Decentralisation

uncivilservant

NewDubliner wrote:

Is Portlaoise in Tom Parlon's constituency?

It is indeed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2117605&#post2117605

Victor

gerrydublin wrote:

If I was never for Decentralisation, I am now!
That's a saving of €23/27 per sq ft, and think of how much room we are talking about. That's a massive saving.

Whoot! Thats €2.5m per year as a saving :rolleyes: [edit]€29,603,750 - see below[/edit]

I imagine the ministers alone could rack that up in their expenses.

RicardoSmith

Hes selling property (thats not rented) and claiming to be saving on rent?

They should rent out the properties, it would pay for the cheaper rent outside of Dublin and make a profit!

The_Conductor

No- hes a politician, all that matters is the immediate headline figure- not the longterm financial benefit/cost (after all he is unlikely to be around all those years down the road to answer for his lunacy......- that, and the electorate have proven to be so appopethic and forgiving towards political history.......)

Parochial politics at its very best!

D'Peoples Voice

Victor wrote:

Whoot! Thats €2.5m per year as a saving :rolleyes:

I imagine the ministers alone could rack that up in their expenses.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the whole property portfolio rented out to the civil service in Dublin is just over 85,185 sq ft. Hmmm, I doubt it.
But I've no proof to otherwise. Iguess that depends on what you define as civil service, is it someone employed by the government or is there a more narrow version. If it's [bold]anyone employed by the Government[\bold], you might end up including policemen and policewomen, nurses & doctors, local authority staff,social workers, Park wardens etc, the list is endless!!!

I actually agree with gerrydublin's point, it makes sense to reduce costs like rental or lease costs where possible. I was part of a Company that relocated from Dublin 2 to a part of Dublin county I never knew existed (it was out that far). I since left the job as the commuting had too much of an effect on my family and social life in general. :mad: The Company moved to boost the profits to the shareholders, because they believed that the rents in Dublin were too high and would continue to grow . That has shown to be the case, but that was no consolation to me, because I didn't stand to benefit from the increase in profits .
However, I'm not a civil servant, and as a taxpayer, I'm a shareholder in the government, and this move will keep costs down. For once, this benefits me Yes there will be a problem with staff, but my Company lost over 28% of their staff within a period of 11 months after the move, many of them thought to be irreplaceable, the truth was no-one is irreplaceble because times change and work practices change, they have to, if the Company was to continue as a going concern.

In short, employees lose out as usual, but the shareholders "gain in the long term". So the question is, people's opinion of decentralisation comes down to which one you are. Unless of course you are like SLIGO/LEITRIM Deputy John Perry and think it has to do with Balanced Regional Growth. Personally never thought this was a concern for shareholders, but no doubt there are some ethical investors

ishmael whale

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

...it makes sense to reduce costs like rental or lease costs where possible. .....as a taxpayer, I'm a shareholder in the government, and this move will keep costs down. ....

Earlier posters have pointed out how Parlon’s comparison is devoid of content, and in any case he’s not swapping expensive Dublin rental agreements for cheaper regional agreements. What he’s actually doing is spending €900 million building offices in regional locations for no good reason.

Decentralisation will not save money. It will cost more to do the same things, and possibly cost more to do those same things less effectively. Shareholders, be they taxpayers or simply citizens, lose out from this cost increasing plan.

D'Peoples Voice

ishmael whale wrote:

Earlier posters have pointed out how Parlon’s comparison is devoid of content, and in any case he’s not swapping expensive Dublin rental agreements for cheaper regional agreements. What he’s actually doing is spending €900 million building offices in regional locations for no good reason.

Decentralisation will not save money. It will cost more to do the same things, and possibly cost more to do those same things less effectively. Shareholders, be they taxpayers or simply citizens, lose out from this cost increasing plan.

Well if that is the case, it's something that I would greatly oppose!

Any plan should represent a positive return over the long term,
else the individuals involved should be held to account for proposely misleading their shareholders.
Is it possible that perhaps it's like the disgraceful benchmarking agreements, the calculations will never be published for fear that people will find out the truth :mad:
I can only think that if a MD was to standover a plan which eroded shareholder value, then that person would quickly be removed by the shareholders.
Have the individuals involved said if their plan is based on true cost savings over at least a 25 year period or on some crappy social reasons?

uncivilservant

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

I guess that depends on what you define as civil service, is it someone employed by the government or is there a more narrow version.

Generally speaking, "the civil service" means those staff directly employed by a Government department in the running of that department. That's a pretty bad definition, but I can't put my hand on an official definition right now. The wider "public service" would encompass local authority staff, health board staff, doctors, nurses, teachers, lecturers, guards, firemen, social workers, prison officers, among others.

So, when speaking of civil service accommodation we basically mean Departmental HQ's & local offices.

When speaking of achieving rent savings on the "... whole property portfolio rented out to the civil service in Dublin...", what we really mean is the amount of currently rented space (as distinct from state owned buildings like Hawkins House) which can be vacated by decentralising staff - a considerably smaller figure, I assure you.

Victor

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the whole property portfolio rented out to the civil service in Dublin is just over 85,185 sq ft. Hmmm, I doubt it.

10,000 people x 10m2 / person x €((12+18)/2+(35+45)/2)/2/*(3.281)2 m2 = €29,603,750

Apologies, decimal place effectively in the wrong position as I forgot idiot head was still thinking in imperial.

We are talking savings, not total cost.

NewDubliner

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

I can only think that if a MD was to standover a plan which eroded shareholder value, then that person would quickly be removed by the shareholders.

We'll have to wait until 2007 to see if the spin doctors have succeeded in deceiving the electorate.

Have the individuals involved said if their plan is based on true cost savings over at least a 25 year period or on some crappy social reasons?

Neither the costs nor the benefits have been properly assessed.

RicardoSmith

This effects the state agencies too, which aren't the civil service.

uncivilservant

Victor wrote:

10,000 people x 10m2 / person x €((12+18)/2+(35+45)/2)/2/*(3.281)2 m2 = €29,603,750

Apologies, decimal place effectively in the wrong position as I forgot idiot head was still thinking in imperial.

We are talking savings, not total cost.

At the moment the figure for 'expressions of interest' in decentralising from Dublin is something like 3,000-3,500 (the rest of the EOI's are from people already located beyond the pale)... let's say 1/3rd of the 10,500 originally claimed.

So, based on your calculation, shall we say roughly a €10m saving?

At what cost?

NewDubliner

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Yes there will be a problem with staff, but my Company lost over 28% of their staff within a period of 11 months after the move, many of them thought to be irreplaceable, the truth was no-one is irreplaceble because times change and work practices change, they have to, if the Company was to continue as a going concern.

In IT the staff loss is likely to be 75%-90%.

It may be neccessary to increase the CS pay rates for IT staff in order to attract replacements. This would be done by recruiting graduates directly at HEO level. Any short-falls would be made up by using contractors at an average cost of €1,000/day.

The former staff, remaining in Dublin, would be retained to support their more highly paid replacements based outside of Dublin.

None of these costs have been admitted by Parlon.

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

In IT the staff loss is likely to be 75%-90%..

Given the stated wish to outsource IT in several departments, and to centralise the rest into 4 supercentres, I don't think the politicians really care about this. Its not a cost issue- its a case of how many of these jobs can be relocated to marginal constituencies.....

NewDubliner wrote:

It may be neccessary to increase the CS pay rates for IT staff in order to attract replacements. This would be done by recruiting graduates directly at HEO level. Any short-falls would be made up by using contractors at an average cost of €1,000/day.

Graduate recruitment is now, with the agreement of the unions, at EO level, no more HEO/AO recruitment. An allowance, personal to holder rather than job, may be offered- there is an active effort to discourage this though.

NewDubliner wrote:

The former staff, remaining in Dublin, would be retained to support their more highly paid replacements based outside of Dublin..

No, the intention is all the highly trained IT staff would be plonked behind desks doing purely administrative work...... This has already created a few Mexican stand-offs, with admin staff fighting with the former IT staff over the more *interesting* admin work (whatever that might be) This is already an issue in the Department of Agriculture (with the Mid-Term-Review screwing things up even more than just decentralisation- there is actually a deficit of "normal" work for staff- the likes of the proposed Garda pulse work going to Castlebar staff from Justice is a possible solution- but that is 24 hour a day, 3 shift, 365 day of the year work, and as it involves shifts, obviously the payroll would rise ever further- and thats not even part of decentralisation at all.....)

kencleary

smccarrick wrote:

Graduate recruitment is now, with the agreement of the unions, at EO level, no more HEO/AO recruitment. An allowance, personal to holder rather than job, may be offered- there is an active effort to discourage this though.

What? Since when? Got a source for this?

The_Conductor

kencleary wrote:

smccarrick wrote:

Graduate recruitment is now, with the agreement of the unions, at EO level, no more HEO/AO recruitment. An allowance, personal to holder rather than job, may be offered- there is an active effort to discourage this though.

What? Since when? Got a source for this?

Its been this way for a few months- I'll try and find something official to quote when I get a chance.

S.

Doctor Benway

smccarrick wrote:

Its been this way for a few months- I'll try and find something official to quote when I get a chance.

The CSC claims it's going to hold an AO competition "in the coming months" , but this'd explain why they ran the Third Sec exam separately last month.

NewDubliner

smccarrick wrote:

Graduate recruitment is now, with the agreement of the unions, at EO level, no more HEO/AO recruitment. An allowance, personal to holder rather than job, may be offered- there is an active effort to discourage this though.

They're not going to get experienced IT people on the EO rate & if they get anyone, they'll leave once they've clocked up enough experience to get a better paid job.

smccarrick wrote:

No, the intention is all the highly trained IT staff would be plonked behind desks doing purely administrative work......

Punishment?

smccarrick wrote:

of the proposed Garda pulse work going to Castlebar staff from Justice is a possible solution

Great system, (out-sourced devlopment, late, under-spec & over budget). The company that developed it is not decentralising....

Will Civil Servants who decentralise be allowed build 'one-off' houses?

uncivilservant

Doctor Benway wrote:

The CSC claims it's going to hold an AO competition "in the coming months" , but this'd explain why they ran the Third Sec exam separately last month.

That page on the publicjobs.ie site was last modified on 30th September 2004, so ehhh.... don't hold your breath.

NewDubliner

uncivilservant wrote:

That page on the publicjobs.ie site was last modified on 30th September 2004, so ehhh.... don't hold your breath.

But AO is an 'understudy' AP?

I cannot see them using this grade to recruit IT staff for the provinces.

But, I do know that open recruitment of graduates at HEO level has been seriously considered in an attempt to gain the interest of competant/experienced IT staff from the private sector. It remains to be seen if this and the attractions of 'Parlon country' will be enough to draw in the people needed to replace the soon-to-be discarded Dubln staff.

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

But AO is an 'understudy' AP?

I cannot see them using this grade to recruit IT staff for the provinces.

But, I do know that open recruitment of graduates at HEO level has been seriously considered in an attempt to gain the interest of competant/experienced IT staff from the private sector. It remains to be seen if this and the attractions of 'Parlon country' will be enough to draw in the people needed to replace the soon-to-be discarded Dubln staff.

Yes, the AO was traditionally an 'understudy' to AP, and was normally fast-tracked to AP, despite there being no meaningful difference between AO and HEO. Revenue tended to garner improbable numbers of AOs over and above any other Government department (quite why, I haven't a clue).

One of the items conceded by the Unions in respect of benchmarking was that a much greater number of positions be filled by external recruitment than by internal promotion (not sure of the number- but it could be 2-in-3 are now external, as opposed to a previous 1-in-3, with external recruitment now open up to and including PO level (correct me if I'm wrong please someone)).
In that respect it might be more feasible to recruit more "graduates" at higher levels- though the marking structure places a large emphasis on relevant experience, something most graduates, irrespective of their education, simply do not have. In addition- the higher the grade, the less likely the holder is to be able to engage in technical/scientific duties, and the more likely they are to have to people manage- once again not something that a recent graduate has any experience of.

The replacement of the "soon to be discarded Dublin staff" in many cases is a blatant exercise in outsourcing, irrespective of the skills that may exist in-house. There have been IT positions at upto and including AP grade filled in DAF recently by simple out-sourcing of the posts (Accenture are doing nicely!) In some offices this has resulted in civil servants effectively reporting to people who are not bound by civil service codes of conduct (including the official secrets act and embargoes on political activity for grades above CO).

Cough..... parochial politics, cough, cough......

RicardoSmith

NewDubliner wrote:

They're not going to get experienced IT people on the EO rate & if they get anyone, they'll leave once they've clocked up enough experience to get a better paid job. ...

Tough choice if your on a good grade a few years under your belt. That pension is good enough to keep IT people in admin jobs. The IT contract and private industry rates are not paying much better these days and working conditions are a lot worse.

NewDubliner

RicardoSmith wrote:

Tough choice if your on a good grade a few years under your belt. That pension is good enough to keep IT people in admin jobs. The IT contract and private industry rates are not paying much better these days and working conditions are a lot worse.

True, especially for those with average ability. But whatever the contractors get paid by their employers, they are charged to the client at around €1,000/day.

This means that not only will Government have to find something for its former IT staff to do & pay them, but will it have to pay more again for somebody to do their original jobs. The ultimate irony being that the contractors will be allowed to work from their Dublin offices........

invincibleirish

hello there, as a 1st year public admin. student ive just done an essay on decentralisation, its the first time ive done any in depth research into the proposed decentralisation and can i just say the governemnts plan is a load of balls! i fail to see a how it will benefit the country in any way aside from minor benefits for the areas who will get jobs. it needs to be looked at again specifically with the national spatial strategy in mind.

The_Conductor

invincibleirish wrote:

hello there, as a 1st year public admin. student ive just done an essay on decentralisation, its the first time ive done any in depth research into the proposed decentralisation and can i just say the governemnts plan is a load of balls! i fail to see a how it will benefit the country in any way aside from minor benefits for the areas who will get jobs. it needs to be looked at again specifically with the national spatial strategy in mind.

Yup, as has been pointed out numerous times here.
Unfortunately the National Spatial Strategy appears to have been killed and quietly buried at the crossroads when no-one was looking......

Thinking of doing an MBS in public administration- might PM you to rack your brain with a few questions sometime.

NewDubliner

From 'politices.ie', looks like their trying to move Dublin Tourism to Parlon Country

Failte Ireland accused of muzzling Dublin Tourism
Monday, April 11

Tourism
Discuss Tourism on the Politics.ie Forum

More news from Tourism
Speaking in a joint statement, the four Labour mayors of the four Dublin local authorities have called on the Dublin Taoiseach to open up a debate about the future of Dublin Tourism. They also slammed Fáilte Ireland for attempting to ‘muzzle board members of Dublin Tourism and stifle debate’.

“We have been elected as councillors to represent our areas and to be instructed not to speak on issues, which concern us, is disturbing. Failte Ireland is effectively muzzling elected representatives and we will not stand quietly by and allow this. As mayor and Cathaoirleach of our areas in Dublin, we are calling on the Taoiseach, a Dubliner, as a matter of urgency to open the debate on tourism in Dublin.

“Taoiseach, Dublin Tourism has performed its task of promoting Dublin excellently. Dublin is continuing to climb the European table of top destinations. So it makes little sense to incorporate Dublin Tourism into Failte Ireland. A report commissioned by Failte Ireland by Price Waterhouse Coopers that effectively seeks the dismantling of Dublin Tourism has been unanimously rejected at an emergency meeting of the agencies board members.

“This report, which was revealed only to selected and invited board members, was presented as a powerpoint presentation, and makes recommendations to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. The Minister has not yet said whether or not he accepts the report, yet Failte Ireland is dealing with it as a fait accompli. This is completely unacceptable and now is the time for this debate to take place. Fáilte Ireland’s ethos of one size fits all regarding tourism in Ireland makes little sense and will not work for the promotion of Dublin. Dublin will suffer as a result, we cannot allow any threat to the status of Dublin as a tourist destination to go unchallenged.”

D'Peoples Voice

invincibleirish wrote:

hello there, as a 1st year public admin. student ive just done an essay on decentralisation, its the first time ive done any in depth research into the proposed decentralisation and can i just say the governemnts plan is a load of balls! i fail to see a how it will benefit the country in any way aside from minor benefits for the areas who will get jobs. it needs to be looked at again specifically with the national spatial strategy in mind.

As I said before, I'm neither for or against Decentralisation, however I would like the facts. Personally I think the only people who will suffer in the long term are the staff, not the people for whom the Departments serve.

In your study, have you assessed

the potential of any synercies between centralising much of the IT work

reducing staff numbers back to pre-2002 staffing levels without paying for redundancies

lower wages in the future, i.e. because of the reduced competition for staff retention (to exaplin in Dublin, if you want staff, you must pay the going rate, but in the provinces, the going rate is lower, so you can maintain FUTURE staff levels at a lower cost)

cost of expansion for any department's buildings( in Dublin, it can be difficult to build extensions because of planning problems and cost of land acquisition)

lower property rents

I have yet to hear how overall costs will go up over the long term, yes the cost will be enormous for the first few years, but will it pay off! Thats what I want to know. DOES IT HAVE A POSITIVE RETURN, AND IF SO, WHERE IS THE RESEARCH?
For example can anyone answer the question "In the year 2025, will the annual COST of the civil service be lower or higher than today?"

ishmael whale

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

.....For example can anyone answer the question "In the year 2025, will the annual COST of the civil service be lower or higher than today?"

I don't think anyone has done a comprehensive study, which means the Government is proposing to throw €900 million into building offices without any picture of the long term consequences. We do have an amount of intuitive and indicative information that suggests its a bad idea. e.g. the duplication of staff required arising from the attempt to decentralise the legal aid board to Cahirciveen, the staff sitting idle in Ballina after abolition of housing grants because there was no clear way to absorb them into some other activities.

Be clear about it. There's no intention that this move will involve lower staff costs, or that pay rates will be reduced because people are not living in Dublin. That's simply not on the agenda. What will be a problem is that reduction of staff numbers will in future be a highly political issue. If 100 people are moved to Claremorris and, after a few years, its found that there's only a need for 80 because of technology or whatever the political imperative will be to keep the extra people on anyway. We're already seeing a bit of this in Agriculture, where staff numbers should be reducing because of the simplified EU payments system.

NewDubliner

There is no research, just the wishful thinking of the government.

They're gambiling €900m plus the cost of infrastructure, plus the costs of disruption plus retrainings costs plus the goodwill of staff on a bet that might just return the original stake after 20 years, all going well.

My own comments on the suggested advantages would be:

the potential of any synercies between centralising much of the IT work

Of unknown value & has to be weighed up against the cost of the catastrophic loss of nearly all experienced staff.

reducing staff numbers back to pre-2002 staffing levels without paying for redundancies

No reason for this to happen. It's very unlikely.

lower wages in the future, i.e. because of the reduced competition for staff retention (to exaplin in Dublin, if you want staff, you must pay the going rate, but in the provinces, the going rate is lower, so you can maintain FUTURE staff levels at a lower cost)

No guarantee of this turn out to be the case. Qualified applicants could be scarce enough on the ground due to the lower densiity of population in Parlon Country. The new rule that staff must agree to work anywhere in Ireland is going to discourage some. The going rate outside of Dublin will soon catch up anyway.

lower property rents

The rents will increase before the first contract is signed & then catch up to Dublin rates after a few years. When was the last time any government contract actually came on budget?

D'Peoples Voice

NewDubliner wrote:

There is no research, just the wishful thinking of the government.

Let me get this straight.
If we want a new national stadium, there had to be a report commissioned first to look into the viability of it!
Ditto with metro!
Ditto any road building project we have EIS's.
Ditto with any bloody positive thing we want in this country!

Now you are saying when it comes to Decentralisation,
there has been no independent report/study commissioned,
yet it will cost as much as any other major project.

Surely and I may have said this before,
is there not a case for EU intervention,
seeing as how we are still getting grants off them,
and yet we could be squandering our own money on this project
without commissioning a report into its viability first.

Then when we have the facts about its viability,
we can defend whatever position we choose to take!