Decentralisation

Seanies32- re redundancy, its not simply statutory redundancy. As I pointed out some time ago in this thread, there are numerous precedents, in both the Private and the Public sector for payments of up to 12 weeks salary, per year served, tax free, ontop of statutory redundancy, to people being made redundant. Its also noted in this thread that the age profile in the civil service is much older than in the general workforce- so for arguments sake you could guesstimate that quite a few of the 12,000 workers may have 30 years service already. So- redundancy would come to 12,000 times 30 times 3 months salary + statutory obligations (and all tax free........) Ontop of this- it would be highly likely that a large number of these 12,000 people would have difficulty ever finding meaningful work again- given age profiles again, so you may have unemployment benefit ontop of this (unless they are allowed to draw their pensions early- in which case you'll be looking at added years to their pension contributions).

You can actually sit down and put figures on all of this- it really is quite ridiculously expensive. Given that they may only have another 10 years togo (for arguments sake) before they would reach pensionable age anyhow- it actually may very well be the cheaper option to leave them sitting there (I've no calculator here- but once again its highly possible). At least they will be paying tax on their salaries and making pension contributions- redundancy payments are tax free....... (you have to factor this in too!)

ninja900 wrote:

They are reasons why the plan is an expensive, ludicrous disaster and should be abandoned immediately.

ninja900 wrote:

If you want to talk about personal objections, how about this. My wife's mother is elderly and lives alone, very close by, where we can drop in to her and she can drop into us. My mother is in a nursing home in Dublin and there is no question of moving her (something Alzheimer's patients find extremely upsetting) even if a place were available elsewhere for her.

Both my wife and I are Dublin born and bred, love the city life, have reasonable commutes, good schools within walking distance, our first child is due next year.

My wife intends to keep working, she works in the IFSC and there is nowhere else in the country she could get a job which would reflect her experience and skills.

ninja900 wrote:

There are thousands of people just like me, who with the best will in the world could not be expected to uproot their families for a life far away from all their relatives and friends.

While I would sympathise with anyone who has to move location to a new job, I think we are approaching the true reason for objections now. There is a lot of talk about waste, but the reality is that people don't want to move for family and private reasons. For private sector employeees, or indeed for Aer Lingus workers in Shannon for instance who have heard more schadenfreude than sympathy, you have no idea how frustrating it is to hear this kind of talk.

Returning to my earlier comment and question, which it appears has been avoided, doesn't it seem spot on in this context.

MG wrote:

The last thing it’s been debated as is a HR issue, which is natural as it would not be wise for civil & public servants to actually come out and say that real reason they don’t want to leave is that they are comfortable with their lives right now and don’t really fancy moving down to the sticks. Much better to come up with vague notions about inefficiencies. Meanwhile, multinational manage to work in separate locations and most are outsourcing work in India and China, while running a European accounting centre from an IDA industrial estate. Some other ideas for vague excuses are:

1The administration is in its early months and there's an awful lot to do at once.
2. Something ought to be done but is this the right way to achieve it?
3. The idea is good but the time is not ripe.
4. The proposal has run into technical, logistic and legal difficulties which are being sorted out.

A transfer to Urlingford to the first person to figure out which most appropriate figure gave me these ideas……….

These ideas for masking the real reason for opposing something came, appropriately enough, from...............Sir Humphrey Appleby

I disagree.
I personally am not being allowed decentralise because people who are already down the country have a higher priority than I have- and my grade is over subscribed in most locations.
If it was really a case of trying to decentralise people and their jobs out of Dublin- surely the Dublin based people should have priority when applying for decentralised jobs?

Seanies32 wrote:

I take it, you do have a clue about the real costs of offering redundancy?

That would be because you've failed to inform us of these details.

It's absurd of you to be putting forward fantasy-based arguments and then challenging everyone to prove them wrong.

When you decide to provide us with figures in support of your 'make them redundant' argument, please include the cost of training the replacements and also the cost of productivity loss during the hand-over.

It would also be useful if you could quantify the economic value of trasnferring jobs & people, from, for example Finglas, to Kildare.

Hotblack Desiato

MG wrote:

While I would sympathise with anyone who has to move location to a new job, I think we are approaching the true reason for objections now. There is a lot of talk about waste, but the reality is that people don't want to move for family and private reasons.

The family and private reasons of those who cannot move are entirely valid. This is supposedly a voluntary programme remember.
Would you choose to damage your family life because a government minister told you to do so?

None of the above invalidates the arguments made about waste, inefficiency and all the rest - these arguments are also 100% valid and we've not a peep from the decentralisation proponents apart from vague guff about revitalising the regions etc. So on the debit side we have billions of costs, on the credit side we have a warm feeling inside. Doesn't add up.

How is it that you think that because people are refusing to decentralise on personal grounds, that that somehow devalues the economic and organisational arguments against decentralisation?

For private sector employeees, or indeed for Aer Lingus workers in Shannon for instance who have heard more schadenfreude than sympathy, you have no idea how frustrating it is to hear this kind of talk.

Aer Lingus is in the private sector.
Redundancy is being offered and the terms will be a matter for negotiation. I believe it is planned that any redundancies will be voluntary.

The public service unions have actually tried to get the Department of Finance to show their hand on redundancy in the decentralisation context, but they refuse to do so. Because it will cost billions and they know it. As smccarrick says, it's cheaper to just white-wall people, some will resign, some will commit suicide or go on long term unpaid sick leave with depression and stress, some will stick it out, but it's cheaper overall.

These ideas for masking the real reason for opposing something came, appropriately enough, from...............Sir Humphrey Appleby

What does that reveal apart from that you appear to hold a very low opinion of public servants?

smccarrick wrote:

Seanies32- re redundancy, its not simply statutory redundancy. As I pointed out some time ago in this thread, there are numerous precedents, in both the Private and the Public sector for payments of up to 12 weeks salary, per year served, tax free, ontop of statutory redundancy, to people being made redundant. Its also noted in this thread that the age profile in the civil service is much older than in the general workforce- so for arguments sake you could guesstimate that quite a few of the 12,000 workers may have 30 years service already. So- redundancy would come to 12,000 times 30 times 3 months salary + statutory obligations (and all tax free........) Ontop of this- it would be highly likely that a large number of these 12,000 people would have difficulty ever finding meaningful work again- given age profiles again, so you may have unemployment benefit ontop of this (unless they are allowed to draw their pensions early- in which case you'll be looking at added years to their pension contributions).

You can actually sit down and put figures on all of this- it really is quite ridiculously expensive. Given that they may only have another 10 years togo (for arguments sake) before they would reach pensionable age anyhow- it actually may very well be the cheaper option to leave them sitting there (I've no calculator here- but once again its highly possible). At least they will be paying tax on their salaries and making pension contributions- redundancy payments are tax free....... (you have to factor this in too!)

It would be very expensive, but that is the nature of redundancy. Also these staff are going to have to be relaced anyway so it could be argued that the next 10 years wages, pensions contributions etc. would be saved. So if you take it that you have saved 10 years wages of 12,000 staff, you have saved 120,000 years off wages and pension contributions. You are also saving office rents etc. and freeing up city locations for other economic development.

The 12,000 new additional staff would be necessary in the next 10 years anyway.

newdubliner wrote:

That would be because you've failed to inform us of these details.

It's absurd of you to be putting forward fantasy-based arguments and then challenging everyone to prove them wrong.

Did you see the part where I said I'm not qualified enough, obviously, to give exact figures. It seemed that the poster who asked the question did, which would be good. I'm not challenging anybody, Jaysus. God forbid, somebody might actually suggest redundancy! SmcCarrick has said it could be quantified.

SmcCarrick has put forward some figures that would need to be considered, and I have suggested the 10 years shouldn't be included. If you don't agree with it that's fine. I've suggested some "ball park" figures. I am open to correction on what should or shouldn't be included. When we have a better idea of what the real cost would be, we could well be able to have an approximate cost.
Any opinions on what what else should be included in the cost?

Including the training costs and productivity loss would also need to take account of the fact that these staff would need to be replaced in, say, 10 years or so anyway. So, in a way, these costs are just being brought forward.

Economic value is being brought to rural towns. It is likely the economic value lost to Finglas or other parts of Dublin would be replaced by some other economic activity. Also, as is often pointed out, this isn't the private sector. The benefits to society would need to be considered as well.

Economic cost isn't just based on the actual cost alone, it takes account of opportunity cost as well, such as the revenues that could be earned by another economic activity in the old location and the new revenues being brought to the new location.

New Dubliner, I haven't seen too many facts or figures from yourself either. I have asked you for figures and links before, as I am willing to learn more about the issue. Are you still looking for cost/benefit analysis? IMO, it's a side issue as even if it came out in favour of decentralisation there would still be the same opposition. You ask for cost/benefit analysis when you know it doesn't exist

SmcCarrick is prepared to debate the subject. I could well be wrong (and indeed probably am!) or indeed SmcCarrick could be, however you don't seem to even consider that eventuality.

Just because you believe it's wrong doesn't mean it is!

Victor

MG wrote:

or indeed for Aer Lingus workers in Shannon for instance who have heard more schadenfreude than sympathy

Sorry, I must have missed something. What is happening to Aer Lingus workers in Shannon?

Seanies32 wrote:

. You ask for cost/benefit analysis when you know it doesn't exist

It's to demonstrate that your argument has no business justification. and is therefore nonsense. If you want debate, then let's debate why a cost/benefit analysis does not exist and why a costly project should proceed without one.

Avoiding the cost/benefit issue is pure gombeen politics. Shouldn't the location of Civil Service jobs be determined solely on business criteria such as proximity to customers and availability of experienced personnel?

Schuhart

MG wrote:

There is a lot of talk about waste, but the reality is that people don't want to move for family and private reasons.

You’ve identified why people are not moving. The current incumbents don’t want to leave Dublin. If you actually look at media coverage of this issue, you’ll see that’s really all that’s discussed – the HR issue of whether or not enough volunteers can be obtained.

I think, in recent posts, we’ve already had the point that if these moves saved money or otherwise made sense, they should be done. If the programme saved money, it would be a story about public sector unions holding up something that would be beneficial to society.

However, what we actually have is a programme that will be costly and damaging to the country. The only reason it’s held up is because of a HR problem in making the scheme compulsory – which has nothing to do with staff being particularly worried about the scheme being costly and pointless.

In that situation – given the absence of any actual opposition based on the real reasons why decentralisation is daft – I think the situation is actually worse than you imagine. We will see a daft scheme pushed along because few, at the end of the day, give a damn if they do get any value for their tax. It all boils down to that vibe from Enda Kenny when he gave some load of waffle about reviewing the scheme if elected to Government, except for whatever was going to his constituency.

Its another of those situations where you realise the country is governed by autopilot – and it’s left to An Bord Planala to rule that Knock Airport just isn’t a suitable location for a central Government office.

This is all just a HR issue? Don’t you wish that was all it was about.

Schuhart

NewDubliner wrote:

gombeen politics. Shouldn't the location of Civil Service jobs be determined solely on business criteria such as proximity to customers and availability of experienced personnel?

This is the core point. Without a business case, this just should not be done. Proponents of decentralisation need to substantiate the 'benefits' that they see. Why would we spend money in a vacuum?

NewDubliner wrote:

It's to demonstrate that your argument has no business justification. and is therefore nonsense. If you want debate, then let's debate why a cost/benefit analysis does not exist and why a costly project should proceed without one.

Avoiding the cost/benefit issue is pure gombeen politics. Shouldn't the location of Civil Service jobs be determined solely on business criteria such as proximity to customers and availability of experienced personnel?

You see the rest of the post, or only the last line?

Seanies32 wrote:

You see the rest of the post, or only the last line?

I saw it but could not identify any facts among your many statements.

For example, your belief that retraining costs would be confined to the newly recruited replacements for those not leaving Dublin, that those who don't want to move have only 12 years service remaining and also that decentralisation would bring an economic benefit to the targetted locations.

You've ignored that the handover of skills relies heavily on the good will of the competant, hard-working people you want to fire.

You've ignored the HR issues that will be introduced by future department reorganisations/amalgamations when the people are scattered around the country.

And, yet again, you've not provided any reference to a credible cost-benefit analysis.

All, this expense just to transfer turnover from Tesco in Finglas to Tesco in Kildare?

NewDubliner wrote:

I saw it but could not identify any facts among your many statements.

I thought you said there is no cost/benefit analysis?

NewDubliner wrote:

For example, your belief that retraining costs would be confined to the newly recruited replacements for those not leaving Dublin,

That's a valid point. As I said, I am open to other costs that I don't see being mentioned. Training costs would occur for new entrants anyway. In a way, they're just being brought forward!

NewDubliner wrote:

that those who don't want to move have only 12 years service remaining

Going on posts here that state the average age of civil servants left in Dublin is quite high. Of course if they have 20/30 years left, that means offering redundancy would be a cheaper and more economic alternative!

NewDubliner wrote:

and also that decentralisation would bring an economic benefit to the targetted locations.

You're saying that they wouldn't? I'd like to hear why you believe it wouldn't. I'm willing to learn!

NewDubliner wrote:

You've ignored that the handover of skills relies heavily on the good will of the competant, hard-working people you want to fire.

Part of the redundancy package would be that they would help with new entrants. I don't want to fire them. If they don't want to decentralise and the Government can't find a ready made alternative and the employee is going to be miserable and depressed in a new job, why not offer redundancy?

NewDubliner wrote:

You've ignored the HR issues that will be introduced by future department reorganisations/amalgamations when the people are scattered around the country.

As i said, I don't know all the costs just as you say, the Government doesn't.

NewDubliner wrote:

And, yet again, you've not provided any reference to a credible cost-benefit analysis.

Why keep asking for something you know doesn't exist. :rolleyes:;)

I've outlined some of the economic benefits. The benefits of freeing up city locations to higher revenue operations and moving them to areas that have small revenue operations. Of course there are costs involved with that.

NewDubliner wrote:

All, this expense just to transfer turnover from Tesco in Finglas to Tesco in Kildare?

And benefit too! There will be expense in transferring and as said before there could well be more revenue produced in Finglas than before. Office rents will be cut as well as rents in the Dublin area are usually cheaper than country areas.

Seanies32 wrote:

I thought you said there is no cost/benefit analysis?

Correct.

As I said, I am open to other costs that I don't see being mentioned.

As i said, I don't know all the costs just as you say, the Government doesn't.

I've outlined some of the economic benefits. The benefits of freeing up city locations to higher revenue operations and moving them to areas that have small revenue operations. Of course there are costs involved with that.

Not assessed.

And benefit too! There will be expense in transferring and as said before there could well be more revenue produced in Finglas than before. Office rents will be cut as well as rents in the Dublin area are usually cheaper than country areas.

So, we can agree on this:

There may be benefits but nobody knows the amount.

The targetted towns may develop jobs just the same without this project, except that instead of the jobs being controlled by political favour, they'd be controlled by market forces.

There may be disadvantages and nobody knows how much.

There is a cost but nobody knows how much.

Is this how projects are managed in the private sector?

NewDubliner wrote:

Correct.

There may be benefits but nobody knows the amount.

There may be disadvantages and nobody knows how much.

There is a cost but nobody knows how much.

Is this how projects are managed in the private sector?

No, but the point that comes up regularly on this thread is; this isn't the private sector. Seems that people want to be comparable to the private sector when it suits them!

In the private sector if your employer moved and they couldn't find suitable re-deployment for you, you'd be offered redundancy.

NewDubliner wrote:

The targetted towns may develop jobs just the same without this project, except that instead of the jobs being controlled by political favour, they'd be controlled by market forces.

Yes. The new jobs may well be developed as well too. You'd also have higher revenue jobs in the old locations.

Seanies32 wrote:

No, but the point that comes up regularly on this thread is; this isn't the private sector. Seems that people want to be comparable to the private sector when it suits them!

In the private sector if your employer moved and they couldn't find suitable re-deployment for you, you'd be offered redundancy.

And you would most probably be offered a "golden-handcuff" to stay with the company for a set period of time in its new location (i.e. a lumpsum at the end of a 3 year period if you are still in the employ of the company, along with additional allowances for agreeing to undertake the move). I worked in the private sector for 10 years before joining the civil service. During the two moves we undertook (in the same company- it moved for tax reasons), there were bonuses and all sorts of allowances for those who agreed to move.

In the current situation- not only is redundancy not on the table- you have no idea whether you will have meaningful work to do, if you do not manage to decentralise somewhere. Its degrading and extremly wasteful in the extreme.

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes. The new jobs may well be developed as well too. You'd also have higher revenue jobs in the old locations.

How do you make out that there would be higher revenue jobs in the old locations? Moving offices from areas where there is precious little other employment, could well have the totally opposite effect- and put them into downward spirals. Government offices and civil service jobs were previously handed out as cookies in the likes of Finglas, Tallaght, Darndale and a few other very high unemployment areas. Most of these jobs are included in the 12,000 being moved elsewhere once again.

smccarrick wrote:

And you would most probably be offered a "golden-handcuff" to stay with the company for a set period of time in its new location (i.e. a lumpsum at the end of a 3 year period if you are still in the employ of the company, along with additional allowances for agreeing to undertake the move). I worked in the private sector for 10 years before joining the civil service. During the two moves we undertook (in the same company- it moved for tax reasons), there were bonuses and all sorts of allowances for those who agreed to move.

Is there no relocation package? Jaysus, the Nurses moving across Cork city to the new Hospital there got at least €1,000. They delayed the opening partly because they wanted €2,000. Don't think they got the new amount though. Your unions need to negotiate a relocation package definitely, it's only fair.

smccarrick wrote:

In the current situation- not only is redundancy not on the table- you have no idea whether you will have meaningful work to do, if you do not manage to decentralise somewhere. Its degrading and extremly wasteful in the extreme.

I can't see why the wont offer redundancy. It would be very expensive initially but there will be costs saved too.

smccarrick wrote:

How do you make out that there would be higher revenue jobs in the old locations? Moving offices from areas where there is precious little other employment, could well have the totally opposite effect- and put them into downward spirals. Government offices and civil service jobs were previously handed out as cookies in the likes of Finglas, Tallaght, Darndale and a few other very high unemployment areas. Most of these jobs are included in the 12,000 being moved elsewhere once again.

Finglas and Tallaght would now have large employment centres, industrial estates, offices, shops etc. They would not have been as well developed then.

There could well be a case for transferring them or keeping them in less developed parts of Dublin. Of course other parts of the country would have a good claim under the same criteria. Donegal has one of the highest unemployment rates in Ireland.

Jaysus, next post could be page 100!

Seanies32 wrote:

There could well be a case for transferring them or keeping them in less developed parts of Dublin. Of course other parts of the country would have a good claim under the same criteria. Donegal has one of the highest unemployment rates in Ireland.

That's an interesting idea. You'd transfer people who lived in well-off, developed neighbourhoods, such as Artane and Sutton but you'd leave staff living in Finglas or Tallaght alone?

To make this work, it would have to be a condition of employment that people lived in places designated by the government. Maybe special barracks for public servants? This would facilitate moving them from place to place as some kind of economic band-aid or to shore up falling votes in key constituencies.

NewDubliner wrote:

That's an interesting idea. You'd transfer people who lived in well-off, developed neighbourhoods, such as Artane and Sutton but you'd leave staff living in Finglas or Tallaght alone?

You quoted this:

seanies32 wrote:

There could well be a case for transferring them or keeping them in less developed parts of Dublin. Of course other parts of the country would have a good claim under the same criteria. Donegal has one of the highest unemployment rates in Ireland.

You omitted the paragragh before it:

seanies32 wrote:

Finglas and Tallaght would now have large employment centres, industrial estates, offices, shops etc. They would not have been as well developed then.

I did not say Tallaght and Finglas should not be decentralised!

These areas have benefitted from the Government decentralising services to areas that where disadvantaged

Well, do you have a problem with the Government proactively helping economically disadvantaged areas?

Tallaght and Finglas have now large employment centres. The Governments decision to move public service offices there has helped in making those area more attractive for other offices and enterprises. Why not other disadvantaged areas?

NewDubliner wrote:

To make this work, it would have to be a condition of employment that people lived in places designated by the government. Maybe special barracks for public servants? This would facilitate moving them from place to place as some kind of economic band-aid or to shore up falling votes in key constituencies.

I didn't realise the Government had a responsibility to house the public servants now. How do other sectors manage when their employer moves? Seriously, do you expect the Employer to set out in a written employment contract where their employment location is going to be for the next 30/40 years. Maybe that's not a bad idea: we all could sue those selfish employers then.

Seanies32 wrote:

I did not say Tallaght and Finglas should not be decentralised! These areas have benefitted from the Government decentralising services to areas that where disadvantaged

Well, do you have a problem with the Government proactively helping economically disadvantaged areas?

Tallaght and Finglas have now large employment centres. The Governments decision to move public service offices there has helped in making those area more attractive for other offices and enterprises. Why not other disadvantaged areas?

While Tallaght and Finglas have large employment centres- they also have the highest number of unemployed people signing on in absolute terms, in the whole country (and the 2nd and 5th highest percentage unemployment levels, the higher levels being inner city areas of Dublin).

The problem is that- yes, they did benefit from having staff based there (to a small extent,) but those staff are now being taken away. In a similar manner staff are being taken away from Longford, Ballinasloe, Galway, Sligo and a raft of other places who assumed they would naturally share in the decentralisation goodies. Everyone assumes that they have a good case to make to get these jobs (and they are presuming its vacant jobs that locals can fill), no-one anywhere assumes that they are so low on the list of political priority that they warrant a net loss of jobs......

As a scheme it stinks. It makes no sense irrespective of how you look at it. It could be made to work- but that would mean totally abondoning the current proposals and starting from scratch in a manner than makes sense.

The government has a history of screwing up things like this- we all remember the Land Registry staff, the ESB staff at Poulaphouca, prison staff in Cork, Gardai in Cavan/Longford- you could go on and on. Its not fair on the staff involved- and its definitively not fair on the poor taxpayer who foots the bill for this nonsense at the end of the day.

ninja900 wrote:

The family and private reasons of those who cannot move are entirely valid. This is supposedly a voluntary programme remember.
Would you choose to damage your family life because a government minister told you to do so?

None of the above invalidates the arguments made about waste, inefficiency and all the rest - these arguments are also 100% valid and we've not a peep from the decentralisation proponents apart from vague guff about revitalising the regions etc. So on the debit side we have billions of costs, on the credit side we have a warm feeling inside. Doesn't add up.

Private reasons are valid from the individuals viewpoint, not from the governments. If an employee is dissatisfied with the move, they should change jobs. I'm intrigued about the "billions of costs" being spoken about when they is also complaints about lack of relocation money & no redundancy packages. I can see that there are savings to be made from moving departments from high cost locations to lower cost locations and the possiblity of starting afresh with better less wasteful work practices. but I have yet to see where the "billions" of cost is.

ninja900 wrote:

How is it that you think that because people are refusing to decentralise on personal grounds, that that somehow devalues the economic and organisational arguments against decentralisation?

Is doesn't devalue it for the individual's viewpoint, it's simply irrelevant to the actual economics of the decision

ninja900 wrote:

Aer Lingus is in the private sector.
Redundancy is being offered and the terms will be a matter for negotiation. I believe it is planned that any redundancies will be voluntary.

The public service unions have actually tried to get the Department of Finance to show their hand on redundancy in the decentralisation context, but they refuse to do so. Because it will cost billions and they know it. As smccarrick says, it's cheaper to just white-wall people, some will resign, some will commit suicide or go on long term unpaid sick leave with depression and stress, some will stick it out, but it's cheaper overall.

Redundancy is when you lose your job, not when it's transferred. If it's transferred and you don't want to go, then move jobs. Remember too that AL are happy to lose high cost workers, because they are trying to replace then in Belfast with lower cost workers. This is not going to happen in the civil/public/semi state scenario. (BTW I have no connection to AL or Shannon
lest you think that I am driving a personal agenda)

ninja900 wrote:

What does that reveal apart from that you appear to hold a very low opinion of public servants?

I was pointing out how life sometimes imitates art (or perhaps vice versa). I never said that I had a low opinion of public servants, to draw this conclusion would be putting your own words in my mouth.

Seanies32 wrote:

Well, do you have a problem with the Government proactively helping economically disadvantaged areas

The current decentralisation plan has very little to do with helping economically disadvantaged areas.

Seanies32 wrote:

Tallaght and Finglas have now large employment centres. The Governments decision to move public service offices there has helped in making those area more attractive for other offices and enterprises. Why not other disadvantaged areas?

There is no evidence that the moving of goverenment offices to Tallaght has any connection to the presence of enterprises in Tallaght. The jobs were moved nearer to where the existing workers lived and more importantly, nearer where their customers lived. You're proposing the opposite.

Seanies32 wrote:

I didn't realise the Government had a responsibility to house the public servants now.

Well, how else will the government be able to ensure people actually move their homes to the places you want them to live? If you want to bring the economic advantage of a public service pay packet to the Tesco in Buncrana, wouldn't this mean forcing people to live in Buncrana and do their shopping there? Look at the advantages of using barracks, staff could be easily moved from place to place according government whim, isn't this what you want? Take Drogheda, for example, what's to stop the Dublin-based public servants driving or taking the train while continuing to shop in Artane? If they make their own sandwiches, all Drogheda gets is more traffic.

Hotblack Desiato

MG wrote:

Private reasons are valid from the individuals viewpoint, not from the governments.

The government cannot afford to ignore the viewpoint of their staff in this so-called 'voluntary' programme.

If an employee is dissatisfied with the move, they should change jobs.

Have you ever heard of constructive dismissal and are you aware that it is illegal?

I'm intrigued about the "billions of costs" being spoken about when they is also complaints about lack of relocation money & no redundancy packages.

You obviously haven't been following the thread then.

I can see that there are savings to be made from moving departments from high cost locations to lower cost locations and the possiblity of starting afresh with better less wasteful work practices.

I sincerely doubt that any work practices are going to become more efficient as a result of this, quite the opposite in many cases.
Even the government's own figures for the property savings show a payback time of at least 30 years on the upfront costs being incurred. Those are only the property costs, and ignore the massive training costs and loss of efficiency caused by forcing thousands of people to stop doing the jobs they're qualified and trained to do, and do some other random job instead. People who could not win promotion on merit will do so because of their willingness to decentralise, is that going to help or hinder public service efficiency?

Is doesn't devalue it for the individual's viewpoint, it's simply irrelevant to the actual economics of the decision

Economics have got nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to embark on this programme. Economically, it's a basket case.

Redundancy is when you lose your job, not when it's transferred.

Not if your contract of employment is tied to a specific location.

smccarrick wrote:

While Tallaght and Finglas have large employment centres- they also have the highest number of unemployed people signing on in absolute terms, in the whole country (and the 2nd and 5th highest percentage unemployment levels, the higher levels being inner city areas of Dublin).

The 2002 Census provides valuable information on the levels of
unemployment in local areas. The overall rate of unemployment, as
defined by people themselves (ie whether they were unemployed,
employed, retired, on home duties, in education or other) was
8.8%. The Census statistics also identified 88 areas (electoral
divisions) where unemployment was 24% or more. These included a
significant number of rural areas. For instance, Donegal had both
the highest unemployment rate by county (17%) and the most
unemployment areas of 24% or more (18). Two electoral wards in
County Mayo had unemployment rates of 40% and 37%
respectively. Similarly, underemployment continues to be a
significant problem in many rural areas.
The INOU recommends setting ambitious and achievable job
creation targets for areas outside the 5 major urban areas. The
projected decline in the numbers of people working full-time in
farming (from 80,000 in 2004 to 15,000 in 2015) is likely to lead to
increased competition for jobs in rural areas. Policies, therefore,
need to create a favourable climate for economic growth in rural
areas where people reside.

The above is from the INOU Website.

Should the Govt. target a 1 or 2% rate of unemployment in Tallaght or Finglas over the country areas?

newdubliner wrote:

Well, how else will the government be able to ensure people actually move their homes to the places you want them to live? If you want to bring the economic advantage of a public service pay packet to the Tesco in Buncrana, wouldn't this mean forcing people to live in Buncrana and do their shopping there? Look at the advantages of using barracks, staff could be easily moved from place to place according government whim, isn't this what you want? Take Drogheda, for example, what's to stop the Dublin-based public servants driving or taking the train while continuing to shop in Artane? If they make their own sandwiches, all Drogheda gets is more traffic.

Well there are plenty of houses to buy or rent. The majority would probably choose to live in Buncrana, not commute.

That isn't what I want. It's reasonable to believe or accept that your employer may move their location at some stage.

As for the Drogheda scenario, there's nothing stopping them at all doing that.

Seanies32 wrote:

The majority would probably choose to live in Buncrana, not commute.

More vagueness. Maybe, they'd choose to commute from Derry?

That isn't what I want. It's reasonable to believe or accept that your employer may move their location at some stage.

That's not at issue. This is a politics forum, we're discussing a policy of moving jobs for political reasons instead of business reasons.

Seanies32 wrote:

As for the Drogheda scenario, there's nothing stopping them at all doing that.

Wouldn't this mean the project will have failed to achieve its stated objectives?

Seanies32 wrote:

The 2002 Census provides valuable information on the levels of
unemployment in local areas. The overall rate of unemployment, as
defined by people themselves (ie whether they were unemployed,
employed, retired, on home duties, in education or other) was
8.8%. The Census statistics also identified 88 areas (electoral
divisions) where unemployment was 24% or more. These included a
significant number of rural areas. For instance, Donegal had both
the highest unemployment rate by county (17%) and the most
unemployment areas of 24% or more (18). Two electoral wards in
County Mayo had unemployment rates of 40% and 37%
respectively. Similarly, underemployment continues to be a
significant problem in many rural areas.
The INOU recommends setting ambitious and achievable job
creation targets for areas outside the 5 major urban areas. The
projected decline in the numbers of people working full-time in
farming (from 80,000 in 2004 to 15,000 in 2015) is likely to lead to
increased competition for jobs in rural areas. Policies, therefore,
need to create a favourable climate for economic growth in rural
areas where people reside.

The above is from the INOU Website.

Should the Govt. target a 1 or 2% rate of unemployment in Tallaght or Finglas over the country areas?

Well there are plenty of houses to buy or rent. The majority would probably choose to live in Buncrana, not commute.

That isn't what I want. It's reasonable to believe or accept that your employer may move their location at some stage.

As for the Drogheda scenario, there's nothing stopping them at all doing that.

Unfortunately that is old data you're quoting. For more uptodate information you really have to use the info from the most current data. The current Irish unemployment rate (Q2 2007) is 4.4%, which is a very slight increase on the low point of 4.2% registered in the last quarter of 2005.

While I am not debating the percentage unemployment in electoral wards- the absolute number of unemployed people is now slightly over 100,000 in a total labour force of just under 2.2 million. Of the 100,000 unemployed people in the country as a whole- over a third are in Dublin city and county.

The CSO's definition of unemployment differs from the governments- as it counts people who may not be actively seeking employment. In this volume of the most recent census data- unemployment is broken down for the country as a whole and on a county by county basis. (Note: Table 5 onwards are the most enlightening). By the CSOs definition there are 150,000 unemployed in the country as opposed to the governments figure of 100,000.

The lowest rate of unemployment in Ireland is in Roscommon, where on both an absolute and also a percentage basis its statistics surpass those of any other county.

The total number of unemployed in Dublin city and county is 46,750. The toal number of unemployed in Donegal town and county is 7,265.

If you want to look at the percentage in a small little village somewhere- it may have a much higher rate of unemployment than say a town that numerically may have 20 times as many people unemployed. Should you favour the little village with a higher percentage unemployment rate- over the town where numerically there are a vast multiple of times more people unemployed?

In black and white- Donegal has 7,265 people unemployed, versus Dublin which as 46,750. One single unemployment benefit office in North Dublin processes more weekly claims than all 14 offices in Donegal combined.

I am not trying to belittle Donegal's unemployment problem- I am simply trying to put it into perspective- there are far larger groups of unemployed people elsewhere- why should a special case be made for Donegal?

NewDubliner wrote:

More vagueness. Maybe, they'd choose to commute from Derry?

And good for them if they do. Letterkenny/Derry is part of the National Spatial Strategy and Buncrana is within 30/40 minute commute of both. The Government isn't telling people where to live, just moving employment locations, which they have a right to.

NewDubliner wrote:

That's not at issue. This is a politics forum, we're discussing a policy of moving jobs for political reasons instead of business reasons.

The point still remains, political reasons or not. It's reasonable to believe/assume that at some stage your employer may move location. No employer can absolutely guarentee you that they wont.

newdubliner wrote:

Wouldn't this mean the project will have failed to achieve its stated objectives?

If everybody commutes, makes their sandwiches at home, and doesn't leave the office! Off course, there could be a chance they might move, buy a sandwich, eat lunch or socialise there!

smccarrick wrote:

Unfortunately that is old data you're quoting.

Did a search but nothing came up. Thanks for the link.

smccarrick wrote:

While I am not debating the percentage unemployment in electoral wards- the absolute number of unemployed people is now slightly over 100,000 in a total labour force of just under 2.2 million. Of the 100,000 unemployed people in the country as a whole- over a third are in Dublin city and county.

Given the population spread that is to be expected. That's not anti-Dublin or anything, just, it is to be expected.

smccarrick wrote:

The total number of unemployed in Dublin city and county is 46,750. The total number of unemployed in Donegal town and county is 7,265.

Not arguing with your absolute figures off course, but Donegal deserves help as well. This Dublin V. the rest of the country thing serves nobody. I take it you accept the Govt. can't just ignore Donegal, Roscommon etc. and focus exclusively on Dublin? The Govts. proposals of transferring staff who don't decentralise to other departments etc. will not add any numbers to the figures. They will either decentralise or transfer.

smccarrick wrote:

If you want to look at the percentage in a small little village somewhere- it may have a much higher rate of unemployment than say a town that numerically may have 20 times as many people unemployed. Should you favour the little village with a higher percentage unemployment rate- over the town where numerically there are a vast multiple of times more people unemployed?

Off course, the villages feed into the larger towns. Usually employment brought to a local town will help with the surrounding villages problems.

SMCCARRICK wrote:

In black and white- Donegal has 7,265 people unemployed, versus Dublin which as 46,750. One single unemployment benefit office in North Dublin processes more weekly claims than all 14 offices in Donegal combined.

Of course it depends what way you view the statistics! Say 7,265 are in Tallaght, should we ignore Tallaght or say it's any less deserving?

smccarrick wrote:

I am not trying to belittle Donegal's unemployment problem- I am simply trying to put it into perspective- there are far larger groups of unemployed people elsewhere- why should a special case be made for Donegal?

Either am I. Say Tallaght has 7,265 unemployed. Why favour them over the same number of people in Donegal, Kerry, Cork etc.

It really depends on how you view the statistics!

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

It really depends on how you view the statistics!

Indeed it does. However, your posts simply seem to be about defending relocating any Government office to Donegal, regardless of any impact anywhere else. Hence, it is indeed likely that any fact presented to you will simply be ignored and talked past.

Is there any point to a discussion? Is there any situation in which you would agree that relocation of an office to Donegal is not a good idea? Is there any level of cost to the rest of the community that would make you say 'no, its not worth doing it at that price'?

I just have that feeling that there's no point in even mentioning that splintering central Government staff in this way makes no sense and costs us more. Honestly - if it was demonstrated that seeing this policy as a way of generating local employment is like heating your house by lighting a cigar with a €50 note, would you actually care?