Civil Servants to be culled in Budget?

BostonB

jmayo wrote: »

It is not pure civil servants that need to be culled, it is public sector workers....

I thought Civil Servants are public sector workers. The Civil Service is the Public Sector. Its just a subset.

jmayo

BostonB wrote: »

I thought Civil Servants are public sector workers. The Civil Service is the Public Sector. Its just a subset.

Well spotted .
We are now getting into semantics and that usually ends up going nowhere fast.
When people shout about culling government employees they often mix up the definition of civil service and public sector employees.
I would guess most of the wastage is in public sector bodies e.g FAS, HSE, quango infinity etc rather than pure civil servants but of course the civil service should be reviewed as well.

DadaKopf

The Civil Services is part of the public sector. The public sector includes all state and semi-state bodies (i.e. bodies that receive total or massive state financial support and have been formally established by a parent Ministry (except in the case of 2 agencies which were created by parent agencies).

There's no doubt the public sector needs a shakeup. Unfortunately, the government is choosing to take the easy way out, hitting the most vulnerable and least able to defend their positions rather than tackling poor management, lack of governmental leadership and a degree of cronyism.

BolBill

Kama wrote: »

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...

Recently, promotions have been directly linked to Decentralisation. In other words, if 40 people go for 15 promotion positions and there are 10 of the 40 that will re-locate to wherever the dept is decentralising to then they will get 10 of the 15 positions regardless of experience or suitability. If you think I'm joking I wish I was, it has already happened.

BostonB

jmayo wrote: »

Well spotted .
We are now getting into semantics and that usually ends up going nowhere fast.
When people shout about culling government employees they often mix up the definition of civil service and public sector employees.
I would guess most of the wastage is in public sector bodies e.g FAS, HSE, quango infinity etc rather than pure civil servants but of course the civil service should be reviewed as well.

Semantics would be if there was no difference. But there are differences between Civil Servants and other public sector workers.

I'm completely baffled why you'd think there was much difference in wastage between Civil Servants and anywhere else in the Public Sector. Or why you think its ok to guess which is worse. .

At the end of the day its the Govt and the various ministers that are in charge. Why do people accept excuses that its not the Govt or ministers but the public servants who they delegate too where responsibility and fault lies. This coming from a Govt who tried to give themselves huge pay rises, while telling everyone else not to. The same Govt who had a National Development Plan, and then ignored it to create a decentralisation plan, with idea of cost either to implement or to maintain.

Hotblack Desiato

gandalf wrote: »

Time to moderise, remove the influence of the unions

Civil service (as opposed to some other parts of the public sector) unions already have practically no influence as it is. This is certainly not what the media would have you believe, but it's the truth, I have been serving on a civil service union branch committee for several years now. Many of the committee, never mind the members no longer see a real point in the union as it is, to all intents and purposes, powerless as long as 'partnership' is in effect. Management do what they like and 'Partnership' rubber-stamps it. If you are not happy with how the civil service is run (and many civil servants aren't!) the fault lies with top managment and ultimately the Cabinet.

There are far too many people mouthing off about public sector this and civil service that, who have no knowledge of either apart from the utter tripe they read in the Indo.

It is funny to hear all the people (FG and Labour TDs prominent among them) who were clamouring for decentralisation to their areas a few years ago, now belatedly condemning it as an ill-thought out unworkable waste of money. The staff knew this from day one, but no-one listened.

Mr.Micro

In affluent times the civil service and other public service areas have grown along with Government coffers. If public services in health, care and whereever else are to be cut then it is only right that they staff numbers be cut as well. I mentioned only this week alone that there are over 700 higher grade wasters, I mean higher grade executive managers in the HSE compared to about 70 overall when the Health Boards existed. This type of excess including quangos, consultants and other wasters is probably widespread. Its painful but necessary that the excess is cut now, across the the whole sector. On another point I note that Enda Kenny's offer to take a 5% paycut was greeted with muted response from other TD's, so much for political example and unity.

trellheim

Everyone wants the quangos gone except those that use and need them.
Quangos are not useless; they have a defined purpose. A lot of them recently are the decision to separate implementation and regulatory functions from line government departments. Many are also self-funding, relying on levies from their own industries to keep going

However a cold,cold eye should be cast across them for savings, especially for centralising back office functions that have no connection to the operational role of the office concerned, for example HR/Payroll/accounting

Centralized purchasing would also help across the entire PS, give the GSA a new lease of life

the HSE unless backed all the way to the hilt by the government cannot dump the overhang from the health boards since those are powerful people.

cyclopath2001

trellheim wrote: »

Quangos are not useless; they have a defined purpose. A lot of them recently are the decision to separate implementation and regulatory functions from line government departments. Many are also self-funding, relying on levies from their own industries to keep going .

Such as RegTel, the quango which is supposed to protect consumers from premium-rate phone scams?

trellheim

? probably. ? so ?

cyclopath2001

trellheim wrote: »

? probably. ? so ?

Demonstrates the danger of handing over regulatory functions to industry-funded bodies.

Hotblack Desiato

Mr.Micro wrote: »

In affluent times the civil service and other public service areas have grown along with Government coffers.

The core civil service has grown comparatively little, there is a cap on numbers and this has been in place for several years.

I mentioned only this week alone that there are over 700 higher grade wasters, I mean higher grade executive managers in the HSE compared to about 70 overall when the Health Boards existed.

The HSE is not part of the civil service, quangos aren't either.

On another point I note that Enda Kenny's offer to take a 5% paycut was greeted with muted response from other TD's, so much for political example and unity.

TBH what did you expect, it's just a publicity stunt. Back in the day MPs were not paid at all, and had to be independently seriously wealthy (Imagine Dail Eireann filled with Declan Ganleys) that's not to say we can objectively justify the raises in the last couple of years, but the alternative to a good wage for politicians is (even) more corruption and influence of private wealth.

jaqian

fitzyshea wrote: »

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.

I too am a civil servant going on six years. I have to say that the majority of us are hard workers although you always get a slacker here or there (the only person I ever see play solitare is one of my bosses). We've had a few people leave our section and not be replaced due to lack of finances, which means their work isn't done until our own is completed. Another thing you have to realise about the CS is that they will employ people who wouldn't be employed anywhere else. I know of at least two people; one who is schizophrenic and another who has a form of autism and they both do good jobs at filing but they would probably be let go if jobs were axed, what would they do then?

People complain a lot about the bloated CS but as with the HSE you'll find its management, there are as they say more chiefs than indians. The CS usually manages its numbers by attrition... retirement & death

Sleepy

ninja900 wrote: »

TBH what did you expect, it's just a publicity stunt. Back in the day MPs were not paid at all, and had to be independently seriously wealthy (Imagine Dail Eireann filled with Declan Ganleys) that's not to say we can objectively justify the raises in the last couple of years, but the alternative to a good wage for politicians is (even) more corruption and influence of private wealth.

Pay them a salary linked to average private sector wage, Give them twice the annual average to discourage corruption, have it adjusted annually to reflect their performance (country does well, they do well and vice versa). Make no difference between ministers, junior-ministerial positions and the regular TD to encourage cross-party unity when it came to the tough decisions and finally, but most importantly imho, get rid of their pensions. They're paid well enough to have private pensions like the rest of us imho.

It goes without saying that pensions should be forfeit for those found guilty of corruption or inapropriate dealings with no statute of limitations.

fly_agaric

jaqian wrote:

Another thing you have to realise about the CS is that they will employ people who wouldn't be employed anywhere else.

So true. And they make accomodations for people with kids etc which I don't think you'll find in too many places in the "real world".
The CS/public sector are expected to be up at the forefront for all the latest "equality" initiatives. This must be at least part of the dead wood the public sector kickers are on about at present but they never couch it in such terms. It's easier to just confine any discussion to "wasters", "slackers with a cushy number" etc who deserve the axe:)

Hotblack Desiato

fly_agaric wrote: »

And they make accomodations for people with kids etc which I don't think you'll find in too many places in the "real world".

Whisper it, but a lot of this is very unpopular with the full-time-no-kids staff who are always expected to pick up the slack. "Job sharing" (I have NEVER seen a job shared, i.e. where there actually is a person to do the job the other half of the time) is really just a way of reducing headcount by the back door.

ednwireland

wasn't it jean-claude juncker that said (of reducing public sector sizes
"Every finance minister knows what to do. But then no one knows how to win the next election"

therein lies the nub of the problem anyone who lays off a small percentage of the public sector will not get re-elected

irish_bob

ednwireland wrote: »

wasn't it jean-claude juncker that said (of reducing public sector sizes
"Every finance minister knows what to do. But then no one knows how to win the next election"

therein lies the nub of the problem anyone who lays off a small percentage of the public sector will not get re-elected

no politician ever lost thier job in this country be pulling for the short sighted ( whats in it for me ) voter