other manners of topping this up- particularly for the higher grades (and anyone who entered the service as a graduate) whereby they were (and indeed still are) entitled to claim "Professional Added Years" to take into account the fact that they have relevant experience to their jobs gained prior to entry to the service (* Note: this option is not open to the vast bulk of civil servants, who did not enter the service as graduates, regardless of the fact that they may subsequently have gained many acedemic distinctions, while in the employ or on leave from the service).

So- technically, the announcement is correct- it will not have a draw on pensions- over the long term, it is in fact cost neutral- as the revised actuarial tables will reduce pensions people may claim. From that perspective- it may not be all that clever as a ploy to get rid of a few people- if they feel their drop in income would not be sustainable- regardless of what the relative merits of retiring at age 50 may seem to a general member of the public.

S.

jd

ishmael whale wrote:

Apparently an early retirement scheme for public servants is being introduced

Where my dad was working , most of the technicians have gone for erarly retirement, which means that most of the research programs and analysis work cannot be done, no matter what the reseach scientists require. These blanket programs are nuts, they are probably more attractive to the more highly skilled.

ishmael whale

Smccarrick

Am I right in saying your essential point is that the previous early retirement scheme involved a financial bonus – i.e. if I worked for 30 years I would get more than 30 years worth of pension – and that the proposed arrangement has no bonus in that if I worked for 30 years I simply get 30 years worth of pension, spread out over a longer period as I have retired at say 55 instead of 65. The only change is that people can draw their entitlement earlier than they can at present.

That’s fine so far as it goes, and I wouldn’t argue with your statement that from the individual employee’s point of view this offer may not be attractive. But I am somewhat puzzled at why this move is being made at all when the general principle seems to be to raise retirement age. When the pension bubble hits the ratio of dependents to wage earners will increase, and to the extent that this measure has any impact it seems to add to this problem by taking people out of the workforce. jd’s point about skills loss also seems relevant.

uncivilservant

I heard a rumour that the updated CAF figures will be released tomorrow afternoon.

Anecdotal evidence appears to indicate quite a lot of people with no interest in relocating have applied for their own jobs, just to be left alone for a few years. It will be interesting to see if the numbers reflect this.

Depressing.

cyclopath2001

uncivilservant wrote:

I heard a rumour that the updated CAF figures will be released tomorrow afternoon.

Anecdotal evidence appears to indicate quite a lot of people with no interest in relocating have applied for their own jobs, just to be left alone for a few years. It will be interesting to see if the numbers reflect this.

Depressing.

Would I be correct in saying that Friday afternoons are the usual time for releasing news that media handlers want people to forget? And Mondays, for flimsy, planted stories that they want remembered?

If so, we've had the spin about 'surge in interest' last Monday & no doubt, debatable figures, open to many interpretations, tomorrow.

uncivilservant

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Would I be correct in saying that Friday afternoons are the usual time for releasing news that media handlers want people to forget? And Mondays, for flimsy, planted stories that they want remembered?

If so, we've had the spin about 'surge in interest' last Monday & no doubt, debatable figures, open to many interpretations, tomorrow.

I think you watch too much West Wing.

But as i said, it was only a rumour.

We shall see if it's "put out with the trash" tomorrow.

cdebru

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Oh dear...0.7% wrong!

arcade its not surprising wexford would be finding it hard to attract investment if you are an example of the type of employee they are likely to get

read the post again 8.3% was wexfords percentage of the total number of unemployed people not its unemployment rate

The_Conductor

jd wrote:

Where my dad was working , most of the technicians have gone for erarly retirement, which means that most of the research programs and analysis work cannot be done, no matter what the reseach scientists require. These blanket programs are nuts, they are probably more attractive to the more highly skilled.

To the best of my knowledge- there was only one early retirement programme announced- and that was prior to the announcement of the civil service decentralisation (it was for the relocation of Teagasc's HQ and the rationalisation of their national programmes and closures into a limited number of facilities).
There was an express agreement with the Unions that the scheme would not be used as precedent in any decentralisation (note: this was about 4 months before the civil service announcement was made- someone really knew what they were doing........)

The_Conductor

ishmael whale wrote:

Smccarrick

Am I right in saying your essential point is that the previous early retirement scheme involved a financial bonus – i.e. if I worked for 30 years I would get more than 30 years worth of pension – and that the proposed arrangement has no bonus in that if I worked for 30 years I simply get 30 years worth of pension, spread out over a longer period as I have retired at say 55 instead of 65. The only change is that people can draw their entitlement earlier than they can at present.

That’s fine so far as it goes, and I wouldn’t argue with your statement that from the individual employee’s point of view this offer may not be attractive. But I am somewhat puzzled at why this move is being made at all when the general principle seems to be to raise retirement age. When the pension bubble hits the ratio of dependents to wage earners will increase, and to the extent that this measure has any impact it seems to add to this problem by taking people out of the workforce. jd’s point about skills loss also seems relevant.

Hope this elucidates:


To all staff Department of XXXXXXX

You may be aware from recent media reports of a number of changes affecting pensions. The background to this is that last week the Government approved the implementation of some of the recommendations of the Commission in Public Service Pensions. The finer details of these changes are still being worked out and we will issue a circular with detailed instructions on their application in about 6/8 weeks. In the meantime the information is set out below.

1. Introduction of cost neutral early retirement

This will allow an established officer over the age of 50 (55 in the case of new entrants from 1April 2004) who wishes to leave before the age of 60 (65 in the case of new entrants) to have the option of (a) waiting until the minimum retiring age of 60 (65) at which time he or she would receive preserved lump sum and pension in the normal way i.e. based on reckonable service at time of leaving and uprated by salary values applicable at age 60 or (b) taking an actuarially reduced pension and lump sum at the time of leaving. The actuarial reduction will be done by applying the appropriate percentages from the table below to the amount of the benefit. There will be no added years


Staff with a minimum retiring age of 60


Age last Pension Lump sum
birthday

50 62.4% 82.2%
51 65.1% 83.9%
52 67.9% 85.5%
53 71.0% 87.2%
54 74.3% 88.9%
55 77.8% 90.7%
56 81.6% 92.4%
57 85.7% 94.3%
58 90.1% 96.1%
59 94.8% 98.0%



An example

A person aged 50 on last birthday whose pension and lump sum would work out at say €20,000 (per annum) and €60,000 respectively based on reckonable service, would receive €12,480 (per annum) and €49,320 respectively. In the normal way the pension would increase in line with pay increases applicable to serving staff.

2. Compound interest rate

The current public service pension interest rate which applies in particular to repayment of marriage gratuities will be reduced from 6% to 4% with effect from 14 November 2000.

3. A new calculation formula for integration between social insurance and public service pensions to boost the aggregate retirement income of lower paid public servants.

This new formula would only affect established officers appointed after 5 April 1995, un-established officers and pensioners whose pensions are integrated with Contributory Old Age Pension rates. A pro rata process would apply to part-time public servants.

4. Notional added years (for professional purposes).

A new scheme for new entrants will be introduced.

5. Reckoning of allowances held at retirement for pension purposes

The calculation of allowances will be based on the best 3 consecutive years in the 10 years preceding retirement. It is not anticipated that this will affect civil servants.

pete

The overall position in the civil service may be summarised as follows:-
• 3,711 Dublin-based civil servants are interested in moving to the new
decentralised locations (2,200 in July);
• 3,350 civil servants already working outside Dublin are interested in moving to
the new decentralised locations (2,200 in July);
• 525 Dublin-based civil servants are interested in moving to existing provincial
locations (424 in July); and
• 566 civil servants already working outside Dublin are interested in moving to a
different provincial location (477 in July).
10. The corresponding figures for the State agencies are as follows:
• 534 Dublin-based employees of State agencies are interested in moving to the
new decentralised locations (292 in July);
• 198 State agency employees already working outside Dublin are interested in
moving to the new decentralised locations (167 in July);
• 43 Dublin-based employees of State agencies are interested in moving to
existing provincial locations (38 in July); and
• 31 State agency employees already working outside Dublin are interested in
moving to a different provincial location (29 in July).

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=2616&CatID=48&StartDate=1+January+2004&m=c

ishmael whale

While as always not wanting to fall into the trap of arguing as if the number of volunteers determined the policy (how many civil servants would like to decentralise to the Copacabana?) the results as essentially unchanged and, as might be guessed, the headline ‘9000 registrations’ is meaningless.

So they have less than 5,000 Dublin based volunteers for 9,500 jobs, without taking account of whether this includes Ordnance Survey cartographers applying to work as Probation Officers. Also, looking at the detail, the applicants still tend to be in the junior grades, and the locations close to Dublin (such as Drogheda, Trim, Newbridge) are only ones really getting the numbers. Take these out of consideration and the programme is still a farce.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/decentralisation/decencafsept04.pdf

pete

so...

3,350 civil servants already working outside Dublin are interested in moving to the new decentralised locations, and 566 civil servants already working outside Dublin are interested in moving to a different provincial location

That's 3,916 jobs needing to be filled if these 3,916 are to be available for relocation.

but

only 1,100 (534 Dublin & 566 provincial) staff want to move to these existing locations.

So that's a deficit of 2,250 already...

The_Conductor

Ok- synopsis:

Fewer than 1 in 7 Dublin based civil servants have volunteered to decentralise with their jobs to rural locations.

Numbers applying for decentralisation are scewed- there are far more lower grades applying for decentralisation than executive grades (EO and higher), with far more applications than positions available for some locations (notably those near Dublin). (Meaning the total number of applications includes double counting of applicants who are applying for the same jobs.......-there is a large body of lower ranked civil servants competing with each other for a limited number of decentralised locations, many of them in the vicinity of Dublin........)

Also of note: Of those agreeing to decentralise- almost half of the applicants are already decentralised, and merely expressing a preference to relocate to another part of the country (and even there two thirds of them are expressing wishes to leave their current government departments)......

All in all, the most god-damned awful mess imaginable...........

S.

ishmael whale

Doing a quick count the figure in Table 5 showing 3200 Dublin based civil servants applying for the new locations breaks down as about 1500 opting for Drogheda, Trim, Newbridge and the other Kildare locations. Drogheda on its own accounts for 600 applications. The rest of Leinster gets about 800 applications. Ulster gets 200 applications, 100 of which are accounted for by Cavan. The combined Munster locations get about 400 and Connaught about 300 (i.e. half of what Drogheda gets on its own).

What’s the point in them brazening it out? The policy makes no sense, no-one really wants it, the 52 locations would get more benefit from a branch of Aldi opening up and, anyway, they just don’t have the numbers.

Or does regional development hinge on moving civil servants from Nenagh to Roscrea.

pete

won't someone please think of wexford?

The_Conductor

pete wrote:

won't someone please think of wexford?

Stop baiting Arcadegame

ishmael whale

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/09/17/story166969.html

There’s an amount of coverage saying that 9,500 Dublin-based civil and public servants have applied. Sometimes the same article (such as the one above) goes on to say 3,700 are Dublin based and 3,350 are in provincial locations. 3,700 plus 3,350 gives a national figure of 7,050.

Without even looking at any other information, it should be possible to notice that either:

3,700 Dublin based civil servants have applied, and the figure of 9,500 ‘Dublin based’ is wrong or

7,050 civil servants nationally have applied, which means the figure of 9,500 is still wrong even if it was meant to refer to all civil servants, not just Dublin based ones (i.e. who are the extra 2,450).

It just shows how easy it is to start a spin - no-one seems to read the thing twice.

pete

actually it looks like Wexford may get their pound of flesh - 249 Environment jobs available there, with 224 applicants

Unfortunately only 16 of the 224 applicants currently work in Environment..... ah, but sure why worry about service levels. The other 208 are probably quick learners.

The_Conductor

ishmael whale wrote:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/09/17/story166969.html

There’s an amount of coverage saying that 9,500 Dublin-based civil and public servants have applied. Sometimes the same article (such as the one above) goes on to say 3,700 are Dublin based and 3,350 are in provincial locations. 3,700 plus 3,350 gives a national figure of 7,050.

Without even looking at any other information, it should be possible to notice that either:

3,700 Dublin based civil servants have applied, and the figure of 9,500 ‘Dublin based’ is wrong or

7,050 civil servants nationally have applied, which means the figure of 9,500 is still wrong even if it was meant to refer to all civil servants, not just Dublin based ones (i.e. who are the extra 2,450).

It just shows how easy it is to start a spin - no-one seems to read the thing twice.

Was talking to a journalist down there a few mins ago- they'll have their update pulled and readjusted with the correct info shortly

The_Conductor

pete wrote:

actually it looks like Wexford may get their pound of flesh - 249 Environment jobs available there, with 224 applicants

Unfortunately only 16 of the 224 applicants currently work in Environment..... ah, but sure why worry about service levels. The other 208 are probably quick learners.

And according to my calculations- a goodly number of them had better be suitable for immediate promotion- almost all of the applicants are from the lower grades, there are very few managers interested in Wexford........

A very obvious oversight is no accurate breakdown of the numbers of positions available by grade in the different locations, and the numbers of people in the different grades applying for them.......

Actually, come to think of it- that wasn't an oversight- they'd only be openly admitting defeat if they gave out that information.........

S.

ishmael whale

Question for debate: large sections of the Irish media can’t count and urgently need a smack in the head.

http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=9&si=61246

Civil servant decentralisation programme appears on track
16:48 Friday September 17th 2004

"Plans to decentralise 10,000 civil and public servants appear to be on track.
Figures from the Department of Finance show 9,500 civil servants have applied to be re-located to Departments in the regions. ……….. "

cyclopath2001

Even the figures for staff offering to move with their own department should be questioned:

Some departments have quite a wide range of work and just because you work in a particular department does not mean you'd be any better at doing a specialised job in the same department than somebody from outside of the department.

For example, Kildare needs 380 IT specialists, of 114 volunteers, only 76 people from Revenue have volunteered. No figure is available for how many of the volunteers have any IT skills or experience.

pete

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Even the figures for staff offering to move with their own department should be questioned:

Some departments have quite a wide range of work and just because you work in a particular department does not mean you'd be any better at doing a specialised job in the same department than somebody from outside of the department.

For example, Kildare needs 380 IT specialists, of 114 volunteers, only 76 people from Revenue have volunteered. No figure is available for how many of the volunteers have any IT skills or experience.

It's a case of tune in next week, same caf time, same caf channel, apparently.

ishmael whale

I'm developing an unnatural affection for the Examiner's well known Dublin mindset. Once again, they have pretty much hit the nail on the head. The only thing that might improve this article is pointing out more clearly that only something of the order of 3200 Dublin based civil servants have actually expressed an interest in the new locations. There simply aren't 9,000 expressions of interest in 'decamping Dublin', or anything like that figure.

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/opinion/Full_Story/did-sggunhhghYN0osgDQQ5wn3uAIg.asp
18/09/04
Decentralisation plan - Expression of interest is merely that

"........ The carrot of so many State employees scattered from the capital ..... failed dismally to win the only numbers game that means anything to politicians. ... [the local and European] elections produced a backlash against the Government, especially for Fianna Fáil, that was unprecedented.

Ostensibly, Mr McCreevy is having more luck with his decentralisation project....... but the menu of destinations is being cherry-picked to an unbalanced degree. Neither does it not mean that so many thousands want to evacuate Dublin, because 3,350 of them are already living in provincial centres........

Newbridge and Drogheda are the favoured towns for departing public servants, but not so much Waterford, Donegal, Cavan and Portlaoise. Obviously, the preponderance of those who are inclined to move are influenced by the length of the umbilical cord from Dublin.

Mr McCreevy said the level of applications to date proved there was a real appetite for the Government’s decentralisation, but it is patently a very selective appetite............. the figure produced yesterday of 9,200 staff expressing an interest in decamping Dublin is still just an 'interest' and it is premature for the Government to imagine that Mr McCreevy’s target will be met."

cyclopath2001

The Iriish Independent is much more optimistic than the Examiner, possiby because they've never let the facts get in the way of a whatever story its masters want written. They totally ignored the number of applicants who do not work in Dublin or the liklihood that someone who applies for Drogheda & is disappointed cannot be counted on to go to a less favoured location. The Indo makes plenty of assertions of its own without offering any reason why we should believe them:

"THE Civil Service decentralisation plan that had seemed to be such a disaster just a few months ago may yet come right. Certainly the figures issued yesterday give new hope.

They show there has been a 60pc jump in the numbers applying. By last night, 9,200 civil servants had registered choices of where they would prefer to go, just short of the 9,600 target.

That is a remarkable turnaround. Clearly, this is an idea that required time to take root and win acceptance. There are difficult personal issues involved. But the figures show there is a growing realisation that life beyond the Pale may offer an attractive lifestyle that will never be available in the overcrowded capital.

However, while the plan is now back on track, there are still problems. The vast majority of those applying are junior staff and many of them are thought to be applying only to register their least unacceptable destinations, to avoid being sent elsewhere when decentralisation actually happens.

Even so, this does indicate a willingness at least to contemplate moving. As time goes on, those involved should become more comfortable with the idea, especially if some incentives are offered. The same should apply at senior level.

The Government has €90m from the sale of former State offices which has been earmarked to assist decentralisation. Although the move was supposed to be voluntary and therefore without compensation, financial incentives may be needed to make it all happen. If so, it will be money well spent.

Many of the civil servants involved came from the country originally and already know that life outside Dublin can be very good indeed. There are thousands of stressed private sector office workers in Dublin who would jump at such a chance tomorrow if they could. "

uncivilservant

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The Government has €90m from the sale of former State offices which has been earmarked to assist decentralisation.

From the Irish Examiner:

THE cost of providing 53 new office buildings for the decentralisation plan could amount to more than €1.5 billion over 25 years.

...

Although the construction of offices to house 10,300 decentralised staff will be funded by the private sector, the Government is planning to lease the properties back at an estimated cost of €50m to €60m annually.

http://www.uncivilservant.com/article.php?id=272

cyclopath2001

No doubt, the rents on the buildings will be going into the local community and not to Dublin-based property companies?

The_Conductor

cyclopath2001 wrote:

No doubt, the rents on the buildings will be going into the local community and not to Dublin-based property companies?

Highly doubtful.......
As you are no doubt aware, there has already been fallouts over some of the "private developers" (aka the brother of the director for elections for the PDs in Laois-Offaly who is behind the building of the new offices for the Department of Agriculture and Food in Portlaoise...........)

While the sentiment may be altruistic in nature- just how long will it be before the intent turns into some other monstrosity on the ground?

There are a very limited number of contractors in the country who are capable of construction of office blocks and related structures to a high standard and in reasonable timeframes.

The reason the government went with a public private partnership arrangement (20 year leases and options to purchase at the end of the lease, with the builder in charge of upkeep for 20 years) was to ensure that any snags that occur would be dealt with by the constructors, and no short cuts would be taken- as they would only come back to haunt the constructor at a later point in time. The DoF are learning, slowly- but they are getting there......

S.

cyclopath2001

From today's Sunday Business Post:
By Susan Mitchell

"The supply of new homes will slow dramatically because of an increase in the levies that builders must pay to local authorities, an economist has warned.
.....
For example, the developer of a 2,000 sq ft house in Kildare will pay €18,000 under the new guidelines.
....
Some local authorities have increased their charges by as much as 300 per cent."

ishmael whale

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The Iriish Independent is much more optimistic than the Examiner, possiby because they've never let the facts get in the way of a whatever story its masters want written. They totally ignored the number of applicants who do not work in Dublin or the liklihood that someone who applies for Drogheda & is disappointed cannot be counted on to go to a less favoured location. The Indo makes plenty of assertions of its own without offering any reason why we should believe them:

Clearly the Indo’s coverage makes absolutely no sense. In particular their statement that offering financial incentives would be ‘money well spent’. How could anyone regard paying people to fill up space in poorly located offices as a priority?

uncivilservant

Well surprise surprise - Finance have held back on releasing the breakdown of CAF applications by grade until next week. Are they hoping we'll forget?

In other news:

Stung by criticisms that the decentralisation scheme proposed by outgoing Finance Minister Charlie McCreevy was unworkable, ministers seized on the increased number of applications to explore how one or two "showpiece" moves could be accelerated.

...

While the focus is likely to centre on locations within striking distance of the capital, it is thought at least one other further location such as Kerry or Cavan will be targeted to ensure balance.

http://uncivilservant.com/article.php?id=279

NewDubliner

There's a long way to go yet, the spin doctors are still talking about putting 'bums on seats' rather than matching skills to jobs and working out the costs and benefits of the scheme.

The much-trumpeted oversubscription of Newbridge does'nt include trivial details such as how much it will cost in staff-churn and retraining to make it happen nor any precision about any benefit to the area itself.

If the cost of each person's move in lost productivity and retraining costs is equal to one year's salary and if two people have to change jobs to facilitate each move to Newbridge, then I estimate the staff costs to be around 27 million euro.

Assuming nobody moves house, there will be no net economic benefit to Newbridge for this cost & the cost of acquiring the accomodation. Any traffic benefit to Dublin will disappear once the corresponding Dublin offices are re-let.

For Kildare, it's worse, the cost of laying off hundreds of Dublin IT staff and replacing them with Kildare people will be much higher.

Ek.