Public Service, Public Servants - a Challenge ... grrr!

Colonel Sanders

Gurgle wrote:

though the two qualities in one person effectively rule them out of a career in politics.

Very true, a politician will never do whats best for the country but whats best for keeping his/her party in power.

Can I just reiterate that in posting on this thread I never meant to attack or offend any civil servant, my gripe was with a wasteful goverrnment. I used evidence given to me by friends to highlight what happens in certain departments and nothing is done by senior management etc. As I said possibly away from the actual subject so apologises if this is so.

Hotblack Desiato

Colonel Sanders wrote:

This is based on a small enough sample, but 100% of civil servants I have ever spoke to tell me it is a prevalant practice.

Just how many is that?
And just because they've heard of someone who's heard of someone doesn't mean it's prevalent.

The same guy i referred to formally employed in the dept of agriculture used to clock back in after his lunch and them head off to the gym in the afternoon if he had no work to do

Literally hundreds of people in Agriculture were left with no work to do overnight when the EU farm subsidies system changed.
This sounds like a bad thing but in reality means moving them away from bureaucratic old-fashioned tasks into more worthwhile ones
That takes time though and isn't helped one bit by the decentralisation debacle (like most of the high-profile problems in the public service, it is the result of a POLITICAL decision.)

I am not tarring all civil servants with the one brush, or making a personal attack on anyone, i am highlighting waste and inefficiency in the public sector which you told me my only source or proof was articles in the independant.

You are quoting hearsay and anecdotal evidence, which come to think of it is pretty much all the Indo does these days...

Sleepy

ninja900 wrote:

Gee thanks.
How would you feel if I made such a statement about people in your work or profession?

What is your direct, personal experience of this?
There is certainly mismanagement, as there is in any large organisation, but this more often generates impossibly large workloads rather than small ones

I work with local authorities on a daily basis and a number of government departments, state and semi-state bodies on pretty much a weekly basis. Much of this work involves spending time on-site with state employees and I've personally experienced the fact that it's common-place for staff to start at 9.30 and finish at 4, taking an hour for lunch and two half-hour tea-breaks they don't clock out for. My experience of those clients has given me the impression that hard-working, competent staff are very much in the minority in the public sector.

CherieAmour wrote:

The private sector is ripping you off every day of the week, they just don't have to publish it anywhere.

The difference is in the private sector we can choose to go elsewhere. As it stands we can't decide to contribute our tax to a more efficient organisation. (I can choose to fly with Ryanair if I prefer a cheaper service than BMI for example)

Public servants are treated like people as opposed to the private sector where you are often treated like complete cr*p and get no thanks

Are they not allowed a wage increase like anybody else?

Like anyone else would indicate that their pay-raises were based on individual performance ratings rather than pay scales and that raises wouldn't be given without improved performance. This simply isn't the case in the public sector. Also, given the better working conditions (higher holidays, flexi-time, job-security etc.) there's no argument for parity of pay with the private sector (despite the fact it's been given in most cases anyway).

There are plenty of wonderful things done by the Public Service but no one every concentrates on those.

Can you give an example of something wonderful done by the Public Service in the last few years that was on-time, on-budget and not simply doing their jobs? I can't think of anything off-hand yet I can see a health service the government have thrown money at that's still failing, falling education standards, a rail network that boast about the fact they're years behind where they should be, a department of justice that can't get even the basics right, an electricity supply board who's inefficiencies are partly put down to 'excessive wages' by an independent audit, etc. etc. etc.

Finally, you'd whinge too if you were told that if you want to hang on to your particular job you have to move 300 miles away from home, take your kids out of school and sell your house.

I might not be happy about it but I'd accept that I had to either move or find a new job. My boss can decide to move or disolve this company in the morning and my statutory redundancy would no doubt be a hell of a lot less than what would be given to a civil servant who chose not to move.

On a personal level, my family moved across the country twice before I was 14 because my father's employer decided to change his place of work so I find it very hard to feel sympathy for civil servants when they lose a privilege no-one else has ever had (and that afaik was never written into their contracts either).

As I've already said in this thread, I've nothing against public servants and intend to become one myself whenever I want to focus my life on other areas than career because from everything I've seen, it's a cushy (if rather uninspiring) looking number. It does, however get up my nose when people who have better working conditions than 90% of the rest of the country start whining about things that are commonplace for the rest of us.

gazzer

Just like to add some comments to this thread.

I am a civil servent and at the moment work in an IT area in a government deparment. When I started in my section there were 8 of us (4 civil servents and 4 contractors). Over the last 18 months this figure has been eroded to just 3 civil servents(we need 2 more people for the amount of work we do).

One of the 3 staff is on maternity leave so that leaves 2 of us. The other civil servent is on 2 weeks holidays. That leaves me.. doing the work of 5 people. Coming in at 8.30. leaving at 7pm.. taking a 10 minute break in the morning and a half hour break for lunch. (I got to leave work early today for the first time in 2 months) I HATE it when people make generalisations like:

'you have a great pension plan' (well ive been paying superannuation since I was 19 so I should expect to get a half decent pension.. which incidentally will be 50% of what my salary on retirement will be. If i was was at retirement age now my pension would be 330 euro per week.. its not that good in fairness).

'You cant be fired' (eh yes you can. 3 people in the last section i worked in where fired for excessive sick leave and constantly being late.

'You get tons of holidays' You get 21 days when you join the civil servents.. 4 weeks and a day.. about the average I would have thought. You can work up a day and a half flexi leave per month.. but you only get that leave if you work the hours.. its not handed to you.

"If my job was moved to the other side of the country I would have to go". Now maybe I am wrong but if somebody in the private sector had to move with their job would they not be entitiled to moving expenses etc (if I am wrong on this point I apolgise).

Granted there are some in the civil servents who are lazy bast**ds.. but with my hand on my heart the majority of the people who I have worked with over the last number of years are hardworking and diligent people..

You cant tar all civil servents with the same brush... times have changed. I know a lot of people were angry with the benchmarking findings but they did come with a lot of conditions attached. For instance from next year yearly increments are only giving if you reach a certain level of grading on your yearly assessment. I agree with this as it will flush out the people who do not do their work properly

Hotblack Desiato

Sleepy wrote:

Much of this work involves spending time on-site with state employees and I've personally experienced the fact that it's common-place for staff to start at 9.30 and finish at 4, taking an hour for lunch and two half-hour tea-breaks they don't clock out for.

As I've pointed out, this is total guff

Like anyone else would indicate that their pay-raises were based on individual performance ratings rather than pay scales and that raises wouldn't be given without improved performance.

Actually, public servants are generally agreeable to this. The sticking point is a fair system of appraisal. The private sector sometimes pays by actual merit but more often rewards those who are good at sucking up to the boss.

Also, given the better working conditions (higher holidays

Legal 20-day minimum for most staff

flexi-time

Not a perk as all hours must be worked, and the private sector finds it increases productivity.

, job-security etc.)

The reason for job security is to prevent the firing of civil servants on a political whim (therefore making them beholden to the current government.)
Instead we have to accept the relocation of jobs on a political whim...
Moving civil service jobs to one's own constituency to win votes is corrupt.

there's no argument for parity of pay with the private sector (despite the fact it's been given in most cases anyway).

You've got to be kidding, most public servants don't receive anything like the market rate for their skills, especially those working in areas like IT (which is why consultants are taking over at 5 - 10 times the cost)

I can't think of anything off-hand yet I can see a health service the government have thrown money at that's still failing

Political domination of health boards and politicisation of the shutdown of every boreen hospital

falling education standards

Proof? I think we're doing a good job compared to the likes of the UK.

a rail network that boast about the fact they're years behind where they should be

a certain recent government decided that the rail network would be let die a slow death and receive no investment

a department of justice that can't get even the basics right

Are you talking about judicial decisions, they're independent remember.

an electricity supply board who's inefficiencies are partly put down to 'excessive wages' by an independent audit, etc. etc. etc

Due to POLITICIANS who decided that massive pay rises for ESB were better than blackouts, can you say "Bertie Ahern" ?
If you don't like the decisions that your government makes, vote for someone else. Don't blame the public servants who are tasked with implementing these decisions.

My boss can decide to move or disolve this company in the morning and my statutory redundancy would no doubt be a hell of a lot less than what would be given to a civil servant who chose not to move.

First off, no civil servant will get redundancy, Dept Finance will not allocate the money, they'd rather allocate excess staff to 'white rooms' and hope many will retire early on medical grounds
Secondly, NO private sector business would relocate without a valid business case. Certainly not on the whim of a rural politician hoping to gain votes for "delivering jobs" - and the people to fill those jobs, not locals - do they really think their electorate is that thick?

Sleepy

ninja900 wrote:

As I've pointed out, this is total guff

I've seen it with my own eyes. I'll trust them over your opinion. Sorry.

Actually, public servants are generally agreeable to this. The sticking point is a fair system of appraisal. The private sector sometimes pays by actual merit but more often rewards those who are good at sucking up to the boss.

Always the case when some form of appraisal is used tbh. In an ideal world the right person for every job would be the one doing it. However, we don't live in an ideal world.

Legal 20-day minimum for most staff

I saw a position in Galway City Council advertised externally recently which stated a starting point of 28 days a year.

Not a perk as all hours must be worked, and the private sector finds it increases productivity.

How can you not consider flexi-time to be a benefit in a job? Would you prefer a job with it or without it? While it can increase productivity, the realities of the business world (customers who expect to be able to contact you during business hours) make it impossible to offer for many if not most jobs.

The reason for job security is to prevent the firing of civil servants on a political whim (therefore making them beholden to the current government.)
Instead we have to accept the relocation of jobs on a political whim...
Moving civil service jobs to one's own constituency to win votes is corrupt.

Do you not accept that it's something of a fair trade off? Protection from one risk of working in the private sector and facing while facing another?

You've got to be kidding, most public servants don't receive anything like the market rate for their skills, especially those working in areas like IT (which is why consultants are taking over at 5 - 10 times the cost)

While that certainly used to be the case (and definitely would have been the case during the dot-com boom for IT workers), it's far less so now. I agree that consultants are a resource to be used sparingly (and I am one), reliance on consultants for core-business activities is awful management of any enterprise.

Due to POLITICIANS who decided that massive pay rises for ESB were better than blackouts, can you say "Bertie Ahern" ?
If you don't like the decisions that your government makes, vote for someone else. Don't blame the public servants who are tasked with implementing these decisions.

I somehow doubt that Bertie Ahern (much as I dislike the man) personally decided how much to pay ESB workers. However, they do shoulder a huge amount of the blame for not forcing the ESB to be more efficient (i.e. sacking the over-paid workers and replacing them with people at the market rate for their jobs). But this is the real world and such a move would be mighty unpopular amongst public sector voters.

First off, no civil servant will get redundancy, Dept Finance will not allocate the money, they'd rather allocate excess staff to 'white rooms' and hope many will retire early on medical grounds
Secondly, NO private sector business would relocate without a valid business case. Certainly not on the whim of a rural politician hoping to gain votes for "delivering jobs" - and the people to fill those jobs, not locals - do they really think their electorate is that thick?

I can see a valid long-term business case for moving government departments out of the capital. Rural staff are cheaper to hire as they don't have to face the expense of living in Dublin, property/rents are cheaper etc. It's a change which is being woefully managed (imho, the departments should have been moved over a number of years, moving those who would be willing to move and any new hires at first and allowing natural attrition/movement of staff to other departments to gradually erode the 'Dublin office' of each department until that office can eventually be closed) but a good idea doesn't become a bad one because it's poorly implemented. The reasoning remains sound, although in practice it's been a disaster due to an incompetent government and poor top-level management of the civil service.

Sleepy

gazzer wrote:

"If my job was moved to the other side of the country I would have to go". Now maybe I am wrong but if somebody in the private sector had to move with their job would they not be entitiled to moving expenses etc (if I am wrong on this point I apolgise).

AFAIK, you're not entitled to moving expenses though most companies would cover it rather than risk losing talent. Moving people's jobs with no expenses being covered or promotion has been known as a means of forcing people to quit in the private sector before.

You cant tar all civil servents with the same brush... times have changed. I know a lot of people were angry with the benchmarking findings but they did come with a lot of conditions attached. For instance from next year yearly increments are only giving if you reach a certain level of grading on your yearly assessment. I agree with this as it will flush out the people who do not do their work properly

This is a point I can't argue with. Things are undeniably better than they used to be but there's still areas for improvement. I personally don't mind public sector employees having better working conditions than me, the private sector offers me far greater opportunities for rapid advancement and at my age (26) that's more important to me right now than having flexi-time, nicer holiday entitlements, better job security etc. It just annoys me when civil servants start whining about what they lose on the swings without aknowledging what they win on the roundabouts.

Colonel Sanders

ninja900 wrote:

Just how many is that?
And just because they've heard of someone who's heard of someone doesn't mean it's prevalent.

You are quoting hearsay and anecdotal evidence, which come to think of it is pretty much all the Indo does these days...

Untrue, if you had read my posts all of the things I highlighted were said to me by civil servants, not by someone who heard it from a civil servant or anyone else i.e. the info came straight from the horses mouth. I also have day to day dealings with tax offices etc and my experience have been anything but professional. For example when i lost my wallet containing my blood donor card it took 16 months for it to be re-issued, i visited the tax office about 4 weeks ago to claim rent relief. there was a que of 10-12 people being served by one person despite the fact that two people were standing around talking about football (they can't have been on lunch braek, it was 3pm, the tax office I deal with closes at 4pm) and only started serving when someone kicked up a fuss.

I have come on here and given my opinions based on first hand evidence yet have been accused of quoting what I have read in papars etc as being my only evidence. I point out that this is not true yet still get accused of quoting 'hearsay'. I have not once quoted a newspaper or used hearsay or anecdotal evidence

Colonel Sanders

Sleepy wrote:

I've seen it with my own eyes. I'll trust them over your opinion. Sorry.
QUOTE]

I've also seen this and had friends boast about how cushy their work place is re. hours worked. I agree with sleepy, I will trust this over someone else's opinion.

sovtek

verbatim wrote:

I suggest you have a read of "Freedom to Choose" by Milton Friedman. It might help you come to terms with the public service, and how some of it can be rectified.

And why should the public service be efficient? Sure they have a monopoly on their customers (the taxpayers), and if they run out of money, they can just raise taxes. Central governement rarely achieves the same levels of efficiency as the private sector, for exactly that reason. A private company cant just go and order their customers to pay more, if they did, they could go bust, whereas government run organisations can live in a dream world where business realities dont exist, and theres an infinite amount of money to go about.

Ah ol' Milt...his buddy Pinochet will probably join him in the not too distant future.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

It's pretty straight forward really:

In the private sector where unions aren't as militant (because they don't get away with being so), management care about efficiency. If staff don't work, profits don't get made, shareholders don't get dividends, directors/managers don't get their bonuses and staff get laid off. Everyone within the organisation suffers.
.

...and then you have BOI without a militant union laying off workers whilst making billions.
Private firms are generally efficient at making a few people a LOT of money.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

The difference is in the private sector we can choose to go elsewhere. As it stands we can't decide to contribute our tax to a more efficient organisation. (I can choose to fly with Ryanair if I prefer a cheaper service than BMI for example)

Can you really? Can I fly for more on Aer Lingus (which almost got lost to the Mick too) or BMI and get treated like a customer more or less...or be treated like livestock on Ryan Air and maybe pay less, sometimes...when I don't want to fly...and then get raped for baggage. I'm not going to get into the difference of the staff's attitude.
Can I also go to a better bank, phone/broadband service, drink in a pub that isn't owned by a member of the VFI, buy groceries at a good value? Can I afford to by a car, a house, a health insurance policy.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

How can you not consider flexi-time to be a benefit in a job? Would you prefer a job with it or without it? While it can increase productivity, the realities of the business world (customers who expect to be able to contact you during business hours) make it impossible to offer for many if not most jobs.

So you are saying that because the private sector generally treats their workers like a means to an end that the public sector should go the same direction?
I as a customer wish I could go to the bank sometime other than lunch...when it's impossible anyway.

Sleepy

sovtek wrote:

Can you really? Can I fly for more on Aer Lingus (which almost got lost to the Mick too) or BMI and get treated like a customer more or less...or be treated like livestock on Ryan Air and maybe pay less, sometimes...when I don't want to fly...and then get raped for baggage. I'm not going to get into the difference of the staff's attitude.
Can I also go to a better bank, phone/broadband service, drink in a pub that isn't owned by a member of the VFI, buy groceries at a good value? Can I afford to by a car, a house, a health insurance policy.

Yes, I can choose Ryanair who I prefer to Aer Lingus, whilst you can choose Aer Lingus who you prefer to Ryanair. Seems like a pretty good example of choice to me.

There are how many banks operating in Ireland these days? You can choose whichever you want to bank with. Broadband is lagging behind because of Eircom (behaviour which started before they went private and only continued because of useless management inheritted from their days as a state-owned body) and the impotence of Comreg (i.e. a lack of political will to force Eircon to comply with the country's best interests). Buy Groceries at good value? Have you never heard of Lidl or Aldi? Or even Tesco's Value range? Or do you turn your nose up at these, exercising the choice afforded to you by the freedom of the grocery retail market?

Communism was tried and it failed but that's a discussion for another thread (and forum). We're discussing the differences between the private and public sector within the confines of the Irish political and economic system.

Sleepy

sovtek wrote:

...and then you have BOI without a militant union laying off workers whilst making billions.
Private firms are generally efficient at making a few people a LOT of money.

Trust me, I've worked for BOI and my father and mother both still work there. BOI could shed a few hundred more staff without any negative effect on their customer service (in fact if a hundred of the right people were sacked and replaced by maybe ten competent individuals, customer service (and their profit levels) would increase).

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

Trust me, I've worked for BOI and my father and mother both still work there. BOI could shed a few hundred more staff without any negative effect on their customer service (in fact if a hundred of the right people were sacked and replaced by maybe ten competent individuals, customer service (and their profit levels) would increase).

their profits are soaring and I will trust my own experience. They never have enough staff and their solution is to get someone to bother you in the queue and try to get you to do an "express" lodgement.

Sleepy

So what if their profits are soaring? We live in a market economy where their high profits are taxed by our government, where the company in question is almost entirely owned by our pension funds and where BOI making profit is, on the whole, good for society.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

Yes, I can choose Ryanair who I prefer to Aer Lingus, whilst you can choose Aer Lingus who you prefer to Ryanair. Seems like a pretty good example of choice to me.

My point was that there isn't very much choice and the privatisation of one of them almost led to no choice (and might still). That's one reason Ryan Air charges more to fly out of Dublin than any other route.

There are how many banks operating in Ireland these days? You can choose whichever you want to bank with.

There are a few and they basically operate the same. I will grant that very recently foreign banks have moved in to improve the situation. No thanks to Irish banks trying to keep them out.

Broadband is lagging behind because of Eircom (behaviour which started before they went private and only continued because of useless management inheritted from their days as a state-owned body) and the impotence of Comreg (i.e. a lack of political will to force Eircon to comply with the country's best interests).

And as a private enterprise why would Eircon bring in broadband when it could charge much more for ISDN? Also as a private enterprise it took the EU (a government body) to force it to act in the country's best interest.

Buy Groceries at good value? Have you never heard of Lidl or Aldi? Or even Tesco's Value range? Or do you turn your nose up at these, exercising the choice afforded to you by the freedom of the grocery retail market?

Whilst Aldi and Lidl offer good value you can't get everything there. Tesco's and Dunnes are a rip you off.

Communism was tried and it failed but that's a discussion for another thread (and forum). We're discussing the differences between the private and public sector within the confines of the Irish political and economic system.

Any attempts at communism in a democratic context were thwarted by the best efforts (including assassination, war and terrorism) of the strongest capitalist nations.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

So what if their profits are soaring? We live in a market economy where their high profits are taxed by our government, where the company in question is almost entirely owned by our pension funds and where BOI making profit is, on the whole, good for society.

"In the private sector where unions aren't as militant (because they don't get away with being so), management care about efficiency. If staff don't work, profits don't get made, shareholders don't get dividends, directors/managers don't get their bonuses and staff get laid off. Everyone within the organisation suffers."

mountainyman

Sleepy wrote:

AFAIK, you're not entitled to moving expenses though most companies would cover it rather than risk losing talent. Moving people's jobs with no expenses being covered or promotion has been known as a means of forcing people to quit in the private sector before.

You are mistaken, expenses would have to be paid or redundancy would have to be paid. In this area as in all others you don't know what you are talking about.

MM

Kimbot

Hmmmm some very interesting rants here!!

I am a civil servant and most of thie thread is utter cr@p!!

I am 5 years in the service and on less than €30,000 a year in an IT capacity!! I get 20 day annual leave a year!! For my flexi time I can work up an extra day and a half off every month!! Most days I don't get time for a lunch because of the work load I have, most days I don't get a break because of the work load I have, the civil service is not what it was years ago where people dossed all day and got away with it!! Now its being run right!!
As for the wage increases, studies were carried out that said civil servants done more actual work than that of people doing the same work in the private sector and were getting less money for it!!
The 9% is not 9% to each staff member, its 9% over 4 years, so this year i will get 1.5% increase, which to me is less than €400 a year!!! thats nothing!!

Sleepy

sovtek wrote:

My point was that there isn't very much choice and the privatisation of one of them almost led to no choice (and might still). That's one reason Ryan Air charges more to fly out of Dublin than any other route.

So what's the alternative? Centralise everything and have no choice but to fly with an over-priced airline as was the case in Ireland twenty years ago? :rolleyes:

There are a few and they basically operate the same. I will grant that very recently foreign banks have moved in to improve the situation. No thanks to Irish banks trying to keep them out.

If you don't like the bank, you can switch, if you don't like any of the banks, you can go to a building society/credit union. That option does not exist with government services.

And as a private enterprise why would Eircon bring in broadband when it could charge much more for ISDN? Also as a private enterprise it took the EU (a government body) to force it to act in the country's best interest.

Public infrastructure is one area I do agree that should remain in the public sector. The privatisation of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure was a farce.

Whilst Aldi and Lidl offer good value you can't get everything there. Tesco's and Dunnes are a rip you off.

We're getting way off-topic here...

Any attempts at communism in a democratic context were thwarted by the best efforts (including assassination, war and terrorism) of the strongest capitalist nations.

As I said in my last post, this is something for another thread, if you want to start one in political theory I'll be happy to contribute.

sovtek wrote:

"In the private sector where unions aren't as militant (because they don't get away with being so), management care about efficiency. If staff don't work, profits don't get made, shareholders don't get dividends, directors/managers don't get their bonuses and staff get laid off. Everyone within the organisation suffers."

How does that disprove what you quoted?

mountainyman wrote:

You are mistaken, expenses would have to be paid or redundancy would have to be paid. In this area as in all others you don't know what you are talking about.

MM

A rather arrogant statement there mountainyman, never heard of attacking the post and not the poster? Like I said in the very line you quoted AFAIK, companies are under no legal obligation to reimburse an employee if there job is moved, nor if the employee is entitled to redundancy if they refuse the move. I make no claim to be a legal expert. If there is in fact legal protection for employees in this regard, I'm open to hearing it. The reference to companies using compulsory moves as a means of pressuring an employee to quit is something I've seen personally (but won't name on boards after this site's recent legal issues) where the company in question were offering to meet the expenses of the move but no promotion, or optional redundancy were offered.

Sleepy

jonny24ie wrote:

As for the wage increases, studies were carried out that said civil servants done more actual work than that of people doing the same work in the private sector and were getting less money for it!!

Link?

Kimbot

I don't have a link for it, all the union's publications would have the details at the time in which benchmaking started about it!!

Sleepy

LOL, you expect people to take a union's report stating that their members are more productive than other groups seriously?

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

So what's the alternative? Centralise everything and have no choice but to fly with an over-priced airline as was the case in Ireland twenty years ago? :rolleyes:

That was the choice of the government and by right the voters. Other publicly owned airlines have offered better and more affordable air travel. Public transport is a public asset.

If you don't like the bank, you can switch, if you don't like any of the banks, you can go to a building society/credit union. That option does not exist with government services.

I can switch to a bank that does basically the same thing...admittedly it's getting better...

Public infrastructure is one area I do agree that should remain in the public sector. The privatisation of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure was a farce.

So has every other public asset that's been privatized.

We're getting way off-topic here...


As I said in my last post, this is something for another thread, if you want to start one in political theory I'll be happy to contribute.

I know but you are the one that brought up communism...which I have yet to champion.

How does that disprove what you quoted?

Because you seem to suggest that a knock on effect of inefficiency in the private sector led to loss of profit and loss of jobs.
I pointed out that it wasn't necessarily the case as BOI is a good example.

CherieAmour

A few things...

To the person who queued up to claim rent relief - waste of time! In order to help the tax payer to understand tax credits and to make sure everyone was getting what they're entitled to, Revenue have launched an online service - you should have gotten a letter in the post about it. I did mine online in 5 minutes and got my credits fixed up within a fortnight, money back etc.
Does that not sound efficient? Is that not an example of the Civil Service coming up with the goods for you? I fully accept that the staff shouldn't have been chatting behind the counter, but like a customer of the Civil Service, when you are a customer of HMV, Dunnes, wherever, you get that too despite the fact that you're also 'paying their wages'. Unfortunately it's a fact of life. Maybe it's the boring nature of counter work??!?

Next, with the most common grade in the service it takes 10 years to get above 30k. Some of these are IT, pension, HR specialists... Some I know have 2+ masters degrees.

The decision whether or not to pay benchmarking is decided by NON-CIVIL SERVANTS. Every Department has to prove they have delivered under particular headings before it can be paid to anyone.

Next, performance is closely monitored and if you abuse the clock, are not punctual, abuse the sick leave regulations or are not performing under a range of headings YOU DON'T GET YOUR INCREASE!

Yes you can get sacked.

I want to stress that I came from a private sector backround into the Public Service and I don't think I would ever go back. I certainly know what stress is from my former employments, and while where I am now is no walk in the park workload wise, the flexitime, respect, appreciation, career prospects and range of experience I am gaining makes it all worthwhile.

Lastly, ever thought that it may be private sector contractors pushing up prices and being generally lazy about getting things done that leads to things going over budget and being delivered late? (I've been on that side of the fence too so I know what I'm talking about!) New legislation introduced means that this shouldn't happen in the future. I dont know much about it, except for the fact that contractors will have to quote the whole thing at the start of the job and the government wont pay a penny over so it will be in the contractors interests to get the job done quickly and efficiently. When contractors are doing a job for the public service, you can see the euro signs in their eyes and a few zeros added to the invoice. There isnt, like some people think, an endless pit of money to draw from (hence 'the budget'!) and each department has to decide what to do with theirs, private sector contractors charging over the odds are only wasting that tax payers money by eating up these budgets.

I can believe that some of you have heard first hand about cushy numbers, which is a real shame as the rest of us get tarred with that brush. If I had a quid for every time I got a snide reaction when I tell people what I do, I wouldn't need to work at all !

Hotblack Desiato

Sleepy wrote:

I saw a position in Galway City Council advertised externally recently which stated a starting point of 28 days a year.

Local authorities aren't the civil service

How can you not consider flexi-time to be a benefit in a job?

It's a benefit but one that costs the employer nothing, keeps the employees happier and makes it easier for women in particular to stay in work after having kids = less loss of experienced staff

While it can increase productivity, the realities of the business world (customers who expect to be able to contact you during business hours) make it impossible to offer for many if not most jobs.

I don't agree, most jobs require a core period of attendance but can be flexible outside of that period.

While that certainly used to be the case (and definitely would have been the case during the dot-com boom for IT workers), it's far less so now.

Problem - few of the experienced IT staff due to decentralise will move. I'll give you one guess at what they'll be replaced with.

I somehow doubt that Bertie Ahern (much as I dislike the man) personally decided how much to pay ESB workers.

He was Minister for Labour at the time and the ESB is state-owned. All he had to do was tell the govt-appointed board members to give in to the strikers with the promise of allowing electricity charges to go up in 6 or 12 months to compensate

(i.e. sacking the over-paid workers and replacing them with people at the market rate for their jobs). But this is the real world and such a move would be mighty unpopular amongst public sector voters.

Actually I don't think the ESB workers have any sympathy from other public servants. They know and we know they're taking the **** with what they get paid, getting paid to do nothing while a plant is out of action, etc. and we all pay through the nose for this in ESB charges. Purely because they have the power to put the lights out and no-one can afford to stand up to them.

Rural staff are cheaper to hire

Not in the public sector, as there is no Dublin premium.

You say the reasoning for decentralisation is sound but there is no reasoning behind it except vote-grabbing in marginal constituencies.
Why didn't it follow the national spatial strategy (itself too watered down because of local political considerations?)
Why is there no business plan showing a clear business case?
Why in many cases are services moving away from their customer base?
Why is there no estimate of the full costs?
This has been done to death in the Decentralisation thread.

Greencore's announcement the other day of a plan to create 2000 jobs in Carlow town puts decentralisation into perspective - Carlow will get 250 civil servants - most of whom already live there or nearby, so the economic benefit to the town from these 250 will be negligible
What's needed is proper regional development in this country but that means moving away from political strokes and 'one for everyone in the audience'. Decentralisation is a smokescreen so the govt. can pretend it's doing something for rural towns

Kimbot

Sleepy wrote:

LOL, you expect people to take a union's report stating that their members are more productive than other groups seriously?

It wasn't a union report, if you read my previous post you will see that it was an independant study carried out with its findings being giving to the unions etc!!

At the end of the day do you know any computer programmers with 2 years experience earning under 30,000 a year??? I doubt you do, thats what I am paid and I work my rear off for it!!

The old service is gone, people are getting sacked and suspended for all their stupid actions, i.e. abusing the flexi system/always being sick/etc.... They have done a lot over the past few years that drag the service into line iwth the private sector. You think of it, if there were no civil servants who would be there to pay out the social welfare or manage the tax structure in the country etc.

Sleepy

ninja900 wrote:

Local authorities aren't the civil service

It's still public sector is it not? I don't really make much distinction between the different branches of public employment, I probably should as I know conditions are vastly different between the departments but I always tend to look at public sector as one entity because lets face it, if the county council in Kerry hires a new administrator, the opportunity cost of that to the public is an extra nurse in one of our over-worked A&E's. (vastly simplified, disregarding department budgets etc. but still true).

It's a benefit but one that costs the employer nothing, keeps the employees happier and makes it easier for women in particular to stay in work after having kids = less loss of experienced staff

I don't agree, most jobs require a core period of attendance but can be flexible outside of that period.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd consider it a benefit as not all employers have customers who will put up with the company's staff not being available when they need them. Yes, for some positions, it makes no difference what time of the day the work is done at so long as it is done but I don't believe it can be adapted to suit most positions.

Problem - few of the experienced IT staff due to decentralise will move. I'll give you one guess at what they'll be replaced with.

College graduates who are far cheaper? And from my experience dealing with public sector IT people, probably more capable.

He was Minister for Labour at the time and the ESB is state-owned. All he had to do was tell the govt-appointed board members to give in to the strikers with the promise of allowing electricity charges to go up in 6 or 12 months to compensate

I don't know the origins of the ESB's excessive pay rates but it seems strange that it came as a result of standing up to unions?

Not in the public sector, as there is no Dublin premium.

That really surprises me and tbh, if a claim was made for one by the public sector, I'd back it. Living in Dublin is more expensive than the rest of the country so I don't see why a public sector employee in Galway should have an effectively higher salary than a public sector employee in Dublin.

You say the reasoning for decentralisation is sound but there is no reasoning behind it except vote-grabbing in marginal constituencies.
Why didn't it follow the national spatial strategy (itself too watered down because of local political considerations?)
Why is there no business plan showing a clear business case?
Why in many cases are services moving away from their customer base?
Why is there no estimate of the full costs?
This has been done to death in the Decentralisation thread.

Greencore's announcement the other day of a plan to create 2000 jobs in Carlow town puts decentralisation into perspective - Carlow will get 250 civil servants - most of whom already live there or nearby, so the economic benefit to the town from these 250 will be negligible
What's needed is proper regional development in this country but that means moving away from political strokes and 'one for everyone in the audience'. Decentralisation is a smokescreen so the govt. can pretend it's doing something for rural towns

I said I could see a business case for the idea. Decentralisation of the civil service could be a great thing if it was done properly. It could lower costs and lead to happier employees (lets face it, many of us from other parts of the country would be only too happy to work at home if there were decent jobs outside of Dublin). I believe the government made a total mess of what in principle seems like a sound idea.