My outrage at some members of the public service

K-9

irish_bob wrote: »

fergus ( no child should have to make do with hand me down school uniforms ) finlay is an idiot of the highest order , he is the quientesential champagne socilist

he came out this cracker a week ago on rte , if they dont reinstate the xmas bonus , their are people on social wellfare who will go hungary this christmas , this despite the fact that deflation is officially running at 6% , the man is a clown posing as an intelectual

It's a nice article, with no solutions. He doesn't see any cuts in SW either.

The IMF will hold it up lovingly as a relic of bygone days.

Dannyboy83

dresden8 wrote: »

The perceived wisdom is that it was practically impossible to get into public sector positions, even during the boom.

This is bullsh1t. As you can see, people didn't want these jobs that were paid 26% above that which was available in the private sector, with full security and a gilt edged gold plated pension.

Apparently.

Anecdote warning:
I applied in Mid 2006 for an IT position. (IT Officer iirc).
It was in Croke Park. My father recommend the position to me.
There were about 300 people there I guess, for 1 job.
Most diverse crowd of people I've ever seen in one place in Ireland.
The wage was approx €45k, good perks.
I'm not sure if I can give you a comparison in the private sector as I don't recall what the job entails, but I remember thinking it was very attractive at the time.

And for the record, in case you think I am attacking the public sector, which I am clearly not, there was no way on God's Green Earth I was ever going to get it. There were people there so much more qualified than me, they should have just told me to go home and not bother with the exam.

So I'm sure they got a damn good employee.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

I looked at positions in one of the Universities a number of years ago. At the time, they wanted an application filled out with multiple references from all your previous employers, presumably so these could be cross-checked.

Now maybe, such a system works well if your a University employee, since Universites typically don't shut down but it is total at variance with the reality of much of the private sector. There, companies do close down, they do get taken over and absorbed by larger companies (sometimes with the loss of entire sections of the taken-over company), they do change their names etc. In addition, there is high mobility in many industries of personnel as people either leave voluntarily, get laid off, go freelance or are re-organised from one division to another on a regular basis. As such getting multiple references from previous employers is very difficult to do with the passage of time.

As such, the entire application process struck me as being essentially a barrier to entry which would effectively block private sector -> university sector movement.

In the US, it is not uncommon for people to move between the private sector, government sector and university sectors in the course of their careers. How many individuals do you recall offhand that have done something similiar in Ireland?

Seriously, all your previous employers? Let's see - I've mostly been my own employer, which I suspect won't wash anyway. Of the others...well, I know at least two, maybe three have gone out of business...the others, hm, some were in other countries...high personnel turnover companies, and Lord knows my first employer wasn't exactly a model of efficiency, so I'd be surprised if I even elicited a response from them. How long have I got? Will I be reimbursed for the use of private detectives?

amused,
Scofflaw

TCP/IP_King

View wrote: »

In the normal course of business, any private sector firm that found it had 20 applications for every available position would conclude it must be offering too much for the positions and adjust the salaries (downwards) accordingly. So how much were the public sector starting salaries adjusted downwards in light of the above figures?

Eh because they're the government and they don't operate like a commercil business !! To bring about a change like that you'd have to first vote out the incumbents and vote for (insert_your_favourite_party_here), and then see things continue as normal.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

What part of this:



suggests a lack of applicants? If Count Dooku is correct that those 80,000 applicants in 2006 were applying for 3,900 positions, then approximately 20 people applied for each position - at the "height of the boom".

I don't know how you can look at that figure and claim nobody wanted the civil service positions.

perplexed,
Scofflaw

You obviously missed this post

Hard to tell from the tables as these also include current public servants going for promotion, but looking at a recruitment grade of "Clerical Grades"

From 2002:

7,253 applications were made for 2,551 appointments. This for a grade that is earning more than 26% above what the private sector is paying allegedly.

2.84 to 1, a far cry from 80 to 1.

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/...ice_AR2002.pdf

Page 52.


Edit: Only 4,304 bothered to sit the exams. That changes the ratio to 1.69 to 1. Even further from 80 to 1.

Feel free to ignore any facts and figures that don't suit you.

Page 7 of this thread.

NewDubliner

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Anecdote warning:
I applied in Mid 2006 for an IT position. (IT Officer iirc).
The wage was approx €45k, good perks.
I'm not sure if I can give you a comparison in the private sector as I don't recall what the job entails, but I remember thinking it was very attractive at the time.

Are you sure it was a government job? The Administrative Officer (IT) starting salary is 33k and there are no 'perks'.

I do recall a friend telling me about his disappointment with the quality of UT graduates that were recruited into his department a few years back. For the most part, they were barely help-desk material and he still has to depend on €1k/day contractors to get any serious IT work done. He's really annoiyed that while he's taken a pay cut & more coming, the contractors that he supervises are still demanding top dollar.

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

You obviously missed this post

Page 7 of this thread.

publicjobs.ie launched on-line services only mid-2002, not so many people knew about those positions, plus I guess that a lot of those positions was for promotions
According Public Appointment Service, in 2005 50,000 applied for 6000 positions through publicjobs.ie
http://www.irishegovernmentawards.ie/downloads/Patricia%20O'Grady.ppt
As I pointed before In 2006 it was 80,000 for 4000 positions

2004 was not to bad as well
Louth Local Authorities proudly reported

Louth Local Authorities continue to be hugely attractive places of work
with almost 1000 applications processed in 2004 for 22 separate
competitions.

http://www.louthcoco.ie/downloads/Reports/AnnualReports/2004/CorporateRecreation&Amenity2.pdf

BTW, at the same time in private sector it was not possible to fill positions at all, this is why 220,000 Polish workers came here in 2005

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

You obviously missed this post

Page 7 of this thread.

So you want to use only the figures from the first year of publicjobs.ie's operation? Because those ones have the lowest ratio of applicants...

I see you took this advice to heart, so!

Count Dooku wrote:

Feel free to ignore any facts and figures that don't suit you.

A word of advice - it serves your case better when you're not obviously special pleading or cherry-picking the facts.

amused,
Scofflaw

Tony46

jimmmy wrote: »

Who do people respect more : an Irish group of unionised cartel workers, who do not have competition, who have job security and who work shorter hours , who dip their fingers in your pocket, or their counterparts abroad who do the same job for less money, and without going on strike ? Irish hospital consultants are paid double by the Irish government what hospital consultants in Berlin are paid by the German government. Both groups of consultants are respected in their medical capacity. Part of the lack of respect goes to the Irish govt who was weak enough to pay the public service in the first place. If the public service workers suffered a cut in gross pay and did not strike then they would earn some respect.

Yes the public service are unionised and of course the fire service dont have competition. You dont respect the fact that we have secure jobs? or would that be that you begrudge our secure job. We work the same hours as everyone else.

There was a ridiculous amount of money spent by the government on private sector consultants in all departments. Did you mind them dipping their hands into OUR pockets for them?

I made my choices going into the public sector as did you with your career. I dont know your personal background but you have a serious chip on your shoulder with the PS probably caused by your own choices or lack of and your playing right into the hands of our sham of a government putting worker against worker. Good man yourself. I for one am standing up to the government, what are you doing?

Scofflaw

Tony46 wrote: »

I for one am standing up to the government, what are you doing?

In this instance, backing the government, and hoping they have the spine required to do what's necessary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OMD

Tony46 wrote: »

. I for one am standing up to the government, what are you doing?

This is the whole point. What are you standing up to. You have a secure job by your own admission. Public service jobs are relatively well paid, have a very good pension, have good terms and conditions and good sick pay etc. Wholesale changes rarely happen without consultation with workers through unions. Pay has increased well above inflation.

Now as a country we are up to our necks in sh1t. We need to cut 24 billion from our expenses every year to break even. One of the major expenses is public service pay. At present the government are talking about a 3.5% pay cut on average. So the average public servant on 50K a year will have a pay cut of 1750. However if this person is paying top rate tax then that works out at about €720 a year or €14 a week. This is in a time of -6.5% inflation.

If the shoe was on the other foot. If you had a 7.5% pay rise last year (reverse pension levy) and if inflation was running at +6.5%. If the government then offered you a pay rise of €14 a week in take home pay then the public service would be up in arms. There would be shouts of "€14 a week, that's pathetic". Unions would threaten strike for such a miserly pay rise when inflation was so high. Well Tony it works both ways except now drastic action is needed.

jimmmy

Tony46 wrote: »

There was a ridiculous amount of money spent by the government on private sector consultants in all departments. Did you mind them dipping their hands into OUR pockets for them?

Yes. It was the public service who decided that they needed those consultants, and who chose and paid them. I know for a fact a lot of kickbacks / corruption was involved in certain areas....maybe that was part of the reason some in the public service were so keen to hire them ?

Aidan1

I don't know how you can look at that figure and claim nobody wanted the civil service positions.

These figures have to be treated with a note of caution - generally speaking anyone can rock up and do the entry exams for the open competitions, regardless of qualifications or ability. So, for example, you could have 7,000 people apply for a competition, of which 5,000 meet the minimum standard. A much smaller number are then called for interview (say 200, for 25 positions, with no guarantee that all the posts will be filled) and it is only at that point that qualifications are checked. The point being that while large number might apply, only a very small proportion will actually get to interview stage, and an even smaller number will actually get the job - but of the vast bulk of people, only a very small number ever had a chance of getting a job to begin with.

Moreover, given the potential importance of a lot of jobs, logically you'd want the best possible candidates - no point offering a starting wage (or career path) which will discourage qualified or able people from even considering the civil or public service.

All that said, the position the Government face is quite straightforward, so straightforward in fact that cuts in the public sector pay bill can't really be considered as 'an option', they are an outright necessity. Fairest way of all is a blanket 10% paycut for everyone (and possible more for those earning over 150k) - that is the minimum required to restore at least a semblance of balance. Right now the unions are busily digging their own graves - if they chose to fight and lose (as they should), their power will be very significantly weakened, and the role they hold in social partnership very substantially undermined. Their call. I hope they cave.

seclachi

Aidan1 wrote: »

These figures have to be treated with a note of caution - generally speaking anyone can rock up and do the entry exams for the open competitions, regardless of qualifications or ability. So, for example, you could have 7,000 people apply for a competition, of which 5,000 meet the minimum standard. A much smaller number are then called for interview (say 200, for 25 positions, with no guarantee that all the posts will be filled) and it is only at that point that qualifications are checked. The point being that while large number might apply, only a very small proportion will actually get to interview stage, and an even smaller number will actually get the job - but of the vast bulk of people, only a very small number ever had a chance of getting a job to begin with.

I think the figures are fair in the context they are used though, that there was little interest in public sector jobs during the boom.

I think its a fail excuse, people were always intrested in such jobs, some people think you couldnt have swung a cat in the boom without hitting somebody who would give you a job earning 70k+.

Aidan1

some people think you couldnt have swung a cat in the boom without hitting somebody who would give you a job earning 70k+.

Agreed - even if the facts run completely contrary to that. Case in point, the guy who wrote an article in the Irish Times recently giving out that he, as a recent Arts graduate (BA), couldn't get a job, and was emigrating as Ireland was obviously screwed (presumably for failing to appreciate his magnificent talents). Newsflash. That was always the case. When I graduated with an Arts degree in 1997, very few of my class were able to get a job immediately (outside of the relatively low paid work we all did through college). That's the norm in an era when there are a huge number of people around with degrees.

There was huge interest in higher paid positions in the Civil and Public Service during the boom - but there was precious little recruitment (the last AO competion was in 2005/6, and only very limited numbers came in) because D/Finance knew full well that the economic situation was unsustainable, and clamped down on recruitment (in fact the 2001/2 restrictions were never really lifted).

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

publicjobs.ie launched on-line services only mid-2002, not so many people knew about those positions,

Are you really saying that people did not know that public jobs were not known about because they were not on the internet? Secret public service jobs that nobody knew about because they were not online?

People used to do stuff before the internet you know, and apply for publicly advertised jobs was one of them.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So you want to use only the figures from the first year of publicjobs.ie's operation? Because those ones have the lowest ratio of applicants...

I see you took this advice to heart, so!



A word of advice - it serves your case better when you're not obviously special pleading or cherry-picking the facts.

amused,
Scofflaw

The civil service commission under it's various guises was around for years before it became publicjobs.ie you know. It has been making appointments to the public service since 1932, publicjobs.ie was but it's latest re-branding for the internet generation.

Again, the perceived wisdom was that it was impossible to get into the public service with 80 applications for every appointment. This is plainly not true.

If I'm cherrypicking, I'm not the only one.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Are you really saying that people did not know that public jobs were not known about because they were not on the internet? Secret public service jobs that nobody knew about because they were not online?

People used to do stuff before the internet you know, and apply for publicly advertised jobs was one of them.



The civil service commission under it's various guises was around for years before it became publicjobs.ie you know. It has been making appointments to the public service since 1932, publicjobs.ie was but it's latest re-branding for the internet generation.

The figures that have been quoted are those from publicjobs.ie specifically (the ones I've quoted anyway). The existence of the Civil Service Commission is irrelevant, while the fact that the applications through the website in its first year of operation were lower than in subsequent years is relevant. Strictly, we should count the number of applications both on and off-line when working out how many applied for available jobs - using only publicjobs.ie gives a lower figure because it only counts those who applied through the website.

dresden8 wrote: »

Again, the perceived wisdom was that it was impossible to get into the public service with 80 applications for every appointment. This is plainly not true.

If I'm cherrypicking, I'm not the only one.

No, now you're moving the goalposts. 20 applicants for each job in 2006, at the height of the boom, is definitely not, under any circumstances, in any way shape or form "nobody wanting civil service jobs". Deciding that 80 applicants is some kind of benchmark of job desirability may suit your case, but it also makes it clear your case is completely arbitrary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ParkRunner

Scofflaw wrote: »

The figures that have been quoted are those from publicjobs.ie specifically (the ones I've quoted anyway). The existence of the Civil Service Commission is irrelevant, while the fact that the applications through the website in its first year of operation were lower than in subsequent years is relevant. Strictly, we should count the number of applications both on and off-line when working out how many applied for available jobs - using only publicjobs.ie gives a lower figure because it only counts those who applied through the website.



No, now you're moving the goalposts. 20 applicants for each job in 2006, at the height of the boom, is definitely not, under any circumstances, in any way shape or form "nobody wanting civil service jobs". Deciding that 80 applicants is some kind of benchmark of job desirability may suit your case, but it also makes it clear your case is completely arbitrary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The fact that the jobs were so oversubscribed and with so many graduates coming out of college during the boomtimes, must surely mean that publicjobs were able to pick the cream of the crop in Irish society for these jobs.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

using only publicjobs.ie gives a lower figure because it only counts those who applied through the website.




cordially,
Scofflaw

Where does it say that?

Scofflaw

EF wrote: »

The fact that the jobs were so oversubscribed and with so many graduates coming out of college during the boomtimes, must surely mean that publicjobs were able to pick the cream of the crop in Irish society for these jobs.

Most of the people I've ever worked with in the Civil Service (I'm one of those evil 'consultants') were/are in fact a noticeable cut above their equivalents in the private sector. There's nothing wrong with the personnel at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Where does it say that?

The 80,000 figure I quoted for 2006 was from a publicjobs.ie press release, talking about the numbers who had applied through the website:

In 2006 the Public Appointments Service, through Publicjobs. ie, attracted some 80,000 applicants to apply for jobs throughout the public service. These positions ranged from clerical officers, junior diplomats and legal professionals in the civil service to engineers and senior managers in local authorities to hospital consultants and administrators in the health sector. In the past 2 years alone in excess of 17,000 people nationally and internationally used this facility to apply for positions in An Garda Siochana.

Source

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

If you go back to the 2001 report, pre-publicjobs.ie

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2001.pdf

Page 32

6,167 applicants bothered to sit the exams for 3,037 assignments in clerical posts, which allegedly were 26% overpaid, but were publicly advertised, secretly, apparently.

A ratio of 2.03 to 1.

A far cry from 80 to 1.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

The 80,000 figure I quoted for 2006 was from a publicjobs.ie press release, talking about the numbers who had applied through the website:



Source

cordially,
Scofflaw

I was talking about your reference to the 2002 figures that they only counted online applications and test-sitters.

dresden8

2004 report

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2004.pdf

Page 27

1,646 applications made for clerical posts, 568 assigned.

A far cry from 80 to 1.

dresden8

2003 report

Page 34

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2003.pdf

6,525 sat the exams for 1,060 clerical assignments.

A far cry from 80 to 1.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

2003 report

Page 34

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2003.pdf

6,525 sat the exams for 1,060 clerical assignments.

A far cry from 80 to 1.

And a far cry from nobody wanting the jobs, with 6 applicants per job (pre-immigration, we should note). Lest we forget, while you're busy moving those goalposts, that the original claim is that nobody wanted the jobs. Using the figure of "80" is just bolloxology - 6 applicants per job would be considered a good result in the private sector.

regards,
Scofflaw

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

2004 report

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2004.pdf

Page 27

1,646 applications made for clerical posts, 568 assigned.

A far cry from 80 to 1.

I apologies for mistake
It wasn’t 80 per position, it was 80,743 for 4,898 , i.e. 16 applicants per position

Civil Service
• Clerical (including term time) 21,395 2,091 - 10/1
• Administrative 14,307 349 - 40/1
• Senior Management & Professional 6,104 441 - 13/1
TOTAL 41,806 2,881 - Average 20 per position

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2006.pdf
page 53

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

2004 report

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2004.pdf

Page 27

1,646 applications made for clerical posts, 568 assigned.

A far cry from 80 to 1.

the same source, page 27

OVERALL TOTAL 28,801 5,309 2,379

11 per position in total

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

. Using the figure of "80" is just bolloxology - regards,
Scofflaw

As I recall that wasn't my number. You'd want to take that up with somebody else.

Count Dooku is the one you want to call on his bolloxology.

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

the same source, page 27


11 per position in total

That would include a lot of existing public servants going for promotion.

Who's cherrypicking now?