Civil Servants to be culled in Budget?

spadder

Do you think Cowan / Lenihan are going to trim the civil service? What depts should be cut?

NewDubliner

spadder wrote: »

Do you think Cowan / Lenihan are going to trim the civil service? What depts should be cut?

Civil Service or Public Service?

If the 'decentralisation' scheme is scrapped, then the jobs of people hired/promoted on condition that they decentralise would be at risk. That's one reason why I'd expect that they'll 'defer' the plan indefinitely instead. There'd be votes lost in rural constituencies.

Sacking public/civil servants would be very popular with some Sunday Independent readers. But, trimming the fat is much easier said than done. A quango would have to be formed to investigate and report on it.:D

Maybe, some token trimming of ministerial advisors will take place with cuts in constituency support, then the people quietly re-hired on contract.

dresden8

Generally the cuts are done with absolutely no thought of spreading them around or how it will impact service.

If you're 2 people down in a 6 person section and another person leaves, you won't get a replacement. The service goes to f*ck but that's not the government's problem, they've done their job and cut expenditure. It's those lazy feckin civil servants whose workload has doubled in the last year that get the blame.

oscarBravo

spadder wrote: »

Do you think Cowan / Lenihan are going to trim the civil service? What depts should be cut?

What do you think? Please read the charter.

lostexpectation

apparently not, that was what that civil servants privately contacting oecd or someint was about, i read they cut the civil servants in australia and then had to hire them back.

maybe they replace the with agencies where things will be worse that anything anti-union,anti-civil service people can imagine paying extra for useless temps

BostonB

dresden8 wrote: »

Generally the cuts are done with absolutely no thought of spreading them around or how it will impact service.

If you're 2 people down in a 6 person section and another person leaves, you won't get a replacement. The service goes to f*ck but that's not the government's problem, they've done their job and cut expenditure. It's those lazy feckin civil servants whose workload has doubled in the last year that get the blame.

Thats exactly what will happen.

The Govt been unable to do anything with the HSE. So with that track record I'm not sure what they'll do. But I think what will happen is that certain services will be cut. Thats will be the easy way out.

I'm in the public sector and where I am we're understaffed, have been for years, and there big demand for new projects, and replace outdated systems. A lot of demand (40-50%) for these services, (that I see) is from immigrants. While its great to see, people have to accept that its has a cost, in budget and in resources needed to deal with it.

The amount of union interference in every aspect of work is ridiculous. I'm not against unions, but the scope of their influences need to be reigned in.

Red Alert

I think a trimming of non-essential staff in state bodies should be included too. For example, in UCD there are ridiculously too many admin staff at pretty much all levels, and this number is rising all the time. Which seems a bit strange, since more and more administration is being done 'direct to student' using online services. Presumably UCD isn't the only place that's top heavy with people who do nothing for the core functioning. It should be looked at IMHO.

irish_bob

Red Alert wrote: »

I think a trimming of non-essential staff in state bodies should be included too. For example, in UCD there are ridiculously too many admin staff at pretty much all levels, and this number is rising all the time. Which seems a bit strange, since more and more administration is being done 'direct to student' using online services. Presumably UCD isn't the only place that's top heavy with people who do nothing for the core functioning. It should be looked at IMHO.

you have to keep in mind that civil service positions exists 1st and foremost to keep civil servants in jobs , whether theese positions are needed is secondary

jmayo

Red Alert wrote: »

I think a trimming of non-essential staff in state bodies should be included too. For example, in UCD there are ridiculously too many admin staff at pretty much all levels, and this number is rising all the time. Which seems a bit strange, since more and more administration is being done 'direct to student' using online services. Presumably UCD isn't the only place that's top heavy with people who do nothing for the core functioning. It should be looked at IMHO.

Would you be a young Postgrad by any chance ?
If so I would say the inocence of youth.
What will happen is the fulltime admin staff will stay, but the temporary tech staff and the contract research staff will be let go.
Ahd here will be the kicker, the number of postgrads will drop since no funding because why would you invest in research :rolleyes:

You see the same thing happens in the HSE where you have fewer people at what they call "the coal face" but you still have lots of poeple administering them.

On the plus side, eventually the number of postgrads will probably increase because it will be seen as a way of keeping people off the dole.

Looking at thread title I had images of getting a license for my rifle and then proceeding with the culling

NewDubliner

irish_bob wrote: »

you have to keep in mind that civil service positions exists 1st and foremost to keep civil servants in jobs , whether theese positions are needed is secondary

Growth in civil service numbers has been driven by politicians trying to get jobs into their own constituencies.

irish_bob

NewDubliner wrote: »

Growth in civil service numbers has been driven by politicians trying to get jobs into their own constituencies.

growth in civil service numbers has been driven by politicians trying to increase and maintain votes for them and thier running mates in thier own constituencies , i call it the bertie aherne doctrine

we broadly agree my friend

BostonB

On that thought, they aren't going to enjoy losing jobs from their own constituencies.

NewDubliner

irish_bob wrote: »

you have to keep in mind that civil service positions exists 1st and foremost to keep civil servants in jobs , whether theese positions are needed is secondary

Its natural that people want to keep their jobs. The same people would have no interest in supporting growth in numbers of staff as this increases competition for promotion.

irish_bob wrote: »

growth in civil service numbers has been driven by politicians trying to increase and maintain votes for them and thier running mates in thier own constituencies

This means that the sole responsibility for the growth in public service numbers lies with politicians.

gandalf

Was thinking about this the other day and it dawned on me for a country hung up on 800 years etc and trying the shun everything British we have embraced their invention the 19th century civil service with gusto? Strange eh!

Time to moderise, remove the influence of the unions, get the same work conditions that the standard private sector PAYE workers get and trim out all the people who are basically there just to take home a pay cheque. Welcome to the 21st century.

jon1981

gandalf wrote: »

Was thinking about this the other day and it dawned on me for a country hung up on 800 years etc and trying the shun everything British we have embraced their invention the 19th century civil service with gusto? Strange eh!

Time to moderise, remove the influence of the unions, get the same work conditions that the standard private sector PAYE workers get and trim out all the people who are basically there just to take home a pay cheque. Welcome to the 21st century.

nice idea, we need a public sector that is easily shrinked as it is expanded...but could it ever be reality. The public sector have one massive leaverage weapon over the government...the power to bring the country to its knees by striking.

gandalf

jon1981 wrote: »

nice idea, we need a public sector that is easily shrinked as it is expanded...but could it ever be reality. The public sector have one massive leaverage weapon over the government...the power to bring the country to its knees by striking.

Legislate in advance with prohibited fines for unions that strike from essential services.

Then take them on, destroy them financially. There will be pain but short term pain is now needed to sort the mess that we have. Tax payers monies are being haemorrhaged at an alarming rate because of the inefficiencies of the civil service, public service and semi state sectors.

The problem is we need politicians who actually have some balls and not he variety that talk like they do but turn out to be pussies.

irish_bob

NewDubliner wrote: »

Its natural that people want to keep their jobs. The same people would have no interest in supporting growth in numbers of staff as this increases competition for promotion.

This means that the sole responsibility for the growth in public service numbers lies with politicians.

off course it lies with politicians , everything that happens in the public service is political

NewDubliner

gandalf wrote: »

Time to moderise, remove the influence of the unions, get the same work conditions that the standard private sector PAYE workers get and trim out all the people who are basically there just to take home a pay cheque. Welcome to the 21st century.

You mean run the public service like the banks?

heyjude

I can't remember exactly how many quangos there are supposed to be, but I think it was over 400, so if they want to cut some civil servants why not start by cutting 5 staff from each quango ? Then any quango that has got too small to function, should be merged with another quango. There could also be cost savings from amalgamating the administrative functions of many quangos.

They could also examine whether, besides providing jobs for political appointees and providing plausible deniability for ministers, many of these quangos actually serve any useful purpose at all and if not, they should be closed down. If they do serve such an useful and important decision making function, then what are the government departments actually doing ?

dresden8

heyjude wrote: »

I can't remember exactly how many quangos there are supposed to be, but I think it was over 400, so if they want to cut some civil servants why not start by cutting 5 staff from each quango ? Then any quango that has got too small to function, should be merged with another quango. There could also be cost savings from amalgamating the administrative functions of many quangos.

They could also examine whether, besides providing jobs for political appointees and providing plausible deniability for ministers, many of these quangos actually serve any useful purpose at all and if not, they should be closed down. If they do serve such an useful and important decision making function, then what are the government departments actually doing ?

Well you may remember that the quangos were instituted to provide jobs for Bertie's friends. Bertie's gone now........

heyjude

dresden8 wrote: »

Bertie's gone now........

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

BostonB

dresden8 wrote: »

Well you may remember that the quangos were instituted to provide jobs for Bertie's friends. Bertie's gone now........

You mean FF. They are not gone, and neither are their friends. Its not a new dawn...

markpb

NewDubliner wrote: »

You mean run the public service like the banks?

Retail banks in Ireland are more like the public service than any other kind of company. Entrenched bitter unions, recognizes the 'national' pay deal, only recently stopped offering defined benefits pensions...

dresden8

Dresden?

Plus you're hi-jacking a thread about something else.

Poor form.

gandalf

NewDubliner wrote: »

You mean run the public service like the banks?

Jesus no, run them they like they are private enterprises. The banks are worse!

jmayo

It is not pure civil servants that need to be culled, it is public sector workers.
The huge numbers employed in public sector bodies is where the money is being eaten up not in the civil service.
Included in those numebrs are the inflated numbers of HSE admin staff.
Will they be culled or will it be front line staff such as doctors and nurses ?

Mr.Micro

It is estimated that 90% of the HSE budget goes on wages and salaries.There are over 700 higher grade managers now compared to 70 about 6 years ago. None of these are medical and have entrenched themselves now so much so that the HSE has become a behemoth and top heavy. Start the cull here and have no mercy IMO.

NewDubliner

gandalf wrote: »

Jesus no, run them they like they are private enterprises. The banks are worse!

OK, so, give an example of a private enterprise with 200,000 employees and and a non-profit business?

SeanW

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It is estimated that 90% of the HSE budget goes on wages and salaries.There are over 700 higher grade managers now compared to 70 about 6 years ago. None of these are medical and have entrenched themselves now so much so that the HSE has become a behemoth and top heavy. Start the cull here and have no mercy IMO.

+1

fitzyshea

First of all this thread asked if the civil service will be culled not the public service ie: the HSE, local gov, quangos, teachers, gardai, nurses etc etc. There is a difference between the civil and public service.
I am a civil servant and I was also involved in the unions before I left my old job. What I would like to see, as would allot of my colleagues, is that the gov would bring in a redundancy package or something similar so that the older staff who have been there for years and have no interest in promotion or anything else would be given the chance of leaving. I am working in the service for over 5 years and I enjoy my job, I also think I am quite good at it. I also understand that allot of people who are not in the service might think we all sit around drinking tea and playing solitaire all day, this is not what I see in my job on a daily basis. I do however see people who hate the job and want to get out but for some reason wont or cant. If the gov provided an incentive for these people to leave then I think they will go.

On Decentralisation, we all know this was an idea plucked from the sky on Budget day 4-5 years ago. Hopefully the gov will drop this plan or at least scale it back.

Kama

I heard (correct me if wrong) that there was a recent change in Civil Service promotion procedure, further linking advance to seniority. Can anyone confirm this? Seems a back-assward move compared to what is needed from my small xp in the civil service...but looked like a union-backed play to get people to jump.

Agree on the quangos being hit first, pure case of our clientelistic culture playing jobs for the boys and taking the worst mistakes of the UK as best practice. First step would be actually accounting and auditing 'em...last I checked no one actually knew how many there was...