Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Only 3,200 graduates apply for €30,000 state jobs

13567

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,069 ✭✭✭relax carry on


    sarumite wrote: »

    In fairness, the first is from the budget report. Not exactly bedtime reading. The second specifically states "It is understood that recruitment will be focused on frontline areas including teachers and nurses, with a limited number of specialist personnel also being brought into the civil service." which isn't the same as the jobs being talked about in this thread and third gives little or not details except that "a"limited" number of positions would be filled".

    The specialist personnel are the AO jobs advertised lately. They were specifically targeting, HR, Accountants, Economists, Taxation Specialists etc for the civil service.
    Since the budget announced that these jobs would be recruited for, the logical place to find them would be publicjobs.ie The jobs were advertised, 3200 people who felt they met the criteria applied. I do not see any issue with this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    n97 mini wrote: »
    If an Administrative Officer in the PS doesn't perform any administrative duties, what is someone called who does?
    You didn't respond to any of my points, you deflected. We would have similar positions in my current multinational and while a degree would be nice, it would not be a absolute requirement for any non-professional role.


    Administrative Officer is a relatively senior role despite the low starting pay. It does go quite high though. Even after the most recent 10% pay cut for new entrants (on top of the previous pay cuts) the salary scale runs up to €52,000.

    Clerical Officers, Staff Officers and Executive Officers would be more junior. Higher Executive Officer is broadly equivalent but is more managerial than the policy-oriented Administrative Officer.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    I'm in final year; I get emails every week from my college's careers service. These jobs weren't mentioned at all in said emails; so perhaps they aren't being well advertised.

    I heard by word of mouth, but didn't apply because you need to have obtained your degree by Febuary 12th I think. So that excludes everyone finishing college this may and looking to begin work. In addition, it said a masters was preferable; another obstacle.

    Contrast that with other government or semi government bodies like the central bank, who had a stand on campus a few months ago (and at careers fairs) and who began their recruitment process early last year.

    That might go some way to explaining the lack of numbers (though is it definitely the case that 3200 applicants is a small number?)


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,133 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    If I'm so ignorant of the roles of these "policy makers" please enlighten me: are they deciding the actions of our government or implementing the decisions of our democratically elected government ministers?

    I see the person deciding what is to be done as the policy maker, the civil servant implementing that decision as an administrator.

    Am I wrong in this? And if so, is our civil service taking responsibilities above itself?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Godge wrote: »
    Administrative Officer is a relatively senior role despite the low starting pay. It does go quite high though. Even after the most recent 10% pay cut for new entrants (on top of the previous pay cuts) the salary scale runs up to €52,000.

    Clerical Officers, Staff Officers and Executive Officers would be more junior. Higher Executive Officer is broadly equivalent but is more managerial than the policy-oriented Administrative Officer.

    I came in as an AO from the 2008 competition, and my understanding is that essentially AOs are seen as cheap and better qualified HEOs, particularly in the part of the CS where I work, because the top of the payscale for both grades is the same, but the AO starts on €15k p.a. less - despite the fact that an AO has to have 3rd level and/or professional/postgrad qualifications!

    Administrative Officer is merely a title for a grade, the work I do is in no way administrative... I know that Revenue recently hired AOs for their ICT division, and I saw those jobs advertised in a national newspaper - the job spec required honours degrees in computer science, software development etc IIRC, as well as what seemed like extensive experience. I heard a rumour they struggled to fill the roles for the pay on offer.

    Some of the people making assumptions about CS jobs from their titles should have a look at the Assistant Secretary grade, that'll really blow their minds... "they get HOW much just for answering thr phone and typing a few letters..." ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Sleepy wrote: »
    If I'm so ignorant of the roles of these "policy makers" please enlighten me: are they deciding the actions of our government or implementing the decisions of our democratically elected government ministers?

    I see the person deciding what is to be done as the policy maker, the civil servant implementing that decision as an administrator.

    Am I wrong in this? And if so, is our civil service taking responsibilities above itself?

    Well by that logic all Civil Servants are administrators, and the administrative officer no more or less so than any other grade.

    Take an AO who is say, a qualified accountant or tax professional, working as a tax inspector conducting audits in Revenue - are they an administrator?

    And to n97 mini who suggests that redeployment could fill these roles, I think you'd find tax evaders having a field day for the next 20 years if all the revenue audit staff were redeployed pen pushers from the HSE who haven't a breeze about taxes and no inclination to learn... thats just one example of why recruitment needs to be focused, to ensure better public services in future, rather than repeat failed recruitment policies from the past.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    And to n97 mini who suggests that redeployment could fill these roles,
    If these are roles that were created by early retirement, then this is an own goal:

    Allowing modestly paid staff to exit early onto a pension, only to be immediately replaced by a new hire is increasing the overall cost.
    recruitment needs to be focused

    Just as early retirement/voluntary redundancy does, and as has been pointed out my many commentators the CPA has utterly failed in a this regard, as anyone is allowed go, no matter how essential they are. So the only way to compensate for willy-nilly early retirement is to absolutely enforce the moratorium on hiring, and train the surplus staff who have stayed on into those vacant positions.

    This is about best practices in reducing cost, nothing else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,133 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Well by that logic all Civil Servants are administrators, and the administrative officer no more or less so than any other grade.

    Take an AO who is say, a qualified accountant or tax professional, working as a tax inspector conducting audits in Revenue - are they an administrator?
    Yes. A relatively highly skilled administrator but an administrator nonetheless. I can see why someone qualified for either role might not be interested in a sub 30k a year job though since they shouldn't struggle to get a 35-40k a year role in the private sector.

    I've always thought the best option for civil service recruitment is a targeting of the best and brightest: college scholarships for Leaving Cert students who show aptitudes in subjects of interest to the department (e.g. economics, accounting etc.) in exchange for 5-10 year terms of employment at sub-market wages on completion of the college course.
    And to n97 mini who suggests that redeployment could fill these roles, I think you'd find tax evaders having a field day for the next 20 years if all the revenue audit staff were redeployed pen pushers from the HSE who haven't a breeze about taxes and no inclination to learn... thats just one example of why recruitment needs to be focused, to ensure better public services in future, rather than repeat failed recruitment policies from the past.
    It's why we need to rip up croke park, notify the unions that there are going to be compulsory redundancies paid at reasonable levels (say a week per year above statutory rather than the no doubt 15 the unions will demand :rolleyes:) and get on with a proper review of our public sector: reducing numbers in a manner targeted to remove the lowest performers and hiring to fill gaps where there's a need for them to be filled.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    The specialist personnel are the AO jobs advertised lately. They were specifically targeting, HR, Accountants, Economists, Taxation Specialists etc for the civil service.
    Since the budget announced that these jobs would be recruited for, the logical place to find them would be publicjobs.ie The jobs were advertised, 3200 people who felt they met the criteria applied. I do not see any issue with this.

    I wasn't aware that the AO position was the limited number of specialist. As such, considering its a specialist position with strict entry requirements that appears to have had limited advertising, I would have thought getting 3200 people was a decent turnout.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18 jagblad


    Article is rubbish, firstly how do we know 2000 applicants in Oct 2008 was a low number.

    Oct 2008 for people with short memories such as Irish Indo writers and readers was after Lehman’s, after the bank guarantee, after employment had started to collapse. (Unemployment was around 5% in Jan ’08 and had risen 50% to 7.5 in October.) I would say full on panic had well and truly kicked in at that stage.

    And alternative spin would be that this time round there were 60% more applicants despite a starting salary 11% lower than in 2008 and where there’s now a significant pension deduction.

    Also I regularly buy newpapers, every Friday Irish Times for the jobs, I didn’t see these jobs advertised. I have seen the Sec-Gen job for DoH advertised loudly every week for a few months now. Why higher profile advertising for a single job that will likely be filled internally or in the unlikely event of externally - via headhunting?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Yes. A relatively highly skilled administrator but an administrator nonetheless. I can see why someone qualified for either role might not be interested in a sub 30k a year job though since they shouldn't struggle to get a 35-40k a year role in the private sector.


    I'll tell you why they might be from personal experience as someone who took a substantial wage cut to join the CS:
    • An incremental payscale subject to performance, hence clarity about one's likely future earnings - i.e. the 30k hiree will be earning 49k in 7 years time if they perform properly in the job.
    • (Perceived) greater job security
    • Clarity about opportunities for advancement i.e. competitive competency based promotion.
    • Flexible working conditions - e.g. flexi-time, term-time, job-sharing etc...
    • (The promise of) a defined benefit pension.
    • Actually wanting to be a public servant, and contribute in some way.
    Sleepy wrote: »
    I've always thought the best option for civil service recruitment is a targeting of the best and brightest: college scholarships for Leaving Cert students who show aptitudes in subjects of interest to the department (e.g. economics, accounting etc.) in exchange for 5-10 year terms of employment at sub-market wages on completion of the college course.

    Not a bad idea, but what happens when the 5 or 10 years is up; you'll have to pay at least market rate to hang on to people to manage the organisation - I'm not saying it's a bad idea, in fact it's something I probably would have leapt at when I was leaving school.

    Sleepy wrote: »
    It's why we need to rip up croke park, notify the unions that there are going to be compulsory redundancies paid at reasonable levels (say a week per year above statutory rather than the no doubt 15 the unions will demand :rolleyes:) and get on with a proper review of our public sector: reducing numbers in a manner targeted to remove the lowest performers and hiring to fill gaps where there's a need for them to be filled.

    I don't disagree with you entirely there, and there are plenty of people in the PS who aren't happy with the CPA - it has meant that hundreds of people have left my Dept., some of whom will be literally impossible to replace, while the same dodgers are still here, marking off time because they reasoned "I can go now and get paid less than half my salary to do nothing, or I can stay here for the next 10-15 years and continue to be paid a full wage to do as little as possible..." Definitely something flawed about a package that facilitates this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    jagblad wrote: »
    Article is rubbish, firstly how do we know 2000 applicants in Oct 2008 was a low number.

    Oct 2008 for people with short memories such as Irish Indo writers and readers was after Lehman’s, after the bank guarantee, after employment had started to collapse. (Unemployment was around 5% in Jan ’08 and had risen 50% to 7.5 in October.) I would say full on panic had well and truly kicked in at that stage.

    And alternative spin would be that this time round there were 60% more applicants despite a starting salary 11% lower than in 2008 and where there’s now a significant pension deduction.

    Also I regularly buy newpapers, every Friday Irish Times for the jobs, I didn’t see these jobs advertised. I have seen the Sec-Gen job for DoH advertised loudly every week for a few months now. Why higher profile advertising for a single job that will likely be filled internally or in the unlikely event of externally - via headhunting?

    The article is also inaccurate about its October 2008 date, because the competition was advertised around February - March 2008, that's when I applied. Recruitment started with artitude testing, at several centres around the country, in early June 2008. People successful at the aptitude test were sent a more detailed competency-based application form during the summer, and then called for interview in October 2008.

    So, just for factual clarity, anyone who got a job from the "October 2008" competition, had to have applied in early 2008 for the job, whatever difference that makes to anything. I was surprised to hear that there was a total of only 2000 applicants, as there were several hundred people at the test the day I did it in Cork, which was one of two sittings there IIRC, and I would have expected there to be proportionately more people attending in Dublin, as well as in Galway (and maybe Limerick).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Sala


    A lot of people seem to be emphasising the title here too much, equating "Administrative Officer" to clerical work. I worked in a University and most jobs that were not academic & research are referred to as admin - that includes lawyers, accountants etc


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    n97 mini wrote: »
    If these are roles that were created by early retirement, then this is an own goal:

    Allowing modestly paid staff to exit early onto a pension, only to be immediately replaced by a new hire is increasing the overall cost.

    Some of it is early retirement and some of it is genuine retirement - most of the people leaving where I work are 60-odd and have worked 37+ out of the 40 years required to get their full pension, indeed many have worked over the 40 years. I think the age profile might be older in my organisation than across the wider CS (as generally people don't want to transfer into this organisation!).

    AFAIK new AOs will be replacing retired HEOs (60k-ish) and possibly Assistant Principals (80k-ish). So arguably you've got people on 60k- 80k being replaced by younger more motivated people on 30k. Even taking into account the cost of the pension etc for the retiree (who would have been retiring soon anyway, albeit on a lower pension), and the incremental pay scale for the new hire, it works out reasonably well over the next 5 years I'd say... particularly since it is focused recruitment, only critical vacancies will be filled, and people will just have to pick up the slack elsewhere.

    n97 mini wrote: »
    Just as early retirement/voluntary redundancy does, and as has been pointed out my many commentators the CPA has utterly failed in a this regard, as anyone is allowed go, no matter how essential they are. So the only way to compensate for willy-nilly early retirement is to absolutely enforce the moratorium on hiring, and train the surplus staff who have stayed on into those vacant positions.

    This is about best practices in reducing cost, nothing else.

    Agreed, but surely best practice in reducing cost balances the cuts against the loss in services - given that the horse has now bolted in the form of a huge loss of skills & experience the question is how best to address the deficit.

    Limited target recruitment is the only sensible thing to do, training / upskilling redeployed staff also has a part to play, but again to use an analogy I can understand - let's say one of the foremost experts in a particular area of tax has retired from Revenue, do you redeploy someone from the HSE at the equivalent grade (and whose salary cost is 60k), and say "OK Paddy, we want you to acquire a whole career's worth of knowledge right now, please thank you", when that person may have no aptitude for the work. Or do you say OK we should probably hire a good young graduate with a First class hons degree, and recently obtained tax/accounting qualification who will probably be delighted to take the bit between their teeth, for 30k.

    (The 60k vs 30k is largely irrelevant, since the 60k is going to be paid, by some Dept to that jobholder, whereas the 30k is an additional cost. But it is illustrative of cost/benefit.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,133 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    I'll tell you why they might be from personal experience as someone who took a substantial wage cut to join the CS:
    • An incremental payscale subject to performance, hence clarity about one's likely future earnings - i.e. the 30k hiree will be earning 49k in 7 years time if they perform properly in the job.
    • (Perceived) greater job security
    • Clarity about opportunities for advancement i.e. competitive competency based promotion.
    • Flexible working conditions - e.g. flexi-time, term-time, job-sharing etc...
    • (The promise of) a defined benefit pension.
    • Actually wanting to be a public servant, and contribute in some way.
    A good point, if one's partner was also working I could see this as a very attractive position for someone looking to start, or already with, a young family.
    Not a bad idea, but what happens when the 5 or 10 years is up; you'll have to pay at least market rate to hang on to people to manage the organisation - I'm not saying it's a bad idea, in fact it's something I probably would have leapt at when I was leaving school.
    As would I (and with A's in all the business subjects in LC, I'd have been a good candidate for it). Obviously at the end of the defined term you'd need to be paying market rate (or an equivalently attractive package where the base pay might be lower but with flexible conditions, pension etc. as is already the case). To me, a system like this is a bit of a no-brainer. It needs to be well put together and managed but the potential benefits of a decent cohort of "the best and brightest" running the country are enormous.
    I don't disagree with you entirely there, and there are plenty of people in the PS who aren't happy with the CPA - it has meant that hundreds of people have left my Dept., some of whom will be literally impossible to replace, while the same dodgers are still here, marking off time because they reasoned "I can go now and get paid less than half my salary to do nothing, or I can stay here for the next 10-15 years and continue to be paid a full wage to do as little as possible..." Definitely something flawed about a package that facilitates this.
    I'd entirely agree. I'm very much anti-PS unions but I'm not against public servants being well paid if their output justifies that payment level. My career started in Software Support and Implementation and has moved into Business Intelligence over the past few years. Through this I've worked with a wide range of public sector bodies: Councils, Government Departments, Hospitals, the Courts Service and various publicly owned organisations and quangos. I've seen utter incompetence in many of the organisations I've worked with but I've also seen great individuals that are seriously over-worked and, I'd argue, under-paid for the value they provide. Off the top of my head I can think of one individual who single-handedly provided the IT for a large hospital: from developing the IT strategy of the organisation right down to running the network cables, the guy literally did everything.

    Croke Park and collective bargaining in general means guys like that are paid the same as the "come in and read the paper for the day while waiting for the pension" wasters we've all come across in some section or other of our public service. That's inherently wrong imho. Fire the waster, give the great worker a pay raise and use the wage difference to hire him an assistant at a more junior grade.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,979 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Sala wrote: »
    A lot of people seem to be emphasising the title here too much, equating "Administrative Officer" to clerical work. I worked in a University and most jobs that were not academic & research are referred to as admin - that includes lawyers, accountants etc

    The problem here seems to be the extremely generic job title given to a vast swath of jobs and advertised in a limited capacity with the same generic job spec. If you want to fill a role, you advertise for the role. You don't advertise for a perceived title.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    let's say one of the foremost experts in a particular area of tax has retired from Revenue, do you redeploy someone from the HSE at the equivalent grade (and whose salary cost is 60k), and say "OK Paddy, we want you to acquire a whole career's worth of knowledge right now, please thank you", when that person may have no aptitude for the work.
    You move the person below/beside him into the role for the same money. That way you increase productivity (more skilled work being done for the same cost).


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Oh I really love this kind of thread!!


    Last year (or perhaps 2010) there was a report published which basically said that there was a lack of specialist skill in areas like economics/finance etc, particularly relevant to Department of Finance

    This lead to pages of posts on these forums going to town on the issue, as usual.

    So, now someone decides to target that lack of specialist skill and target gradutes in these areas....and what is the response on these threads?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    I don't think they were saying the expertise was missing at the €30k pay level.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I don't think they were saying the expertise was missing at the €30k pay level.

    so you'd prefer if they hired lots more highly paid civil servants??


    This is exactly the right level to hire in graduate level people in these areas, especially given the lack of other outlets to many graduates at present.

    Its a good intitiative to get such people into the PS. In previous times they would have been more in demand in areas of the private sector


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,302 ✭✭✭JohnMearsheimer


    I don't think this has to do with the attractiveness of the pay on offer. The newspaper headline, leading with the word only, is a bit misleading. It makes it seem like every graduate in the country could apply for this AO competition but that wasn't the case. Usually the only requirement for eligibility to apply for AO is a degree but anybody that took the time to read the job specs on Public Jobs would know the Public Appointments Service were clearly looking for specific graduates. For example, with the HR related jobs they wanted people with CIPD qualifications, other jobs required you to be a qualified solicitor, others you needed a masters in economics. The total number of graduates that would meet the eligibility criteria to apply would be small. It's like saying only 3,200 graduates apply for jobs as a doctor....but how many of our grads are actually doctors.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Riskymove wrote: »
    so you'd prefer if they hired lots more highly paid civil servants??
    No, I'd prefer they hired none at all (didn't you read my previous posts!?)


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    n97 mini wrote: »
    No, I'd prefer they hired none at all (didn't you read my previous posts!?)

    so you'd prefer to redeploy some of the other people in the PS with these qualifications/skills....sure that would make sense...if they had them


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Riskymove wrote: »
    so you'd prefer to redeploy some of the other people in the PS with these qualifications/skills....sure that would make sense...if they had them
    Therein lies one of the fundamental problems with the CPA. Redeployment doesn't work if the person who is being redeployed cannot do the job they are needed to do. Targeted redundancies and targeted recruitment would be far more effective.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    sarumite wrote: »
    Therein lies one of the fundamental problems with the CPA. Redeployment doesn't work if the person who is being redeployed cannot do the job they are needed to do. Targeted redundancies and targeted recruitment would be far more effective.

    the vast majority of management or adminsitrative/policy whatever else you like to call it can be done by most managers/adminstraters

    obviously the more technical it gets the more difficult (e.g. a scientist of some kind or a specialist consultant)


    however, this issue is actually outside of the CPA and it is in fact, targeted recruitment

    it is in response to a report and subsequent media interest in a lack of 'qualifications', not neccessarily an inability to do a job


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Riskymove wrote: »
    however, this issue is actually outside of the CPA and it is in fact, targeted recruitment
    But the two things are 2 sides of the same coin:
    no money to hire needed staff because staff who aren't needed aren't made redundant yet can't be redeployed because their skills aren't required-in any sane organisation these people would be made redundant, which is what they are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,993 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    I imagine the take home pay is one deterrent i.e 23,056! The same wage in the private sector would take home nearly 25k. In order to take that home a civil/public servant needs to be earning 33.5k! There may be a half decent pension at the end of it but it will not pay for today's cost of living.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    EF wrote: »
    I imagine the take home pay is one deterrent i.e 23,056! The same wage in the private sector would take home nearly 25k. In order to take that home a civil/public servant needs to be earning 33.5k! There may be a half decent pension at the end of it but it will not pay for today's cost of living.
    There are other attractions: flexible working hours, a comparatively short working week, a pension that can't be bought, virtually impossible to be sacked, 100% job security, low pressure working environment, etc. Most people would probably be happy with that lot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭LillySV


    n97 mini wrote: »
    There are other attractions: flexible working hours, a comparatively short working week, a pension that can't be bought, virtually impossible to be sacked, 100% job security, low pressure working environment, etc. Most people would probably be happy with that lot.

    The Administrative Officer role stated in the ad a 41 hour working week which is actually more than most private sector


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    EF wrote: »
    I imagine the take home pay is one deterrent

    Clearly not much of a deterrent considering a limited number of specialist positions with strict entry requirements that seems to be poorly advertised attracted over 3200 applicants.


Advertisement