Some Questions for The Public Sector Bashers

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

You are right, I picked you up incorrectly. By productive you meant productive of taxes as opposed to general productivity.
...

No, I didn't mean that.

Is this a case of "there are none so blind as those who will not see"?

Count Dooku

imme wrote: »

you sound like you're watching too many re-runs of Yes Minister. no branch of the PS sets out to less productive, why would they?

Do you mean that filling more forms makes public services more productive?
Please, explain me where was growth of productivity in Department of agriculture with 5,000 clerks for 30,000 farms?

imme

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean that filling more forms makes public services more productive?
Please, explain me where was growth of productivity in Department of agriculture with 5,000 clerks for 30,000 farms?

I'm not familiar with the 'growth' of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food that you refer to. I don't know how many were employed there 5 years ago, 10 years ago. The Department which includes responsibility for policy, EU angle, food safety. The sector accounts for 10% of all Irish exports and 8.5% of employment in the country.
There were 136,500 farms [source: OCED] in Ireland in 2002 (latest figure I can find), has this number dropped to 30,000 in the meantime. Where did you get this figure? Also, where did you get the Department staff figure of 5,000?

Boskowski

imme wrote: »

you sound like you're watching too many re-runs of Yes Minister. no branch of the PS sets out to less productive, why would they?

I think it's natural. Administration creates bureaucracy, bureaucracy creates more bureaucracy.
Also contributing to this is the fact that public services aren't really profit organizations so therefore their productivity is not very tangible in a straightforward way. In private organizations efficiency and productivity are relatively easy to measure. If they provide a good and efficient service that meets demands they are more than likely profitable, hence they survive and prosper. If they're not they don't. How do you measure success in public service?
Another contributing factor is the sheer size of of public service organizations. Easier to 'hide' for non-performing bodies or individuals in a big organization (private or public btw). In a small operation non-performers stand out immediately, everybody has to pull their weight.

Look at he former east for example. In a way all workers in the GDR for example were public service workers as there was virtually no private enterprises. What happened was that there was no real incentive then for people to stand out and perform. Everybody just tried to get by, milk the system as well as they could and have an easy a number as was possible. That's why they went bankrupt. And of course because we (the west) forced them into a spiral of military spending further ensuring socialism could not succeed, but that's another story.

Now I'm not comparing the Irish public service to the state bodies in the former GDR, this is just to demonstrate why and how it's in the 'nature' of public bodies to behave the way they do.

Public bodies seem unable to streamline and reform themselves. Look at what decentralization got us, look at what the various health board reforms got us. More spending more inefficiency bloated numbers.

imme

realcam wrote: »

I think it's natural. Administration creates bureaucracy, bureaucracy creates more bureaucracy.
Also contributing to this is the fact that public services aren't really profit organizations so therefore their productivity is not very tangible in a straightforward way. In private organizations efficiency and productivity are relatively easy to measure. If they provide a good and efficient service that meets demands they are more than likely profitable, hence they survive and prosper. If they're not they don't. How do you measure success in public service?
Another contributing factor is the sheer size of of public service organizations. Easier to 'hide' for non-performing bodies or individuals in a big organization (private or public btw). In a small operation non-performers stand out immediately, everybody has to pull their weight.

Look at he former east for example. In a way all workers in the GDR for example were public service workers as there was virtually no private enterprises. What happened was that there was no real incentive then for people to stand out and perform. Everybody just tried to get by, milk the system as well as they could and have an easy a number as was possible. That's why they went bankrupt. And of course because we (the west) forced them into a spiral of military spending further ensuring socialism could not succeed, but that's another story.

Now I'm not comparing the Irish public service to the state bodies in the former GDR, this is just to demonstrate why and how it's in the 'nature' of public bodies to behave the way they do.

Public bodies seem unable to streamline and reform themselves. Look at what decentralization got us, look at what the various health board reforms got us. More spending more inefficiency bloated numbers.

you seem to be saying that because the PS is generally not 'profit driven' one cannot measure efficiency and productivity. I cannot agree with you.
The PS is required to provide services that aren't 'profit driven'. The state provides electricity and postal services to the arse hole of every corner of Ireland.
Decentralisation was doomed from the start, (it was a solo run by Charlie McCreevy), just like the government's half arsed National Spatial Strategy. The PS is capable of streamlining, it's quite rare though. The PS has invested quite heavily in technology/mis in the last number of years, this has facilitated people in accessing public services from home/efficencies.

Boskowski

imme wrote: »

you seem to be saying that because the PS is generally not 'profit driven' one cannot measure efficiency and productivity. I cannot agree with you.
The PS is required to provide services that aren't 'profit driven'. The state provides electricity and postal services to the arse hole of every corner of Ireland.

I haven't said that. Actually I have carefully and deliberately avoided saying that. I do put some thought into what I'm writing you know. Sometimes anyway. ;-) Go back and read it again and you will have to agree with me there.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. All I'm saying because of the different nature of it is more difficult to keep it efficient. Therefore it needs different types and maybe even more so of an effort to do so. Obviously not enough attention was paid to that over the last 10 years. Otherwise we wouldn't find ourselves in the situation we're in for which I don't blame the public service but the bodies that should guide the public service, the government.

Count Dooku

imme wrote: »

Also, where did you get the Department staff figure of 5,000?

From Ivan Yates

Within the 370,000 public payroll there is inefficiency and overstaffing. How can we justify 4,560 officials in the Department of Agriculture when the number of full-time farmers has gone from 150,000 to 30,000?

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

From Ivan Yates

Within the 370,000 public payroll there is inefficiency and overstaffing. How can we justify 4,560 officials in the Department of Agriculture when the number of full-time farmers has gone from 150,000 to 30,000

Department of Agriculture officials don't stick their arms up farmers arses, they stick them up cows, sheep and pigs arses and there's over 13.2 million of them as of June 2008.

http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=AAA01.asp&TableName=Selected+Livestock+Numbers+in+June&StatisticalProduct=DB_AA

ei.sdraob

dresden8 wrote: »

Department of Agriculture officials don't stick their arms up farmers arses, they stick them up cows, sheep and pigs arses and there's over 13.2 million of them as of June 2008.

http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=AAA01.asp&TableName=Selected+Livestock+Numbers+in+June&StatisticalProduct=DB_AA

can the "up the cows/pigs arse arm sticking"

not be outsourced to a private dedicated pool of companies?

imme

Count Dooku wrote: »

From Ivan Yates

ok you say 5,000, Ivan Yeats (former Minister for Agriculture) says 4,560. Why don't you just say 6,000. Is 4,560 the same as 6,000?
Have you any official figure?
What about the number of farmers, have you any source to say that there are only 30,000 farmers in Ireland? The IFA says there are 128,300 farms, not farmers in Ireland. How many farmers does this translate to, I don't know. http://www.ifa.ie/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Dl8S-klcGGs%3d&tabid=634

P. Breathnach

We don't have a Department of Agriculture, something that Ivan Yates, as a formenr Minister, should know. It is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (and, although it is not in the formal title, forestry also). Some of those employed there, accordingly, have nothing to do with farming.

I live in the countryside, yet few of my neighbours are full-time farmers. The reason is simple: they can't make enough on their holdings (typically from 35 to 100 acres) to sustain a family. So they farm part-time, and also work off-farm. They are still farmers, and the Department must take an interest in them in a number of ways. The figure of 30,000 full-time farmers is a red herring. There might be three or four times that many farmers if you include the part-time ones.

That said, I have no idea if there is significant inefficiency in the Department. What I do know, however, is that cheap rehetorical devices do not amount to proof of anything.

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

can the "up the cows/pigs arse arm sticking"

not be outsourced to a private dedicated pool of companies?

We're in the business of taking private companies into public ownership because of their gross inefficiency.

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

We're in the business of taking private companies into public ownership because of their gross inefficiency.

Do you mean banks?
This is only to save greedy developers from debt collectors

BTW, it is Public services (Financial Regulator and Central Bank ) fault, why those bank are inefficient

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean banks?
This is only to save greedy developers from debt collectors

BTW, it is Public services (Financial Regulator and Central Bank ) fault, why those bank are inefficient

The financial regulator was never a public servant, he was Fianna Fail's rep.

ei.sdraob

dresden8 wrote: »

We're in the business of taking private companies into public ownership because of their gross inefficiency.

lol

they should have been let to their own devices

it was the government's bright spark to hand over money to the banks and nationalize the most useless one

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lol

they should have been let to their own devices

it was the government's bright spark to hand over money to the banks and nationalize the most useless one

We can at least agree on that.

NewDubliner

realcam wrote: »

Public bodies seem unable to streamline and reform themselves.

The same is true of large private sector organisations, they get too big and lose focus. For example, look at the mess that 'Microsoft Windows' is.

The big handicap of the PS is political interference. The decentralisation project failed because it had nothing to do with reforming the public sector. We now have a problem that with so many decentralised offices (mostly in the constituencies of influential ministers), it's going to much more difficult to redeploy staff in response to changing needs.

kaymin

realcam wrote: »

That's true but you can hardly hold that against them.

I mean ultimately that's what we pay taxes for, right? So that people can be employed who will carry out tasks we all benefit from. Like fixing roads, policing, putting fires out. That's the nature of it.

Our administrating & governing bodies job is to keep these things in balance. Like figure what services we need to function as a society/country, how much that costs and how much taxes we need to raise to pay for it. Their job also is to keep the service bodies in control because its in their nature to expand and create overheads and become less productive etc. Hardly secrets all this.

It's not the public services fault what happened. The same way it's not the dogs fault when he empties your dustbin and spreads the rubbish all over your backgarden. He can't help it, it's in his nature.

No I don't hold that against PS and I agree that is why we pay taxes. I don't think the PS is blameless though - I have no doubt there are plenty of competent capable people in the PS that can see what is happening on a day to day basis, many of whom are in positions of authority. Worker representatives and trade union officials on the FAS board and CIE have alot to answer for - they must be held accountable even if it is to set an example to the rest of the PS that they have a responsibility to act in the interests of the taxpayers.

From what I read and hear, wrongdoers are rarely held accountable in the PS - at worst you'll be moved sideways into a position where you can't do any more harm. More examples need to be made of people that do wrong in the PS otherwise the culture of waste will continue. The government sets a very poor example unfortunately.

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

The financial regulator was never a public servant, he was Fianna Fail's rep.

Was he an exception for public services or there few thousands like him more?
BTW, what staff in financial regulator was doing?
Another question, by law (article 108 of EU treaty) Central bank is fully independent from Government. Government can only increase salary for CB staff, nothing else. Why Central bank didn’t do anything to do his main job – keep financial stability?

NewDubliner

Count Dooku wrote: »

Was he an exception for public services or there few thousands like him more?

Positions at the top of most state agencies are political appointments.

imme

Count Dooku wrote: »

(1) Was he an exception for public services or there few thousands like him more?
(2) BTW, what staff in financial regulator was doing?
Another question, by law (article 108 of EU treaty) (3) Central bank is fully independent from Government. Government can only increase salary for CB staff, nothing else. Why Central bank didn’t do anything to do his main job (4) – keep financial stability?

(1) in what way?
(2) the usual stuff, regulating, everday stuff. What the Irish banks did wasn't illegal (for the most part), but it was wrong.
(3) what CB are you talking about ECB or Irish Central Bank?
(4) The Financial Services Regulator was set up by the FF/PD government at the instance of the PD's. It was their baby and they wanted it bad. So, the regulation of the banks/financial sector transferred to this new body. The Central Bank couldn't have regulated the banks, it wasn't in their remit.

Count Dooku

NewDubliner wrote: »

Positios at the top of most state agencies are political appointments.

It means that we have first candidates for redundancies

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

It means that we have first candidates for redundancies

Not to mention Celia's 30k or so fees and expenses for her purely "voluntary" role that Bertie appointed her to.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/aug/24/fee-bonanza-at-taxpayers-expense-for-celia-larkin/

I see the "great Eddie Hobbs" has his snout in the trough too.

Lenihan hasn't savaged the quangoes as he promised I see.

Another question you might want answered is how many constituency hangers on do Ministers have appointed to do the photo-copying in their allegedly overstaffed departments when they are appointed?

Count Dooku

imme wrote: »

(3) what CB are you talking about ECB or Irish Central Bank?

Irish Central Bank

imme wrote: »

The Central Bank couldn't have regulated the banks, it wasn't in their remit.

http://www.centralbank.ie/frame_main.asp?pg=abt_whowhat.asp&nv=abt_nav.asp

the Central Bank, which has responsibility for monetary policy functions, financial stability, economic analysis, currency and payment systems, investment of foreign and domestic assets and the provision of central services; and

Central bank had enough recourses, to print everyday in newspapers that there is property bubble and house prices will fall sharply without any soft landing.
They didn’t do it, because they would be excluded from benchmarking…

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

They didn’t do it, because they would be excluded from benchmarking…

Benchmarking happened once, in 2003.

imme

Count Dooku wrote: »

Central bank had enough recourses, to print everyday in newspapers that there is property bubble and house prices will fall sharply without any soft landing.
They didn’t do it, because they would be excluded from benchmarking…

The Central Bank issues quarterly reports. They can't get involved directly with the media in the way you suggest. They can't brief against the government. Staff in the Central Bank would not have been excluded from Benchmarking if they said anything that wasn't true. Were they even included in Benchmarking.

irish_bob

dresden8 wrote: »

Department of Agriculture officials don't stick their arms up farmers arses, they stick them up cows, sheep and pigs arses and there's over 13.2 million of them as of June 2008.

http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=AAA01.asp&TableName=Selected+Livestock+Numbers+in+June&StatisticalProduct=DB_AA

your talking through your arse , i know all about farming and dept of agri officials never go near cows , dept vets very occasionally inspect animals but thats only on farms which are closed up with TB or brucelosis , private sector vets treat cattle on the vast majority of farms

pmacdot

jimd2 wrote: »

Question for all of ye that have suddenly come out of the woodwork to bash those of us working (very hard I might add) in the Public Sector....

Why did you not try and get a job in the Irish Public Sector during the boom and when they were recruiting quite a lot?

Were you so happy with your private sector bonuses and rapid promotions that I know many people were getting?

Did the Public Sector seem an area that was not exciting enough for your undoubted talents?

Why were you not opening threads on forums / fora such as this venting your opinion about how the Public sector were going to ruin the country?

Were you objecting to the rapidly increasing house prices and the obvious effects this was having on mortgages and consequently wages in this economy?

Did you vent your feelings about Public Sector workers the last time you had an ineraction with a nurse, teacher, guard, dole office staff, social worker etc.?

Are your opinions on the Public Sector workers influenced by the slow drip feed of negatives being conveniently and continuously being released to the media in recent times?

What are your thoughts regarding those uindividuals that have avoided paying their taxes for many years in this country in spite of earning many multiples of Public Sector wages.

What are your thoughts about workers in banks whose effects on tis economy is much more stark but are now getting pay rises?

Thank goodness some sanity at last! If I read one more article about how parasitic and evil the public sector are I think I will screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem!!!! it is a form of brainwashing which has taken hold of the minds of everybody including the public sector themselves, collective amnesia has set in and the new national consensus (remember the old one? " house prices will go up and up and up ,they will never ever come down.") is " the nasty evil lazy good -for-nothing public sector are to blame for this hideous economic mess, they must be spurned at the crossroads, at newspaper stands,on the television and radio and in all human discourse their appalling crime must be exposed. Cut, Cut, Cut!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I will wake up and find it has all been a Halloween horror.:D:eek:(:pac::mad:

pmacdot

imme wrote: »

true enough. as well PS workers spend in the Irish economy thereby supporting the service sector etc[/quote

imme

pmacdot wrote: »

God you really must not pay much tax, oh I forgot, tax write offs! Earn 30k and pay 5k tax, not the case in public sector paye land, try a few multiples of that 5k.:rolleyes:

what are you getting at?