Civil Service Reform - Cat's Out Of Bag

OldFFail

Now we know for certain, Public Service Reform was a myth. Despite a benchmarking process that has almost bankrupted the state, true reform never happened. The arrogance of David Begg and his Union colleagues, beggers belief. How dare he suggest that we now have a lost opportunity for reform.

We also know for certain that Brian Cowan is an out and out coward, whoever roars loudest gets their way. Next step is to face down the unions, once and for all. The GRA would be a good start. Jail the leadership for inciting a crime. You know how to make it happen - keep up the presure on the FF TD's.

Hillel

OldFFail wrote: »

Now we know for certain, Public Service Reform was a myth. Despite a benchmarking process that has almost bankrupted the state, true reform never happened. The arrogance of David Begg and his Union colleagues, beggers belief. How dare he suggest that we now have a lost opportunity for reform.

We also know for certain that Brian Cowan is an out and out coward, whoever roars loudest gets their way. Next step is to face down the unions, once and for all. The GRA would be a good start. Jail the leadership for inciting a crime. You know how to make it happen - keep up the presure on the FF TD's.

IMO, Brian Lenehin is the only politician standing between Ireland Inc and absolute ruin. I'm not a traditional FF supporter, by any stretch. However, he has the backbone to stand up to all comers, not least Cowardly Cowen. He also has the necessary intellectual ability to lead effectively from the from the front. He puts his "leader", cabinet colleagues, union leaders and Public Sector workers to shame.

ParkRunner

These were all on the table. What do you expect the Union leaders to say in fairness? Cut our pay, change any working conditions you want, all contracts are null and void and kindly let us know if you need anything else? I dont think any public sector worker would shy away from meaningful reform which would bring in efficiencies and savings.


• Explicit agreement on the redeployment of civil and public servants within and between organisations to ensure better delivery of priority services as budgets and staffing declined
• A process to deliver an extended 8-8 working day in the health services, leading to longer opening hours
• The introduction of new rosters in health - including the introduction of new nursing rosters by January 2011 – leading to more flexible services and a further reduced overtime budget
• Ongoing reductions in the number of in-patient beds and increases in day care, outpatient and diagnostic capacity, in order to provide faster access to services at lower cost
• A greater range of health services in community settings so that more patients could receive treatment at home
• Reviews of health service staffing ratios and skills mixes to help improve patient care at minimal cost
• New value-for money and waste elimination programmes
• The introduction of shared services in health, local authorities, education and the civil services – in areas like finance, procurement, human resources and payroll.
• The introduction of evidence-based performance measurement in health
• The extension of competitive and merit-based promotions at all levels throughout the public services
• Multi-disciplinary working and reporting arrangements in health
• The supervision and substitution scheme for post primary teacher to be made more flexible
• New procedures for redeploying surplus teachers
• A review of the teaching contract to remove impediments to teaching and learning
• A comprehensive review and revision of special needs assistant employment terms and conditions to identify and remove any impediments to efficient and effective support for students with special care needs
• Cooperation with the restructuring and rationalisation of the VEC sector
• Cooperation with rationalisation of state agencies in the local government sector
• Better management and standardisation of annual and sick leave arrangements
• Changes to civil service opening and closing times and attendance arrangements
• The further development of on-line and e-services.

Hillel

EF wrote: »

These were all on the table. What do you expect the Union leaders to say in fairness? Cut our pay, change any working conditions you want, all contracts are null and void and kindly let us know if you need anything else? I dont think any public sector worker would shy away from meaningful reform which would bring in efficiencies and savings.


• Explicit agreement on the redeployment of civil and public servants within and between organisations to ensure better delivery of priority services as budgets and staffing declined
• A process to deliver an extended 8-8 working day in the health services, leading to longer opening hours
• The introduction of new rosters in health - including the introduction of new nursing rosters by January 2011 – leading to more flexible services and a further reduced overtime budget
• Ongoing reductions in the number of in-patient beds and increases in day care, outpatient and diagnostic capacity, in order to provide faster access to services at lower cost
• A greater range of health services in community settings so that more patients could receive treatment at home
• Reviews of health service staffing ratios and skills mixes to help improve patient care at minimal cost
• New value-for money and waste elimination programmes
• The introduction of shared services in health, local authorities, education and the civil services – in areas like finance, procurement, human resources and payroll.
• The introduction of evidence-based performance measurement in health
• The extension of competitive and merit-based promotions at all levels throughout the public services
• Multi-disciplinary working and reporting arrangements in health
• The supervision and substitution scheme for post primary teacher to be made more flexible
• New procedures for redeploying surplus teachers
• A review of the teaching contract to remove impediments to teaching and learning
• A comprehensive review and revision of special needs assistant employment terms and conditions to identify and remove any impediments to efficient and effective support for students with special care needs
• Cooperation with the restructuring and rationalisation of the VEC sector
• Cooperation with rationalisation of state agencies in the local government sector
• Better management and standardisation of annual and sick leave arrangements
• Changes to civil service opening and closing times and attendance arrangements
• The further development of on-line and e-services.

It is absolute disgrace, that all this was not delivered already as part of Benchmarking, phase one. It proves that the whole process was a sham. Designed by a powerful elite to look after their own. It is an indictement of the FF administration and the Partnership process.

OldFFail

Hillel wrote: »

It is absolute disgrace, that all this was not delivered already as part of Benchmarking, phase one. It proves that the whole process was a sham. Designed by a powerful elite to look after their own. It is an indictement of the FF administration and the Partnership process.

The rot was started by Charlie and then furthered by Bertie. Peace in our time, at all costs. Buy the guys off, as necessary. Anything to keep the show going. Now we're broke and Cowardly Cowen (I like that, can I put it on my Tee Shirt?) has neither the negotiating skills or ball$ to make the hard decisions. He doesn't even have the guts to stand down and let someone more able take over. What a waster!

ParkRunner

Hillel wrote: »

It is absolute disgrace, that all this was not delivered already as part of Benchmarking, phase one. It proves that the whole process was a sham. Designed by a powerful elite to look after their own. It is an indictement of the FF administration and the Partnership process.

I agree it was done backwards, the awards should have been made on completion of reform. But in a time where we need to be constructive could Cowen not say, get us 2bn of savings from reform by next year or face another 2bn of cuts from pay? The incentive would surely be there then to reform

Scofflaw

EF wrote: »

I agree it was done backwards, the awards should have been made on completion of reform. But in a time where we need to be constructive could Cowen not say, get us 2bn of savings from reform by next year or face another 2bn of cuts from pay? The incentive would surely be there then to reform

A reasonable suggestion following the current round of cuts. As it is, the country can't really afford to wait on such reform, or on the prolonged process of discovering whether they actually happened or only appeared to happen.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gnxx

It would appear that our government are not really capable of negotiating any type of deal. They should have nailed an agreement on reform as part of benchmarking.

They should have also received agreement with the banks on salary caps, handling home-owner defaults and lending to business before implementing NAMA. Needless to say, these items will return to our front pages again, and the government will say "we are in discussions with the banks". It is just so plainly wrong, amateur and naive to go back and try and renegotiate deals in this manner.

I think the government and civil service would benefit from hard-nosed private sector negotiators in putting these types of deals together. It really appears that they don't have either the intelligence or experience to actually do what is best for the people of this country. Maybe I'm wrong and these sloppy deals are a result of political interference?

--amadeus--

EF wrote: »

What do you expect the Union leaders to say in fairness? Cut our pay, change any working conditions you want, all contracts are null and void and kindly let us know if you need anything else?

Errr, actually, yes?

If a company is tanking you would expect the workforce to ask the management what they could do to help. This should include discussing (and agreeing to) cuts in pay and changes in working conditions. This should include asking and seeking additional changes, trying to find out if they need anything else. And yes it involves a recognition that contracts drawn up in good times are - to all intents and purposes - null and void in the bad.

The sooner PS workers feed this to the union leaders the better for teh country, frankly.

irish_bob

Hillel wrote: »

IMO, Brian Lenehin is the only politician standing between Ireland Inc and absolute ruin. I'm not a traditional FF supporter, by any stretch. However, he has the backbone to stand up to all comers, not least Cowardly Cowen. He also has the necessary intellectual ability to lead effectively from the from the front. He puts his "leader", cabinet colleagues, union leaders and Public Sector workers to shame.

+1 , if lenny was to take over as taoiseach from the gutless cowen , i would perfer see fianna fail continue in power as enda kenny is a wally and would be unable to garner enough votes to give fine gael and overall majority which would then result in labour under gilmore being in goverment , this would put the kibosh on any real reform of the public sector

irish_bob

OldFFail wrote: »

The rot was started by Charlie and then furthered by Bertie. Peace in our time, at all costs. Buy the guys off, as necessary. Anything to keep the show going. Now we're broke and Cowardly Cowen (I like that, can I put it on my Tee Shirt?) has neither the negotiating skills or ball$ to make the hard decisions. He doesn't even have the guts to stand down and let someone more able take over. What a waster!

just goes to show you how much creedance we should give to either backbench td,s or political commentators in general , we were always led to believe that while bertie was the ultimate people pleaser , brian cowen was a surly , no nonesense straight talking tough courageous negotitatior , the lion has turned out to be nothing but a pussycat

as an ol guy in my local said one night when talking about biffo , hes a grumpy oul bollox but thats all he is

brianthebard

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Errr, actually, yes?

If a company is tanking you would expect the workforce to ask the management what they could do to help. This should include discussing (and agreeing to) cuts in pay and changes in working conditions. This should include asking and seeking additional changes, trying to find out if they need anything else. And yes it involves a recognition that contracts drawn up in good times are - to all intents and purposes - null and void in the bad.

The sooner PS workers feed this to the union leaders the better for teh country, frankly.

What the hell is the point in contracts or workers rights at all so?? Why bother with them if everyone's expected to piss on their agreements at any point when a business becomes shaky?

BluntGuy

The crux of the issue is the union chiefs. They don't have the interests of the country, the taxpayer or even the majority of their own members at heart. They simply exist to justify to their own ridiculous salaries, while in the process hampering in any real progress from being made in the sector.

I believe a 5-6% paycut in the current climate is very fair for the majority of decently-paid public service workers (obviously increasing as pay increases). Real union leaders, that weren't so self-interested would be leading the way by chopping off 20-30% of their (somewhat undeserved) salaries.

I do actually think that more public sector workers than not, are resigned to the knowledge that further paycuts are on the way and are preparing for it. Strikes are pointless and do nothing for anyone, except make the already damaged reputation of the public sector even worse.

As for reform. It is critically needed. But the union leaders would rather see EVERYONE take a hit, rather than THOSE WHO DESERVE to take a hit. The union leaders endorse, protect and propagate uselessness and ineffectual staff, at the detriment of those who actually try to do their jobs correctly. Top of that list of uselessness are themselves.

So, I do agree that the public sector workers should speak out against their incompetent union leaders who are preventing reform, and preventing us from maximising the potential of what is actually a good quality workforce in general.

Riskymove

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Errr, actually, yes?

If a company is tanking you would expect the workforce to ask the management what they could do to help. This should include discussing (and agreeing to) cuts in pay and changes in working conditions. This should include asking and seeking additional changes, trying to find out if they need anything else. And yes it involves a recognition that contracts drawn up in good times are - to all intents and purposes - null and void in the bad.

The sooner PS workers feed this to the union leaders the better for teh country, frankly.

look, I can find fault with some of the unions as easy as the next man but.. its easy to overlook that the Unions did go into talks with the Government and offered agreement on a long-term plan to make work changes, reduce numbers etc that would contriubute to bringing the pay bill down

while some people just dismiss these plans without even knowing the details, it was offered

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FlutterinBantam

brianthebard wrote: »

What the hell is the point in contracts or workers rights at all so?? Why bother with them if everyone's expected to piss on their agreements at any point when a business becomes shaky?

What's the point of running a deficit of 22bn and borrowing 500m a week to keep jobs for life people in employment.??

In the meantime the country goes down the plughole!!

Never heard anything so silly in all my life.

Why this job for life concept.

Pay for what we can afford, sack the rest and sort out this left wing nonsense..

Tipp Man

brianthebard wrote: »

What the hell is the point in contracts or workers rights at all so?? Why bother with them if everyone's expected to piss on their agreements at any point when a business becomes shaky?

but doesn't that apply also when big wage increases were being handed out in the noughties. I didn't see the benchmarking in the contracts either

Cuts both ways

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluntGuy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I feel it is unfortunate that we can no longer honour those contracts, to not honour an agreed contract of any kind does have an element of shame about it.

But we wouldn't have this problem if the contracts hadn't been so ludicrous in the first instance, and the contracts wouldn't have been so ludicrous if benchmarking had been applied properly, and benchmarking may have been applied properly if the union leaders and government weren't so self-interested, and if they weren't so self-interested, property prices wouldn't have been allowed to inflate - therefore voiding the argument for higher wages. It's just a vicious chain of ineptitude, selfishness and lies.

So yes, I do feel for the average, competent public sector worker, their contracts are regretably not being honoured, and unfortunately there IS an element of scapegoating in the media, but these changes simply need to be made. Forget statistics, forget private vs public... we have let ourselves get into such a sorry state that pay cuts are required. That is the cruel reality. And I'd sooner they launch into public sector pay, where generally, people will generally be able to cope reasonably well, than they do into social welfare where people in some instances are struggling just to keep even the basic things running.

irish_bob

BluntGuy wrote: »

I feel it is unfortunate that we can no longer honour those contracts, to not honour an agreed contract of any kind does have an element of shame about it.

But we wouldn't have this problem if the contracts hadn't been so ludicrous in the first instance, and the contracts wouldn't have been so ludicrous if benchmarking had been applied properly, and benchmarking may have been applied properly if the union leaders and government weren't so self-interested, and if they weren't so self-interested, property prices wouldn't have been allowed to inflate - therefore voiding the argument for higher wages. It's just a vicious chain of ineptitude, selfishness and lies.

So yes, I do feel for the average, competent public sector worker, their contracts are regretably not being honoured, and unfortunately there IS an element of scapegoating in the media, but these changes simply need to be made. Forget statistics, forget private vs public... we have let ourselves get into such a sorry state that pay cuts are required. That is the cruel reality. And I'd sooner they launch into public sector pay, where generally, people will generally be able to cope reasonably well, than they do into social welfare where people in some instances are struggling just to keep even the basic things running.

+1 , and who said the private sector is to blame for this mess

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boskowski

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While I agree with everything you say I also have to say that I'd rather be held to ransom by workers than by banks.

Boskowski

BluntGuy wrote: »

And I'd sooner they launch into public sector pay, where generally, people will generally be able to cope reasonably well, than they do into social welfare where people in some instances are struggling just to keep even the basic things running.

Sorry but I do not agree with this.

I think welfare is disproportionally generous and more than enough to keep more than basic things running.

Of course that does not include making mortgage repayments and repaying car loans and credit card bills. Thats not what welfare is there for and I think thats the big misunderstanding.

It would be a shameful thing if only working people will be hit again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluntGuy

irish_bob wrote: »

+1 , and who said the private sector is to blame for this mess

Well we can't blame either sector as a whole for the mess.

We can blame unregulated free market economics for this, and the government, the speculators, bank CEOs and management and developers, as well as a useless planning board contributed to enormously to that. Those elements of both the public and private sector are most at fault here, and they should be duly punished.

I'm not saying this eliminates the need for cuts, it does not. But people are 100% CORRECT to think that those most at fault have gotten away with the least damage, and there is understandable anger. People will be less resistive to cuts if they (rightfully) see those who contributed most to this mess taking visible pain. Unfortunately, they do not see that... mainly because, it simply isn't happening.

Getting to back to reform, it needs to happen fast. Regardless of whether the economy had blown up in our faces, it would've needed to happen. But it won't happen under this government as the union leaders are too self-interested and the government doesn't have the nerve.

We need a new leader - somebody with decisiveness and competence. Neither Kenny nor Gilmore despite being able to belch out appealing soundbites seem to offer that unfortunately (though Cowen is so atrocious, it's hard to see if them doing any worse at the least). As for the union MEMBERS, they need to decide for themselves who they want representing them - self-interested over-paid bearded soundbite monkeys, or people that actually want to do right by both their country and the hard-working members of their union.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluntGuy

realcam wrote: »

Sorry but I do not agree with this.

I think welfare is disproportionally generous and more than enough to keep more than basic things running.

Of course that does not include making mortgage repayments and repaying car loans and credit card bills. Thats not what welfare is there for and I think thats the big misunderstanding.

It would be a shameful thing if only working people will be hit again.

Well unfortunately many of those on social welfare are there not through choice, but through necessity. There are no jobs here available to them, and they need a source of income.

That is what their welfare is going to be used for.

Now if there were, say, a NAMA-type scheme for mortgage holders to help "bail them out", then perhaps your argument would be more valid. But there isn't I'm afraid.

It's unfortunate working people will be have to be hit, but many of those unemployed were working people that have ALREADY been hit. Should we really make them suffer more?

It's a pity the public sector have to take pay cuts, but they are necessary. My heart says "no" to them, but cruel economics says "yes".

BluntGuy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do I need to get into this?

Let me ask a question, would an economy based on a massive property bubble be allowed to develop if the economic system was properly regulated?

If you can answer that question (to which the answer is very obvious) then you have answered your own original question.

Why do you think the governments are trying to impose tighter regulations now?

Boskowski

BluntGuy wrote: »

Well unfortunately many of those on social welfare are there not through choice, but through necessity. There are no jobs here available to them, and they need a source of income.

That is what their welfare is going to be used for.

Now if there were, say, a NAMA-type scheme for mortgage holders to help "bail them out", then perhaps your argument would be more valid. But there isn't I'm afraid.

It's unfortunate working people will be have to be hit, but many of those unemployed were working people that have ALREADY been hit. Should we really make them suffer more?

It's a pity the public sector have to take pay cuts, but they are necessary. My heart says "no" to them, but cruel economics says "yes".

Sorry but that doesn't make sense.

As much as I pity someone who lost their job they cannot be held indefinitely in their houses and in their cars and be sheltered from their debt at the expense of the people who still have jobs.

That's what the "cruel economy" says, too.

narwog81

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the dismissal of Keyesian policies by policy makers and economists as the efficient market hypothesis blinded them to the developing credit bubble....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html

Irish membership of the EMU, historically low interest rates fanning the flames of an over heating property market 2001-2005. availability of cheap credit to Irish banks, the boom would not have been possible without foreign borrowings by the banks to fund all the development loans...

lack of regulation, both from europe and domestically, LTV allowed to go through the roof....

etc

Permabear

This post has been deleted.