Public Servants & Mortgages

bbam

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A popular point of view. Maybe you could say how many non-frontline staff we need?

Six..

Seriously though, the last thing we need is a reduction in actual service while there are redundant duplicated positions left in tact. It's common knowledge for example that when the health boards were combined to form the HSE there was not the required reduction in staff numbers that could have been made, nor were there serious levels of redeployment..

This isn't a scenario unique to the public sector either..

Dannyboy83

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A popular point of view. Maybe you could say how many non-frontline staff we need?

A good point and a good question.
Impossible to answer from my point of view of course as I don't have the necessary information.

But I could give two examples which I heard on RTE last year, offered by public servants who were exasperated at the barriers to their work.

First example:
Many public servants were sitting in any office.
Daylight savings had come into effect.
One worker wanted to adjust the clock.
The worker was warned not to do so.
They clock has to be adjusted by the necessary engineer, else it could lead to a demarcation dispute.

Now I realize that this is a tricky area, and there are no hard and fast answers when it come to demarcation and H&S etc.
But the above example would seem to highlight a complete, total and utter lack of effort (common sense aside) on behalf of the people who make these decisions, to encourage productivity/cost saving.
The on-site managers must have some discretion with the rules.

A manager who does have discretion and cannot employ it in this situation should be demoted or retrained.

Second example:
A worker in the HSE was tired of taking flak, so they rang up complaining about toilet paper. In order to 'release' toilet paper, two managers were required to sign off on it.
That seems like a sensible decision when it comes to expensive items.
There must, however, be some method to distinguish between a laser printer and a roll of toilet paper. Again lack of common sense and effort with the rules/legislation.

I don't blame the public sector workers for lack of productivity in those cases, that would drive anyone insane. Equally it protects the lazy.

BostonB

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

And why do you object to this?
Is it an unreasonable comparison?

Duplication of threads. It the same issue again and again...

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I've never heard the "Fat Cat's being untouched" ever voiced as a reason for striking by any individual on strike. It has been a preemptive strike to prevent expense reduction in the public sector.
...

The reason why people strike are varied. The opinion that people don't feel the banks, developers, and politicans are taking their share of the cuts has often been expressed. I'm surprised you've not heard that.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't necessarily believe there is a campaign. I don't believe that the government are capable of orchestrating one.

I'd agree. Seems like theres an agenda though. If the schools are off, only public sector workers go shopping, and then mainly in the north, if you were to believe the media. Similar spin on other stories too. THat story was originally reported as being families going shopping and quickly changed to PS workers and no mention of kids or families. No mention that its the same on other school holidays like the Dec 8th.

Then you get umpteen threads about the same thing on the boards. If this was about iPhones it would be merged into one thread by now.

BostonB

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A good point and a good question.
Impossible to answer from my point of view of course as I don't have the necessary information.

But I could give two examples which I heard on RTE last year, offered by public servants who were exasperated at the barriers to their work.

First example:
Many public servants were sitting in any office.
Daylight savings had come into effect.
One worker wanted to adjust the clock.
The worker was warned not to do so.
They clock has to be adjusted by the necessary engineer, else it could lead to a demarcation dispute.

Now I realize that this is a tricky area, and there are no hard and fast answers when it come to demarcation and H&S etc.
But the above example would seem to highlight a complete, total and utter lack of effort (common sense aside) on behalf of the people who make these decisions, to encourage productivity/cost saving.
The on-site managers must have some discretion with the rules.

Second example:
A worker in the HSE was tired of taking flak, so they rang up complaining about toilet paper. In order to 'release' toilet paper, two managers were required to sign off on it.
That seems like a sensible decision when it comes to expensive items.
There must, however, be some method to distinguish between a laser printer and a roll of toilet paper. Again lack of common sense and effort with the rules/legislation.

I don't blame the public sector workers for lack of productivity in those cases, that would drive anyone insane. Equally it protects the lazy.

Is this any different than there being 4 managers on the floor on PC World/Atlantic and none of them will man a till. Or dealing with Dell or NTL and getting nowhere until you peel the layers of support until you get to someone who will use common sense. According to some these companies should have gone bust years ago because bad service, inefficiency can't happen in the private sector.

P. Breathnach

bbam wrote: »

Six..

Seriously though, the last thing we need is a reduction in actual service while there are redundant duplicated positions left in tact. It's common knowledge for example that when the health boards were combined to form the HSE there was not the required reduction in staff numbers that could have been made, nor were there serious levels of redeployment..

This isn't a scenario unique to the public sector either..

I recognise that there seems to be a problem with the HSE (note that I said "seems"; I don't know enough to make an informed judgement of my own).

On the other hand, the delivery of frontline services needs to be organised and supported. In general, the people who do the work of backing up the frontline services do not themselves operate in the front line.

For example, all but the smallest schools have a non-teaching principal, and all schools have secretaries; is this reasonable? Is it reasonable for a local authority to employ people to keep the financial records? Is it reasonable for the civil service to employ people to develop policy and draft legislation?

My point is that if that good front line service needs good back office services. It is not reasonable to say that we need one, but don't want the other.

I do not object to people pointing to things that are excessive, unnecessary, wasteful, or ineffective. I am in favour of improvement where it is possible. But blanket comments tend to be unfair on many good people who are doing valuable work. Some of those good people are the "faceless bureaucrats" that commentators of a tabloid-press mindset are so fond of condemning.

Euro_Kraut

I very much buy into Freidman’s Permanent Income Hypothesis. Public Sector workers (and others) should rationally be expecting a pay cut and probably have already begun to reduce spending according.

TGPS

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A good point and a good question.
Impossible to answer from my point of view of course as I don't have the necessary information.

But I could give two examples which I heard on RTE last year, offered by public servants who were exasperated at the barriers to their work.

First example:
Many public servants were sitting in any office.
Daylight savings had come into effect.
One worker wanted to adjust the clock.
The worker was warned not to do so.
They clock has to be adjusted by the necessary engineer, else it could lead to a demarcation dispute.

Now I realize that this is a tricky area, and there are no hard and fast answers when it come to demarcation and H&S etc.
But the above example would seem to highlight a complete, total and utter lack of effort (common sense aside) on behalf of the people who make these decisions, to encourage productivity/cost saving.
The on-site managers must have some discretion with the rules.

Second example:
A worker in the HSE was tired of taking flak, so they rang up complaining about toilet paper. In order to 'release' toilet paper, two managers were required to sign off on it.
That seems like a sensible decision when it comes to expensive items.
There must, however, be some method to distinguish between a laser printer and a roll of toilet paper. Again lack of common sense and effort with the rules/legislation.

I don't blame the public sector workers for lack of productivity in those cases, that would drive anyone insane. Equally it protects the lazy.

I'd like to make a couple of points - one serious, one relatively trivial.

First, on the clock issue (trivial point!!) - we're based in a building and we're not allowed touch stuff like that because of the lease - it's bonkers I know, but it's nothing to do with demarcation, it's to do with the landlord!

Secondly, I know loads of managers like myself who know exactly what needs to be done in terms of reform, know how to go about doing it and have the stomach for it. But, the senior management and leadership of the Civil and Public Service are, by-and-large, resistant to such change.

If I were the Sec Gen in the Department of Finance I'd look to put all Assistant Principal Officers and above on to 5 year renewable contracts with renewal based on clear reform criteria, including targets for workforce reduction from the top to the bottom and re-deployment across and between all elements of the Civil and Public Service, HSE, Local Authorities etc

If you want to put a figure on the reduction - in my own organisation I'd say there's scope for at least a 25% reduction in staff numbers, including 2 directors.

Finally, this fiction that there are and have been no redundancies in the public service needs to be addressed. In my own organisation we've reduced staffing by 10% by not renewing contracts for staff. There'll be further reductions at the end of each month until next April as no one is having their contracts renewed - by that time we'll have lost about 20% of our staff (based on the head count this time last year) - but there's still some more we could trim, if we were allowed drop certain areas of work.

Euro_Kraut

TGPS wrote: »

I didn't strike on Tuesday because I believed that industrial action in this case was morally and ethically unjustifiable.

Your Union voted in favour though. I too voted against the action but was happy to respect the democratic will of my work collegues. If you are not willing to stand by the vote of your fellow members than you should not be in the Union.

The Union could expell you for this. Alternativly you probably should consider leaving.

TGPS

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My point is that if that good front line service needs good back office services. It is not reasonable to say that we need one, but don't want the other.

This is a good point, but my experience would suggest that there is huge scope for rationalisation - the building I'm normally in houses 3 different public sector bodies - is there any reason why we couldn't share HR, Finance and IT functions (tecnology issues aside).

Likewise with schools - especially in cities couldn't they share services?

the list goes on - local authorities and VEC's etc.

Significant savings (and service improvements) would be possible if we regionalised more - we don't need 30 odd local authorities, a similar number of VECs, FAS offices in every town, multiple Teagasc stations in every county etc.....etc....

P. Breathnach

BostonB wrote: »

Is this any different than there being 4 managers on the floor on PC World/Atlantic and none of them will man a till. Or dealing with Dell or NTL and getting nowhere until you peel the layers of support until you get to someone who will use common sense. According to some these companies should have gone bust years ago because bad service, inefficiency can't happen in the private sector.

Inefficiency in the private sector (and your examples are oh-so-familiar to me) is not a justification for inefficiency in the public sector.

But you make a fair point. We put up with crap from private sector organisations, and don't make as great a song and dance about it as we do about a similar degree of crap from the public service. And before people come in to say that with the private sector we are free to take our business elsewhere, let me point out that many people don't: they put up with the crap. Ryanair has institutionalised the idea of crap service, and people take it. Some people even consider Michael O'Leary a hero although his business model involves treating people badly.

TGPS

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Your Union voted in favour though. I too voted against the action but was happy to respect the democratic will of my work collegues. If you are not willing to stand by the vote of your fellow members than you should not be in the Union.

The Union could expell you for this. Alternativly you probably should consider leaving.

Who says I haven't?

I considered the ballot, voted accordingly and when it went the other way I resigned my AHCPS membership for two reasons - first I didn't believe a day of action was justifiable and secondly the threats being used to whip members into line were suggestive of an organisation that didn't have full control of its membership leading me to wonder if the hearts of individual members were actually in it.

bbam

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I do not object to people pointing to things that are excessive, unnecessary, wasteful, or ineffective. I am in favour of improvement where it is possible. But blanket comments tend to be unfair on many good people who are doing valuable work. Some of those good people are the "faceless bureaucrats" that commentators of a tabloid-press mindset are so fond of condemning.

I didn't say we don't need managment within the public sector, nor did I mean to imply that there are no effective managers there..
My point was that there are excessive numbers of middle managment positions which could well be done without rather than less teachers etc..

Personally I would rather see a reduction in wages and redeployment of headcount, than redundancies. We need to reduce the cost and maintain or improve the service provided.

Euro_Kraut

TGPS wrote: »

Who says I haven't?

Me. Because I presumed so.

I considered the ballot, voted accordingly and when it went the other way I resigned my AHCPS membership for two reasons - first I didn't believe a day of action was justifiable and secondly the threats being used to whip members into line were suggestive of an organisation that didn't have full control of its membership leading me to wonder if the hearts of individual members were actually in it.

Fair enough.

TGPS

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Some people even consider Michael O'Leary a hero although his business model involves treating people badly.

I'd say his model is more about creating rules for people to trip over after which he charges you to be picked up:)

bbam wrote: »

I didn't say we don't need managment within the public sector, nor did I mean to imply that there are no effective managers there..
My point was that there are excessive numbers of middle managment positions which could well be done without rather than less teachers etc..

Personally I would rather see a reduction in wages and redeployment of headcount, than redundancies. We need to reduce the cost and maintain or improve the service provided.

there's no point in singling out middle management - all levels are bloated in the Civil and Public Service - there needs to be both wage reduction and redundancies as well as redeployment.

There also needs to be a culture of accountability - having loads of Guards, Teachers and Nurses is useless if they are crap. It shoudn't be easy to fire someone, but it shouldn't be as difficult as it currently is to remove someone who is rubbish at their job and taking the p1$$.

Dannyboy83

BostonB wrote: »

Duplication of threads. It the same issue again and again...

I agree there is massive duplication of threads, and there is an annoying trend for a topic about beans to be diverted into a public v private war, but I've not seen this particular comparison I've made anywhere else on the board and I thought it would be a new angle and should be an interesting thread.
I'm trying to avoid covering the same territory myself, but I cannot do anything about those, on either side, who are so enraged that they may feel compelled to sway every thread.

Would you mind if I put the original question to you?

Public or private, it doesn't matter. Some private workers are in favour of strikes and long term borrowing also and against the idea of reducing expenses. The world is not so black and white of course, and they are entitled to their opinion, wheter I disagree is irrelevant, although I don't deny that I would like to convince them that cuts are in the best interest of the nation.

Personally speaking, I'm in the private sector and I have favoured reducing my expenses. I don't see borrowing as a viable option for me, especially as my girlfriend was refused welfare on the means test, but I also have slightly more maneuverability as I didn't buy into the property pyramid (or rather wasn't able to would be a better description).

The reason why people strike are varied. The opinion that people don't feel the banks, developers, and politicans are taking their share of the cuts has often been expressed. I'm surprised you've not heard that.

Genuinely, I have not.
Again, it reflects terribly on the campaign led by the unions that they have not been able to communicate even the core reasons for the strike. The central issue as far as I have heard it, has been the question of cuts.
I've not heard any leader or spokesperson say they would be willing to accept cuts, if similar reform was thrust upon the ministers.
This to me would be the most favourable action and I would have been sympathetic to strikes in that instance.
The line they took caused division and polarisation, on the motive of greed.
An imbecile would have been capable of uniting the public against the ministers on the grounds of reform.
Thus I am confused as to why the Union leaders led such a silly campaign.

I'd agree. Seems like theres an agenda though. If the schools are off, only public sector workers go shopping, and then mainly in the north, if you were to believe the media. Similar spin on other stories too. THat story was originally reported as being families going shopping and quickly changed to PS workers and no mention of kids or families. No mention that its the same on other school holidays like the Dec 8th.

I've witnessed speeches by union leaders on live television.
The message to me was consistent and it was not " cuts in return for reform", but "No cuts under any circumstances, one out, all out".
Therefore, I feel the union leaders have only themselves to blame for a terribly poor campaign/performance.

If there is an agenda, I believe it is the union leaders who have the agenda.
The union leaders seemed to conduct the campaign in the most likely way to stir up anger and least likely way to garner sympathy.
Given the relationship they've had with the decision makers over the last 12 years, it makes me suspicious as to wheter they sold out.
Perhaps they are simply incompetent tho.

Euro_Kraut

TGPS wrote: »

There also needs to be a culture of accountability - having loads of Guards, Teachers and Nurses is useless if they are crap. It shoudn't be easy to fire someone, but it shouldn't be as difficult as it currently is to remove someone who is rubbish at their job and taking the p1$$.

The difficulty is that the metric for success in this area of Govt Policy has been staff numbers. The main parties over the past ten years would promise 15,000 Guards or 20,000 nurses; rather than better policing or better health care. An input became the target, rather than an output.

bbam

BostonB wrote: »

Is this any different than there being 4 managers on the floor on PC World/Atlantic and none of them will man a till. Or dealing with Dell or NTL and getting nowhere until you peel the layers of support until you get to someone who will use common sense. According to some these companies should have gone bust years ago because bad service, inefficiency can't happen in the private sector.

Yes there is a major difference...
In general companies whom run inefficient poor quality services will go out of business or rationalise when things get tough, wage cuts or redundancies, I need not point out that this is wholesale at the moment..

In the public sector inefficient departments just suck up more and more of a dwindling kitty of available money in the public purse. And when things get tough expect that nothing happens...

If you can't see the difference ??

Mcloke

MaceFace wrote: »

Is there anyone here who has not shopped Up North or Online?
Oh, and if anyone has a problem with shopping outside the jurisdiction, whatabout shopping in Tescos or Argos which are not Irish companies?

Times have changed and no one has a right to complain about anyone spending their money where they like (as long as it is legal of course).

Add Lidl, Aldi, Debenhams, Homebase, B&Q, Halfords, JJB and I could go on :rolleyes:

Little old Ireland needs to wake up and realise that Irish people have at last realised how much piss taking was going on here...yes we have higher vat rates (well done FF) and staffing rates (private sector) but we are in the EU which allows us to freely purchase goods from within the EU....do you honestly expect us to pay so much more for stuff if we don't need to?
I don't shop up north as it is just not realistic in relation to where I live but I am not against those who do. I shop online a great deal....why because Ireland cannot or will not compete....competition is a foreign concept! When I buy via amazon they add on the VAT difference on goods that it is applicable to so I am paying the VAT but I am not paying an Irish retailer an extra €50 just for the hell of it!

TGPS

I understand the metrics but if we've to have 15,000 Guards or a certain pupil teacher raitio - that's fine, but it doesn't mean we have to keep what we've got.

If someone is taken on at the moment they're pretty much immune from being let go for incompetence - that needs to change. We can still have our 15,000 Guards - they'll just be better Guards!

TGPS

bbam wrote: »

Yes there is a major difference...
In general companies whom run inefficient poor quality services will go out of business or rationalise when things get tough, wage cuts or redundancies, I need not point out that this is wholesale at the moment..

In the public sector inefficient departments just suck up more and more of a dwindling kitty of available money in the public purse. And when things get tough expect that nothing happens...

If you can't see the difference ??

"In general companies whom run inefficient poor quality services will go out of business......."

........unless you have the word "Bank" in the company title

old boy

the public sector is a complete waste of money and resources,
i changed my telephone provider on 9/7/09. today my telephone allowance has still not been transfered to my new provider, yes i have rang about it, more than once, yes they have told me it will be done, yes they have told me it takes time, no they cannot tell me why it takes so long, no they cannot tell me when it will be transfered, they can only tell me it takes time,
why can people not take the words of jfk to heart ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country, the PS is full of i am all right jack and jills, this little island is sinking fast, and it looks like the private sector, and the people on welfare are being expected to save it, the public sector and the banks are living on cloud cuckoo land, wake up and smell the morning coffee, that is while we can still afford to import it:mad::eek:

Mcloke

bbam wrote: »

Yes there is a major difference...
In general companies whom run inefficient poor quality services will go out of business or rationalise when things get tough, wage cuts or redundancies, I need not point out that this is wholesale at the moment..

In the public sector inefficient departments just suck up more and more of a dwindling kitty of available money in the public purse. And when things get tough expect that nothing happens...

If you can't see the difference ??

Yes but see the Public Sector workers I know (maybe they are a minority but I wouldn't think so) are willing for reform to take place and many know that it needs to happen but instead of the government looking at the hard job of fixing the public sector and looking to reduce the 4 managers (from the previous private sector comparison post) down to the 1 that is needed they are hitting everyone in the public sector....those who work hard and those who may not. The government avoid the hard jobs and that annoys people...it should annoy everyone but too many are hung up and the you against us argument to even notice :rolleyes:

bbam

TGPS wrote: »

"In general companies whom run inefficient poor quality services will go out of business......."

........unless you have the word "Bank" in the company title

Indeed... I did say "In general"

Euro_Kraut

old boy wrote: »

the public sector is a complete waste of money and resources,
i changed my telephone provider on 9/7/09. today my telephone allowance has still not been transfered to my new provider, yes i have rang about it, more than once, yes they have told me it will be done, yes they have told me it takes time, no they cannot tell me why it takes so long, no they cannot tell me when it will be transfered, they can only tell me it takes time,
why can people not take the words of jfk to heart ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country, the PS is full of i am all right jack and jills, this little island is sinking fast, and it looks like the private sector, and the people on welfare are being expected to save it, the public sector and the banks are living on cloud cuckoo land, wake up and smell the morning coffee, that is while we can still afford to import it:mad::eek:

How do you get Telephone allowance?

Also I think its a bit much to say the entire Public Sector is a waste of money. I'm sure you regard the Firebrigade as pretty important when your neibhbours house goes on fire.

Its not prefect granted. But such irrantional and sweeping statements to little to promote a geniune debate on issue.

TGPS

old boy wrote: »

the public sector is a complete waste of money and resources,
i changed my telephone provider on 9/7/09. today my telephone allowance has still not been transfered to my new provider, yes i have rang about it, more than once, yes they have told me it will be done, yes they have told me it takes time, no they cannot tell me why it takes so long, no they cannot tell me when it will be transfered, they can only tell me it takes time,
why can people not take the words of jfk to heart ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country, the PS is full of i am all right jack and jills, this little island is sinking fast, and it looks like the private sector, and the people on welfare are being expected to save it, the public sector and the banks are living on cloud cuckoo land, wake up and smell the morning coffee, that is while we can still afford to import it:mad::eek:

Love it - someone complaining their free service is being transferred!!

....and that's a reason to get rid of the Public Service.....

not because.....

.....A&Es are overcrowded

....schools are crumbling

....a complete failure of regulation leading to a massive bank bail out

....we failed to look after children placed into state care

....not for any of a thousand serious reasons or cock ups

....but because your free telephone allowance hasn't been moved over quick enough.

Nice attitude.....

Mcloke

TGPS wrote: »

I understand the metrics but if we've to have 15,000 Guards or a certain pupil teacher raitio - that's fine, but it doesn't mean we have to keep what we've got.

If someone is taken on at the moment they're pretty much immune from being let go for incompetence - that needs to change. We can still have our 15,000 Guards - they'll just be better Guards!

I totally agree...no matter who you work for or what job you do if you are not up to it then you should be made unemployed. We all remember the crap teachers but lets not forget the good ones These types of changes would make a huge difference to everyone in society.

Euro_Kraut

Mcloke wrote: »

I totally agree...no matter who you work for or what job you do if you are not up to it then you should be made unemployed. We all remember the crap teachers but lets not forget the good ones These types of changes would make a huge difference to everyone in society.

And, I feel, would be welcomed by most members of the Public Service.

P. Breathnach

bbam wrote: »

Yes there is a major difference...
In general companies whom run inefficient poor quality services will go out of business or rationalise when things get tough, wage cuts or redundancies, I need not point out that this is wholesale at the moment...

I don't agree, as I have already indicated in an earlier post. Irish consumers tolerate a great deal of poor service. BostonB's examples include firms that give poor service and yet continue to prosper.

Dannyboy83

old boy wrote: »

the public sector is a complete waste of money and resources,

That's not true and you don't believe it.
You are just angry of course, but you will offend other people here by use of mass generalizations.

We had a thread about how good the public services are recently:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63180560#post63180560

There are of course areas that need reform, as do the private sector.
There are probably very few areas in the country that would not benefit from reform.

Mcloke

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

How do you get Telephone allowance?

Also I think its a bit much to say the entire Public Sector is a waste of money. I'm sure you regard the Firebrigade as pretty important when your neibhbours house goes on fire.

Its not prefect granted. But such irrantional and sweeping statements to little to promote a geniune debate on issue.

and I am sure just infuriates the public sector workers who work hard...if in your entire life you have had one bad dealing with a public sector worker then blanket the whole lot as a waste of money lol if we did that with any sector private or public we would shut down the whole country and start again.....now there is an idea :rolleyes: