Decentralisation

very miffed dub wrote:

I suppose I'm lucky because I still have a job in the Civil Service but I feel very bitter about the way we (Dublin Civil Servants) were treated. Just my thoughts

Be careful, I hear from a civil servant friend that DoF have issued a reminder that Civil Servants are not allowed make personal statements of any kind on matters of public interest.

I think that the intention is to gag people who might reveal the truth behind the 'decentralisation' project.

I found this on the PSEU web site, circular dated May 31st, the government proposes to new hire staff to fill vacancies in departments nobody wants to work in because they're decentralising.

In response to these difficulties we are implementing a revision to the current policy to allow some recruitment to vacant CO and EO posts, currently based in Dublin, but due to relocate. This change has been informed by data provided by the organisations concerned and takes account of the potential business risk caused by carrying vacancies and the need to protect the position of CAF applicants from outside of Dublin.

The following conditions are attached to the arrangement:
· The assignment with the decentralising Department will be for a period of 18 months only or the date on which the Department’s permanent accommodation becomes available in the decentralised location, whichever is the earlier. The term of the assignment may be shorter for Departments expected to relocate before the end of 2008. The terms of the initial assignment will be made clear in the offer of appointment issued by the PAS.
· At the end of that period the staff member will be assigned to the next vacancy arising in a department or office remaining in Dublin.

Not sure if this means that the newly hired staff will be laid off if there is no vacancy in a non-decentralising Dublin office.

Liam Byrne wrote:

The M50 might be a choked orbital route, but it is only that because all major road and rail links lead to Dublin - if there were viable alternatives, people would use them (e.g. if "culchies" didn't have to drive to the Dublin airport to go anywhere).

You seem to be confusing orbital and radial routes. The M50 does not choke the road from Newbridge to Newlands Cross.

If getting a train from Cork to Limerick, you change at Limerick Junction, for Galway, change at Portarlington (or fly). Nowhere near Dublin

Don't want to deal with the M50 when flying? Then use Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Shannon, Galway, Knock, Sligo or Donegal. All have flights to Dublin and points beyond.

Liam Byrne

Victor wrote:

All have flights to Dublin and points beyond.

Thankfully, some announcements from RyanAir during the week indicate that there will be direct flights, so the pointless trip to Dublin Airport in order to go elsewhere won't even be required.

That's good news. This is real 'decentralisation' at work as opposed to the plan which we've been discussing in this thread for some time, which is all smoke and mirrors.

eigrod

Below is the Green Party's pre-election position on Decentralisation taken from their website. Will be interesting to see what, if anything, appears in the programme for Government on this issue over the coming days.

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/where_do_parties_stand_on_decentralisation_asks_boyle

Where do parties stand on decentralisation, asks Boyle
Issued: 13 May 2007

Statement by Dan Boyle

Spokesperson on Finance, Social & Family Affairs, Community, Rural Development, The Islands

In an election campaign that to date has been empty of discussions on issues, Green Party Finance spokesperson Dan Boyle TD, has asked where other political parties stand on the issue of decentralisation.

"This policy as defined by the Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats has been inefficient, wasteful and based on the cynical assumption that it was of political advantage to the outgoing government," Boyle claimed.

"And yet other than criticising the government for how decentralisation is being implemented, other political parties seem not to have a coherent, alternative policy. Fine Gael and Labour candidates around the country have seemed more prepared to ask why a promised government department or state agency has not come to their town or constituency than to challenge what has been a half formed, ill advised policy.

"The Green Party, if in government, would seek to end the current policy of decentralisation as it has been defined. It is not a decentralisation policy, it is a policy of office relocation. The Greens would want to bring about a real programme of decentralisation of the powers and functions of government departments and state agencies to the regions throughout the country.

"In the remaining part of the election campaign it will be on issues like this and other issues, that the Green Party will be stressing that the need for an alternative government with Green Party participation, cannot be assumed unless other parties are seen to be committed to changing not only the faces at the cabinet table, but also the policies that a new government will follow and the very culture of politics itself in this country," Deputy Boyle concluded.

Interesting indeed. :cool:

Look, did'nt want to go thro the 90 pages but one thought does strike me and it's not anti-public service.

Just if Fruit of the Loom de-centralise to Morocco do they try and find a suitable location for the Irish workers.

Obviously Fruit of the Loom isn't a good example, but when you're employer decides to move, really, how much choice do you have?

But Fruit of the Loom (a) went bust really badly (b) had to make redundancy payments.

Victor wrote:

But Fruit of the Loom (a) went bust really badly (b) had to make redundancy payments.

To a certain extent. They re-located to a cheaper environment to make profits as well. With de-centralisation people are moving to a cheaper environment with a better quality of life.

I'm just wondering is this a union issue, e.g. the Nurses unions not agreeing to the opening of the Cork Maternity hospital until they got €1,000 extra for moving down the road. I know there are exceptions.

De-centralisation has been going on since the 70/80's. It's part of public sector life, same as redundancy because of cheaper labour abroad for the private sector. That's the risks involved.

oscarBravo

Seanies32 wrote:

With de-centralisation people are moving to a cheaper environment with a better quality of life.

I could have a cheaper environment and (arguably) a better (by some measures) quality of life if I moved to southern Italy.

I don't want to live in southern Italy.

Seanies32 wrote:

De-centralisation has been going on since the 70/80's. It's part of public sector life, same as redundancy because of cheaper labour abroad for the private sector. That's the risks involved.

But is it a good deal for the country? Apart from individual TDs being able to claim that they "delivered" decentralisation for their particular corner of the constituency, does it (as proposed) actually achieve anything useful?

As you say, you haven't read the thread.

Seanies32 wrote:

To a certain extent. They re-located to a cheaper environment to make profits as well. With de-centralisation people are moving to a cheaper environment with a better quality of life.

There is no particular evidence that anything will be cheaper or that quality of life will improve.

oscarBravo wrote:

I could have a cheaper environment and (arguably) a better (by some measures) quality of life if I moved to southern Italy.

I don't want to live in southern Italy. But is it a good deal for the country? Apart from individual TDs being able to claim that they "delivered" decentralisation for their particular corner of the constituency, does it (as proposed) actually achieve anything useful?

Maybe yes. Look let the public service go to benchmarking then if de-centralisation is that bad. If the private service was offered Southern Italy and the terms that they the public service get, they might actually go for it

Choice is a fine thing.

My point is, if my emplyoyer, which there is a high chance of, decided to relocate to Dublin, well I wouldn't have much choice. Yes, I could look for higher wages because of higher living costs, but will public service workers look for lower wages because there living costs will be reduced.

Seanies32 wrote:

A lot of the public service are spoilt babies.

But this thread is about the civil service, not the public service. :rolleyes:

Victor wrote:

As you say, you haven't read the thread.There is no particular evidence that anything will be cheaper or that quality of life will improve.

What evidence are you looking for, cheaper house prices, cheaper rents as in a survey released today, less travelling to work, no M50, easier way of life.

Seanies32 wrote:

What evidence are you looking for, cheaper house prices, cheaper rents as in a survey released today, less travelling to work, no M50, easier way of life.

But what if you live in you own home, in a neighbourhood with you parents and family around you, kids are in local schools, other half in a job they can't leave ....

Victor wrote:

But what if you live in you own home, in a neighbourhood with you parents and family around you, kids are in local schools, other half in a job they can't leave ....

Yeah, same problem if I move to Dublin. Actually worse, rent/mortgage higher. There's no perfect solution when you're employer moves. I'll tell my employer not too move, will solve everything.

Victor wrote:

But this thread is about the civil service, not the public service. :rolleyes:

And the Semi States...

I'm from Donegal. What was the problem in establishing part of the Dept. of SW here in the 80's. It's here now. What was the opposition then?

Seanies32 wrote:

What evidence are you looking for, cheaper house prices, cheaper rents as in a survey released today, less travelling to work, no M50, easier way of life.

More the quality of life than money...

Maybe theres a partner/spouse and kids? Will the other half get the same job in the decentalised location. Maybe theres old/sick relatives, parent or child etc that they support aswell, bring to hospital etc. Maybe they will lose childminding by relatives and now have to pay for childcare. People commute outside of Dublin, often big distances too, and there are traffic problems outside Dublin too.

If Dublin was that unatttractive, why do the majority of people choose to live there. Has to be something going for it.

Lots of the Offices are rented in Dublin and 80's rates so there aren't big profits to be made to made selling them off. You'll have to build new buildings in the new locations that thats more money. More staff will need to travel so thats more T&S costs.

If it was a private company it would be a redundency situation. I'm sure if you offered redundency to some being decentralised they'd take it. Alternatively if you offered them some decent locations instead of being placed in the middle of nowhere with no option except leaving.

Seanies32 wrote:

I'm from Donegal. What was the problem in establishing part of the Dept. of SW here in the 80's. It's here now. What was the opposition then?

No idea. But I'm guessing anyone who didn't go had a vastly greater scope to transfer somewhere else in the Civil Service in Dublin than they have in the current scheme.

BostonB wrote:

And the Semi States...

Name the semi-state companies that are moving?

Seanies32 wrote:

I'm from Donegal. What was the problem in establishing part of the Dept. of SW here in the 80's. It's here now. What was the opposition then?

I don't know, you're the expert on Donegal.

The big difference between this are previous decentralisation campaigns is the size and dogmatic approach to this one - forcing people to move rather that providing oppurtunities to move.

http://www.siptu.ie/CampaignsandCurrentIssues/Decentralisation/LatestDevelopmentsonDecentralisation/Name,4037,en.html

BostonB wrote:

More the quality of life than money...

Maybe theres a partner/spouse and kids? Will the other half get the same job in the decentalised location. Maybe theres old/sick relatives, parent or child etc that they support aswell, bring to hospital etc. Maybe they will lose childminding by relatives and now have to pay for childcare. People commute outside of Dublin, often big distances too, and there are traffic problems outside Dublin too.

If Dublin was that unatttractive, why do the majority of people choose to live there. Has to be something going for it.

Lots of the Offices are rented in Dublin and 80's rates so there aren't big profits to be made to made selling them off. You'll have to build new buildings in the new locations that thats more money. More staff will need to travel so thats more T&S costs.

If it was a private company it would be a redundency situation. I'm sure if you offered redundency to some being decentralised they'd take it. Alternatively if you offered them some decent locations instead of being placed in the middle of nowhere with no option except leaving.

My quote

seanies32 wrote:

I'm from Donegal. What was the problem in establishing part of the Dept. of SW here in the 80's. It's here now. What was the opposition then?

Anybody?

Right, quality of life, childcare and housing costs are cheaper here. Could make the difference between 2 partners working and one not. Better quality of life. That frees up time for relatives and children. The 15/20 hours commuting time a week that is saved can be used at the weekends.

I have the same problems , and I might have to move to Dublin away from same. Unfortunately that's life.

Traffic problems outside Dublin, yes, no 4 hour commutes though.

The majority of people do not choose to live in Dublin, look at the last census and that is what we are trying to get away from, or do you want everybody to live there. Let's everybody move there tomorrow if it's so fantastic.

Well offer redundancy to those who don't want the work then.

Seanies32 wrote:

Traffic problems outside Dublin, yes, no 4 hour commutes though.

The majority of people do not choose to live in Dublin,

Yes and they live and work outside of Dublin already. The people who don't want to move, don't have 4 hour commutes. They cycle, walk and use public transport, a small minority of them drive to work. They enjoy the quality of life of living in a capital city with the civic assets brought by economies of scale. They're proud of a city they and their ancestors built.

Well offer redundancy to those who don't want the work then.

What if they prefer to work? Why not permit them work where they are? Why throw away their experience and specialist knowledge? Surely this would be cheaper and result in lower costs than paying redundancy and then having to hire new people and train them? Just look at what happened when the Legal Aid Board 'decentralised' to Cahirciveen.

The present plan will increase administration costs, lower efficiency and add to congestion in Dublin.

Dinarius

Intertesting that about 90% of this thread is concerned with the effect that decentralisation has/shouldn't have on those that are decentralised/are offered decentralisation.

Very, very little on the effect that this lunancy with have on costs, efficiencies and service.

As usual, it's the individual (employee) rather than society at large who is fretted over.

Very typical of, contemporary, Me Fein Ireland.

D.

Macy

Seanies32 wrote:

My point is, if my emplyoyer, which there is a high chance of, decided to relocate to Dublin, well I wouldn't have much choice.

You would have a choice - move or redundancy. The choice wouldn't be move or leave with no redundancy or face being "white walled" like much of the public service (yes there are some of us in the public service effected Victor - very FF/PD to ignore us though and the fact that there's no transferability!

)

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes, I could look for higher wages because of higher living costs, but will public service workers look for lower wages because there living costs will be reduced.

Can you explain how my living costs will be reduced, since my in laws who do the child minding will be hundreds of miles away rather than 2 minutes away, I'll have all the related house sale fees, plus last time I was in a Tesco in Donegal it wasn't any cheaper than my local one here. On top of this my wife would have to leave her job. So the net benefit is where exactly to justify less salary?

Dinarius wrote:

Intertesting that about 90% of this thread is concerned with the effect that decentralisation has/shouldn't have on those that are decentralised/are offered decentralisation.

Very, very little on the effect that this lunancy with have on costs, efficiencies and service.

As usual, it's the individual (employee) rather than society at large who is fretted over.

Very typical of, contemporary, Me Fein Ireland

I think it has been covered, but has been swamped by civil/public service bashing, as it's very clear that there is no business case with regard to the individual departments/ semi states and no economic case for the scheme as a whole.

Of course people are going to bring it back to their own situation, as it's their own employment and their family that is being attacked by this policy. Maybe those that are pro Decentralisation in it's current form could, for once, actually back up their case with facts and figures rather than aspirations and assumptions?

Macy wrote:

You would have a choice - move or redundancy. The choice wouldn't be move or leave with no redundancy or face being "white walled" like much of the public service (yes there are some of us in the public service effected Victor - very FF/PD to ignore us though and the fact that there's no transferability! )

Redundancy would of course depend on lenght of service.

Macy wrote:

Can you explain how my living costs will be reduced, since my in laws who do the child minding will be hundreds of miles away rather than 2 minutes away, I'll have all the related house sale fees, plus last time I was in a Tesco in Donegal it wasn't any cheaper than my local one here. On top of this my wife would have to leave her job. So the net benefit is where exactly to justify less salary?

Well of course it would depend on how much you pay for childminding and how much your wife earns which I'm not going to pry into but of course house prices/rents are cheaper.

Macy

Seanies32 wrote:

Redundancy would of course depend on lenght of service.

Of course, but with the current supposedly voluntary arrangement it isn't an option. The Government are trying to avoid redundancy payments by bullying people into go. Unfortunately, several constructive dismissal cases have already had to be dropped due to staff suddenly being "looked after", so the voluntary myth remains.