Decentralisation

uncivilservant

The PSEU have made details of the most recent meeting of the General Council sub-committee on Decentralisation (october 4th I believe) available on their website.

Some highlights:

It was envisaged that the DIG would make a report to the Cabinet sub-committee within a month with recommendations as to the sequencing of moves

It was clarified that Government decisions on the first phase of re-locations were likely by the end of November.

The issue of a CAF process for Dublin-based staff was discussed in some detail. The view of the Official Side is that when the first phase of re-locations are identified, the process of moving staff into those organisations will begin. Staff in those Departments/Offices who are not interested in re-locating out of Dublin will be invited to participate in a Dublin CAF. The Official Side does not envisage opening up a general transfer system so that everybody who ever wanted a transfer out of their Department would be able to move. Rather they wanted a system to enable staff whose posts are being relocated to express preferences for Departments and locations in Dublin so that some attempt could be made to accommodate their wishes.

"...some attempt..." will be made? Do I detect something of a shift in tone? It would appear we are back to "You'll go where you're sent, and you'll be happy about it."

NewDubliner

The official figures indicate that a substantial number of IT staff do not want to work outside of Dublin.

Since the government has decided that, in future, no IT work will be available to Dublin-based staff, what kind of jobs will be in the Dublin CAF that would be suitable for them?


E.K.

pork99

I think a more imaginative approach to decentralisation would be to enable all civil servants telecommute from anywhere in the country. The head offices and minsters would stay in Dublin but surely many "desk jockeys" would be able to work just as effectively from remote locations.

This would involve massive investment in covering the country with broadband access and developing a swanky cutting edge VPN for the civil service both of which would have beneficial spin-offs for the rest of the economy.

uncivilservant

pork99 wrote:

This would involve massive investment in covering the country with broadband access and developing a swanky cutting edge VPN for the civil service both of which would have beneficial spin-offs for the rest of the economy.

The VPN already exists. It's run by eircom, and I believe over 100 state bodies are already connected to it. It is used for internet access, WAN traffic & inter-agency communications. Although the Government VPN supports it, I'm not sure what the take-up on the RAS/VPN end of it is.

NewDubliner

pork99 wrote:

I think a more imaginative approach to decentralisation would be to enable all civil servants telecommute from anywhere in the country. ....and developing a swanky cutting edge VPN for the civil service both of which would have beneficial spin-offs for the rest of the economy.

I think you're missing the point of the scheme which is to generate stamp duty by forcing people to move house & have them fill the greasy tills of the local shopkeepers in the relocation towns. There's also the matter of stimulating the building industry. The telecoms industry does not vote FF.

Of course, virtually relocated staff could order their groceries from electronically from the local Tesco in the designated relocation town.......

ishmael whale

pork99 wrote:

This would involve massive investment in covering the country with broadband access and developing a swanky cutting edge VPN for the civil service both of which would have beneficial spin-offs for the rest of the economy.

You're confusing increasing the cost base (i.e. using up more money and people to achieve the same result) with economic growth (i.e. finding ways of producing higher output with the same resources.) Increasing costs reduces national wellbeing - the resources wasted in the 'massive investment' you talk of could be better used to provide things we actually need.

The logic you suggest would support the idea that we promote employment in regional areas by getting the army to hurt people, thus creating a need for more health services.

pork99

You're confusing increasing the cost base (i.e. using up more money and people to achieve the same result) with economic growth (i.e. finding ways of producing higher output with the same resources.) Increasing costs reduces national wellbeing - the resources wasted in the 'massive investment' you talk of could be better used to provide things we actually need.

Yes of course having a semi-third world telecom infrastructure is a massive advantage in a modern economy :rolleyes:

The point of what I'm proposing is that it is an investment - the reason to put it in place would be to facilitate civil service decentralisation but the operations and productivity of businesses, especially SMEs, would benefit. Thereby ensuring business growth which ensures future revenue for the "things we actually need" by which I assume you mean schools, hospitals etc (A hundred years ago having a telephone was a luxury for a business. Nowadays it's an essential. Proper internet access is the 21st century equivalent.)

There's also the benefits of more telecomuting = less "real" commuting = less traffic therefore less pressure on road/rail infrastructure, fewer carbon emissions etc.

I think you're missing the point of the scheme which is to generate stamp duty by forcing people to move house & have them fill the greasy tills of the local shopkeepers in the relocation towns. There's also the matter of stimulating the building industry. The telecoms industry does not vote FF.

[sarcasm]Exactly the sort of honest, intelligent, far-sighted policies we are used to from Fianna Fail[/sarcasm]

NewDubliner

pork99 wrote:

[sarcasm]Exactly the sort of honest, intelligent, far-sighted policies we are used to from Fianna Fail[/sarcasm]

I think FF have said that with modern technology, people could work from anywhere (except Dublin, that's forbidden).

If one tries to argue with FF on the basis of the stated objectives, you'll be wasting your time. The relocation scheme has many hidden objectives. Not least among them being the liquidation of existing IT staff and awarding of major IT contracts to the private sector.

This is why unattractive locations were deliberately chosen for IT.

EK

Victor

A friend of mine is a civil servant part-responsible for programming (i.e. tech support and content are separate functions) a department website who can work part time from home (recently promoted, so I'm not sure of her current régime). She only had to go in to the office 2-3 days a week, but worked 5. She has a home office. A perfect example of the type of person who can (and already does) commute less.

I'm just wondering how many other civil servants can do this? Not the form processors / checkers (data privacy). Not assessing officers. Not the phone answerers (data privacy). Not the IT support. Not the managers.

NewDubliner

It's possible but is done discreetly & mostly to facilitate needy staff as there are insurance and security issues to be faced.

It is the middle and senior IT managers that have stayed away the most from FFs invitation to move to one of its favoured locations. One school of thought is that with these out of the picture, it will be easier for the private sector to take over the reins.

As a matter of fact, data entry of personal information IS being done by private sector contractors. The take up in Revenue's ROS system is so low, they pay outside companies to enter paper forms into it.

Let's face it, FF are not interested in facilitating public service staff unless it is to move to a town favoured by them.

E.K.

uncivilservant

Mr Parlon acknowledged there was a problem seeking sufficient numbers for the decentralisation of some State agencies and said they may be dealt with at a later date.

Following the announcement of the first round of decentralisation, there will be a two-year window for civil servants and officials to prepare to move, he said. This time-frame would also allow for the construction or acquisition of new offices or headquarters.

While it is unlikely Departments or agencies will be fully established in their new locations ahead of the next general election, Mr Parlon said at least "people will see activity on the ground".

And that's the important thing, after all.

The locations to be included in the coming announcement are mainly expected to be in the heavily-subscribed commuter belt of Dublin.

However, Mr Parlon said he was hopeful that, in general, there would be a "good geographical spread".

Dream on, Tom. Dream on.




Source: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/1025/2280522078HM1DECENTRAL.html

Victor

uncivilservant wrote:

Source: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/1025/2280522078HM1DECENTRAL.html

Importantly:

Latest official figures show the number of Dublin-based civil and public servants who have expressed an interest in moving out of the capital - 4,245 - has fallen well short of the Government's target of 10,300.

uncivilservant

Victor wrote:

Importantly:

A couple of thousand more can be added onto that figure, made up of people already working in the regions looking for a move closer to home. They don't really count as decentralise-e's, and bear in mind that these people will also have to be replaced before they can go fill vacancies in the new decentralised offices.......

Also remember that Management have made it clear to the unions that individuals that need to travel to dublin in order to be trained in their new roles will have to do so at their own expense.

NewDubliner

Parlon is quoted as saying "....Over 80 per cent of the posts we advertised have been applied for, so clearly many people are itching to move,".

The Times rather dryly points out "....the number of Dublin-based civil and public servants who have expressed an interest in moving out of the capital - 4,245 - has fallen well short of the Government's target of 10,300."

AFAIK most, if not all, of the staff who want to work in Newcastlewest and Kilkee are currently working in Limerick City. I cannot see how their moving will help the traffic in Dublin.

This is an interesting demonstration of 'spin' at work as Parlon has not told a lie as such, he's just avoided the truth as much as possible, even thought the stated objective of the scheme was to relocate Dublin-based staff. He also ignores inconvenient truths such as that many of the people who have applied for particular locations are not suitable for the jobs there. Nor does Parlon make any reference to the actual cost of the scheme and what public services will have to be cut in order to finance it.

Any idea what prompted the story to be published at this time? Also, why is he appearing as the one promoting the scheme, is he being 'hung out to dry' by FF?

Victor

NewDubliner wrote:

Parlon is quoted as saying "....Over 80 per cent of the posts we advertised have been applied for, so clearly many people are itching to move,".

Oh, the posts were applied for, just the positions weren't.

Any idea what prompted the story to be published at this time? Also, why is he appearing as the one promoting the scheme, is he being 'hung out to dry' by FF?

Budget season + he's responsible for the OPW which own's the state's buildings and is buying / renting the new ones + some offices will be in his constituency.

ishmael whale

pork99 wrote:

The point of what I'm proposing is that it is an investment - the reason to put it in place would be to facilitate civil service decentralisation but the operations and productivity of businesses, especially SMEs, would benefit.

You're missing the point. If there is some infrastructural investment that you think is worthwhile, then it should be justified on its merits. But the idea that you need to scatter government offices around to manufacture an artificial demand is just nuts. This just increases costs, and means we all end up with less of the things we actually need.

Sleepy

Are the lazy civil servants still whinging about this? For Christs sake, it's not like they'll be able to find work in the private sector after being so used to four hour working days (well, when you take out the tea breaks at least) and eight weeks of holidays. Just move and put up with it. Do you think there'd be this level of outcry if Microsoft decided to move their plant to Athlone? No, of course there wouldn't. Those who wanted to stay working for them would move, those that didn't would get a new job.

Honestly, it's time to ban anyone in the government's employ from having unions.

ishmael whale

Its not about the care and feeding of civil servants. Its about Government combusting a large amount of cash moving offices around for no obvious reason - cash that could be used for something useful.

Sleepy

I wonder what's making it so expensive to do? Relocation expenses perhaps? Or are the civil servants organising the decentralisation as useless as those they're moving? :rolleyes:

pete

Sleepy wrote:

I wonder what's making it so expensive to do? Relocation expenses perhaps? Or are the civil servants organising the decentralisation as useless as those they're moving? :rolleyes:

you're really funny. no, really. such incisive, insightful analysis.

Next time, try checking your facts before posting.

pete

Sleepy wrote:

four hour working days

Wrong.

eight weeks of holidays

Wrong.

Honestly, it's time to ban anyone in the government's employ from having unions.

Wrong.

Do you think there'd be this level of outcry if Microsoft decided to move their plant to Athlone?

you really think MS would do such a ridiculous thing?

Sleepy

Pete: Sure, I exagerated but answer me these questions:

True or false, the civil service don't work as much as the private sector?

True or false, the civil service get more holidays than the private sector?

Give me one good reason why an already unproductive, under-worked and over-paid work-force should be allowed a union?

Why wouldn't it make sense for MS or a similar large firm to move, given that the cash they would release from over-priced real-estate would be enormous, given that they wouldn't need to pay staff as much to live somewhere with a less unreasonable cost of living etc. etc. etc. ?


It's called the real world. Government employees have just been sheltered from it for too long to be able to understand just how cushy they have it.

ishmael whale

Sleepy wrote:

Why wouldn't it make sense for MS or a similar large firm to move, given that the cash they would release from over-priced real-estate would be enormous, given that they wouldn't need to pay staff as much to live somewhere with a less unreasonable cost of living etc. etc. etc. ?

I don't think anyone has suggested that wage levels in the civil service will be cut as part of the decentralisation, and any funds released from sale of property in Dublin will, at best, pay for the cost of building offices in the new locations. From the point of view of the taxpayer, its just a lose-lose proposition.

pete

Sleepy wrote:

Pete: Sure, I exagerated but answer me these questions:

True or false, the civil service don't work as much as the private sector?

False.

Or, you're making a sweeping generalisation.

Or, I'm sure some do and some don't.

True or false, the civil service get more holidays than the private sector?

False.

Or, I'm sure some do and some don't. Figures for annual leave entitlements should be available in the Office Notices section of the Department of Finance website.

Give me one good reason why an already unproductive, under-worked and over-paid work-force should be allowed a union?

No.

Alternatively, if you're asking why Civil Servants should be "allowed a union" then I'd say all workers are entitled to representation.

Why wouldn't it make sense for MS or a similar large firm to move, given that the cash they would release from over-priced real-estate would be enormous, given that they wouldn't need to pay staff as much to live somewhere with a less unreasonable cost of living etc. etc. etc. ?

Why would it? See ishmael's post above.

It's called the real world. Government employees have just been sheltered from it for too long to be able to understand just how cushy they have it.

Zed Zed Zed. You're basing this on what, exactly?

gazzer

In answer to Sleepys questions


True or false, the civil service don't work as much as the private sector?
Well i get paid based on a 41 hour week and i am a civil servent. , i'd imagine that is more of less the same as the private sector

True or false, the civil service get more holidays than the private sector?
When you start in the civil service you get 21 days leave which increments by a day every 5 years or/and you get a promotion. You of course get the normal bank holidays as well. At christmas you get 3 days leave... if you want any more leave you take it from your annual leave.... again i imagine the amount of leave given to civil servents equals the amount in the private sector

As regards a private company moving to a new location... maybe i am wrong but if the staff wanted to move with the company would they not get relocation expenses??? There are no relocation expenses for civil servents as decentralisation is meant to be voluntary, however in my case i am not sure what will happen as i work in IT and my dept is going to Kildare..... i dont have a car and have no licence, there is no way i could commute to Kildare as it would involve a journey from Blanchardstown to Hueston and then a train to Kildare.

Sleepy

I'm basing what I say on the experience of working for a company who almost exclusively deal with civil servants in both the local and private sector. I have yet to come accross 1 employee in any of these offices who answers a phone before 10 o' clock, between 11 o' clock and 11.30, between 12.30 and quarter past 2, or after 5.

So Gazzer, you start with 24 days leave that's 4 days more than any private company I know of. And most private sector companies (outside of the old beaurocratic institutions like banks) don't increment your leave with length of service or seniority.

Surely you could move to Kildare? Surely you've noticed that most of the people working in Dublin had to relocate here to find work. Why should it be any different for you?

Why do civil servants feel entitled to claim salary levels to match (or surpass) that of the private sector without being asked to meet the same uncertainty of job security of that sector?

The decentralisation of the Civil Service should provide the perfect opportunity to haul it into the 21st century. I'm sure the government never expected ye to give up without a fight but let's be realistic, you don't get a reputation for being lazy, contrary or unproductive without at least displaying some of the petulance for which your organisation is famous.

gazzer

I'm basing what I say on the experience of working for a company who almost exclusively deal with civil servants in both the local and private sector. I have yet to come accross 1 employee in any of these offices who answers a phone before 10 o' clock, between 11 o' clock and 11.30, between 12.30 and quarter past 2, or after 5.

Im sure you have come across this in your dealings but i can tell you that not every department is like that... Im my last department which i was in for 5 years before i was promoted we had to (and did) answer the phones from 9am , thru lunch and until 5.30...


So Gazzer, you start with 24 days leave that's 4 days more than any private company I know of. And most private sector companies (outside of the old beaurocratic institutions like banks) don't increment your leave with length of service or seniority.

Well i four of my friends work for different companies, they get 20 days a year leave. plus bank holidays and a week for Xmas...as i said earlier civil servents get 3 for xmas so there are companies out there that give more leave. As regards leave in the civil service what i will say is that this incremental leave only came in last year.... it used to be 18 days. i have been in the service for 13 years and been promoted twice.... dont think 24 days is that much after two promotions... do you????

Surely you could move to Kildare? Surely you've noticed that most of the people working in Dublin had to relocate here to find work. Why should it be any different for you?

Nobody i know in the private sector had to move to Kildare to work... any of my friends who started work with me where in the position to buy houses in the suburbs of dublin... i got mine with the help of the council as i didnt qualify for a bank mortgage due to my salary been under 30,000 euro... again after two promotions.

Why do civil servants feel entitled to claim salary levels to match (or surpass) that of the private sector without being asked to meet the same uncertainty of job security of that sector?

Why shouldnt we ask to be treated fairly, are we a second class type of citizen, Dont know if you have been in a civil service department lately but there has a been a lot of changes brought in since the implementation of PMDS and also the changes we signed up to under benchmarking... as regards your comment on Job security it is as likely know for a new civil servent to be sacked as it is in the private sector... three new employees in my old department where sacked this year due to excessive sick leave (one of them had a mental illness but was still let go), since 1995 any new civil servent pays the full rate of PRSI,,, which means they can be let go as they would be entitiled to unemployment benefit.

The decentralisation of the Civil Service should provide the perfect opportunity to haul it into the 21st century. I'm sure the government never expected ye to give up without a fight but let's be realistic, you don't get a reputation for being lazy, contrary or unproductive without at least displaying some of the petulance for which your organisation is famous.

I am in favour of decentralisation, i would like the see the thousands of young people who are forced to move to dublin to find work be able to go home and save for houses etc etc, however it should work on both sides. as regards your comments about laziness, being unproductive etc.... i can only speak for the areas in which i have worked. I have been in 3 different departments (totalling 7 different sections) since i began in the Civil service and i can honestly say i and the people i work with have always worked to the best of our abilities.... maybe if you want to privately email me on the departments you have had bad dealings with we can talk about that, i would not like to think you had any bad dealings with any area i was involved in...

NewDubliner

Sleepy wrote:

True or false, the civil service don't work as much as the private sector?

How would this be measured?

Anytime I contact private sector suppliers about shoddy goods or services, I'm passed into touch-tone hell or worse still, stuck with 'Level 1 Support' who mostly want to 'churn' calls. Why is it that the private sector automatically assumes that its superior to the public sector? After all, in the private sector, the share-holders not the customers come first.

Then there's 'rip-off Ireland'....

Have you ever read the "Irish Independent"? It's expensive, it's utter tosh it's produced entirely by the private sector. Have you ever used a Microsoft operating system? How about Vodafone or AIB? These are all private sector companies that have overcharged their customers. How about the West-Link? They're bleeding motorists dry, private sector style.

To get back on topic, public service staff are loyal to their families and are prepared to sacrifice their career prospects rather than leave them behind. They are not looking for expenses.

Unlike the priviate sector, FF does not value the skill and knowledge of its staff and is prepared to squander these valuable resources to win votes and put money into the pockets of its sponsors.

E.K.

The_Conductor

Sleepy wrote:

I'm basing what I say on the experience of working for a company who almost exclusively deal with civil servants in both the local and private sector. I have yet to come accross 1 employee in any of these offices who answers a phone before 10 o' clock, between 11 o' clock and 11.30, between 12.30 and quarter past 2, or after 5.

So Gazzer, you start with 24 days leave that's 4 days more than any private company I know of. And most private sector companies (outside of the old beaurocratic institutions like banks) don't increment your leave with length of service or seniority.

Surely you could move to Kildare? Surely you've noticed that most of the people working in Dublin had to relocate here to find work. Why should it be any different for you?

Why do civil servants feel entitled to claim salary levels to match (or surpass) that of the private sector without being asked to meet the same uncertainty of job security of that sector?

The decentralisation of the Civil Service should provide the perfect opportunity to haul it into the 21st century. I'm sure the government never expected ye to give up without a fight but let's be realistic, you don't get a reputation for being lazy, contrary or unproductive without at least displaying some of the petulance for which your organisation is famous.

In the Dept. I work in, we man our phones from 8AM to 7PM, there is a staggered early and late start, with everyone in the section present between two core periods, 10AM to 12.30PM and 2.30PM to 4PM. We have a rota for those who start early (8AM and finish at 4PM) and those who start late (10AM and finish at 7pm)

I am an EO, recruited as a graduate, with a degree relevant to the business of my Department. I have been employed by the Department for 3 years. I am currently entitled to 21 days annual leave (including 3 at Christmas)- this will rise to 22 days after 5 years (but I do get bank holidays off).

As a civil servant employed post 1996 I pay full PRSI, and am not entitled to recognition of my education or age (as this would discriminate against those younger than me, or those who haven't been to college??) (my current salary hovering well below 30k at present- see salary scale link here)

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/circulars/circular172004fig.htm

With the assistance of my parents, I managed to buy a small apartment in Lucan (after saving for 7 years for the deposit)- and following the Adamstown fiasco I now have a negative equity situation- so please no bullcrap like earlier in this thread about us living in million Euro mansions.

As a private sector employee I was better paid, but not working in my area of expertise. I also had a similar commute to at present- but was bribed into not leaving the company with Petrol vouchers, Arnotts vouchers, and toll bridge tokens (on a monthly basis vouchers regularly made up-to 25% of my after tax income). I was called "stupid" for declaring it as income on my annual tax return, for which I make absolutely no apologies.

The company I was working for did relocate- from Sandyford to beyond Swords- and all those who agreed to relocate with the company were paid financial inducements to do so.

My present situation is my job, which I am amply qualified to do, and frankly which I do enjoy (a lot of the time), is being transferred to Portlaoise, and if I wish to remain in my department the two options open to me at present are to "voluntarily decentralise" to either Portlaoise or else Macroom. Should I decide this is not an option (e.g. if I sell my apartment I will (going by what next door sold for 8 weeks ago- having had been on the market for 8 months) make a large loss on what I paid for it. If I rent my apartment out, I have to pay tax on the rental income, and similar properties in Portlaoise (haven't checked Macroom) are currently renting for more than mine). If I do not sellup and elect to commute- I have a round trip of 228 miles per day (if I choose Portlaoise), and no, I don't get paid a petrol allowance.....

If I decide to stay in Dublin- my union states "we are uncertain whether those Dublin based employees who do not elect to decentralise will have meaningful tasks to do, but will endeavor to protect their rights".

I.e. elect to decentralise or else (and they are not telling you what the "or else" is- its left up to people's fertile imaginations).

Excuse my sarcasm- but you haven't a f***ing clue what you're talking about.

S.

ionapaul

I work for one of those IT outsourcing / contract staffing companies who stand to gain if and when decentralisation goes ahead. For what it is worth, we have had word from a senior civil servant that despite all the problems with the decentralisation process, at least one major department will be 'fully' (whatever that means) decentralised before the next general election.

Some of our staff find it very hard to stay in certain government IT positions (as contract staff) as they work longers hours and feel they have to put in more effort than the civil servant IT staff who 'swan' (not my words, please note!) in around 10am and out after 5pm due to flexitime. Most IT workers in the private sector would love to work in certain civil service positions, because of the shorter (in comparison) working hours. I imagine the pay is better in the private sector, and rightfully so, if they work harder and longer. Even with both parents in lifelong civil service and a younger brother just started, have to say I think benchmarking was a farce and overly generous to those in the civil service - money for nothing in my parents' cases.