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.
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.
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.
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.
pork99 wrote: [sarcasm]Exactly the sort of honest, intelligent, far-sighted policies we are used to from Fianna Fail[/sarcasm]
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".
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".
uncivilservant wrote: Source: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/1025/2280522078HM1DECENTRAL.html
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.
Victor wrote: Importantly:
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,".
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?
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.
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:
Sleepy wrote: four hour working days
eight weeks of holidays
Honestly, it's time to ban anyone in the government's employ from having unions.
Do you think there'd be this level of outcry if Microsoft decided to move their plant to Athlone?
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. ?
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?
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.
Sleepy wrote: True or false, the civil service don't work as much as the private sector?
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.
ionapaul wrote: 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.
