Decentralisation

K-9

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?

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

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?

Funny that you should say that......
Tallaght currently has 7466 people signing on- and in addition, is one of the locations from which the government proposes to decentralise jobs from.
So- Tallaght is being ignored, and is considered less deserving- in answer to your question. Tallaght alone has more unemployed people than the whole county of Donegal (and if you were to look back at historic unemployment levels- in the early 1990s- it actually had 3 times more unemployed people than the total number of unemployed in Donegal in 1992.

So- Tallaght is not only being ignored by the current proposals- it is considered less deserving, and is being discriminated against.

Why is it being discriminated against? I certainly don't know. Perhaps because it only managed to return 1 FF seat (Conor Lenihan- his partner Charlie O'Connor lost his)- who knows? Most probably because it does not have the lobby groups and high visibility that Donegal or Kerry have in the media.

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

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.

No, I don't particularly care if they come to Donegal or not.

The Quote I was responding too was:

smccarrick wrote:

In black and white- Donegal has 7,265 people unemployed, versus Dublin which as 46,750

It's not that black and white, that's what I was pointing out. The 7,265 in Donegal are equally deserving of Government support as say 7,265 in Tallaght, Cork, Galway etc.

schuhart wrote:

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?

But this is not the main issue. The main issue is the personal circumstances that will still remain if it was the most cost effective proposal ever planned. Also if an employer decides to move, that is the employers' choice.

Some people cannot see the benefits that decentralisation is going to have either, they just see the cost. Are we so consumed about cost in Ireland that we can't see past the benefits of some proposals?

I think the best summing up is this:

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.

People will all not agree in a political forum!

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

It's not that black and white, that's what I was pointing out. The 7,265 in Donegal are equally deserving of Government support as say 7,265 in Tallaght, Cork, Galway etc.

And the point that I was making is that they are not considered equal. 7000 odd unemployed people in Donegal will always get a lot more media attention, task forces and political will- than will 7000 odd unemployed in Tallaght. There is an active discrimination going on- only its not against people in Donegal (or Kerry or where-ever) its an anti-Dublin bias. Its true.

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

Tallaght alone has more unemployed people than the whole county of Donegal (and if you were to look back at historic unemployment levels- in the early 1990s- it actually had 3 times more unemployed people than the total number of unemployed in Donegal in 1992.

Another way of looking at it - Tallaght had 3 times the unemployment Donegal had in 92, now roughly the same. So what area has been more successful in attracting jobs, an area that clearly has seen successful job creation in the last 15 years and an area that hasn't been as successful? Also what are the unemployment rates in percentages? The job growth figures are also relevant.

I'm not just defending Donegal. If it was Mayo, Kerry or inner city Dublin etc. I'd say the same.

smccarrick wrote:

So- Tallaght is not only being ignored by the current proposals- it is considered less deserving, and is being discriminated against.

Tallaght has been very successful in cutting its unemployment numbers by 2/3'rds. It clearly does not have as much difficulty in reducing unemployment as Donegal does and is more likely to replace those jobs quickly. You could take it further and say, Tallaghts unemployment numbers drops again in 15 years time and we have say 3,000 unemployed.

Is it fair to equate say Clare, Westmeath etc. with Tallaght then, despite massive differences in population and job growth?

smccarrick wrote:

Why is it being discriminated against? I certainly don't know. Perhaps because it only managed to return 1 FF seat (Conor Lenihan- his partner Charlie O'Connor lost his)- who knows? Most probably because it does not have the lobby groups and high visibility that Donegal or Kerry have in the media.

Conor Lenihan is quite profile and I'm sure the thought of regaining the seat will also be in FF minds.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

The Government isn't telling people where to live, just moving employment locations, which they have a right to.

If the government cannot tell people where to live, how can it guarantee that this method of giving relief to the failed e

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

Is there any point to a discussion?

Yes, I have seen another point of view on this thread and understand perfectly where people are coming from.

There's not too many seeing the other side though. There are valid arguments to both sides. That's politics! You argue your side as best as you can while seeing the other side too.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

If the government cannot tell people where to\live how can it guarantee that this method of giving relief to the failed economies of rural Ireland will succeed?

Jaysus, I thought I was being right wing/controversial! PD's! Let's carry the failed economies point on: City centre Dublin, Ballymun, even parts of Tallaght are failed economies in the same sense as rural economies, why bother even trying with them? Then you expect people to be sympathetic to personal problems of civil servants who have to move?

Take it further, why bother with the theatre, literature, music, sports etc. look at the costs with no revenue benefits!

It can't guarentee it, just like it can't guarentee locations. Then why bother with national spatial strategies, why don't we all move from the failed rural economies to Dublin, that'll solve everything! We'll not move to inner city areas, Kilbarrack,Ballymun etc. though. They're failed economies!

Wait a second, we might have personal problems with that though!:rolleyes:

No employer can guarentee the exact location for 30/40 years. Simple as, they can't, full stop! Public/Semi-State or Private sector. They just can't.

newdubliner wrote:

Why is this at issues. You seem to be assuming that Civil Servants cannot be moved to jobs in different areas. It's part of their terms of employment that this can happen. The real point at issue is why the government is doing this and if it's got the sums right.

Political and rural revitalising reasons. As you say, its part of the terms of employment so it's not a major shock. Again, is Ireland economically and socially so driven by costs and getting sums right, that we do not value things besides those reasons. Maybe the Govt. shouldn't have tried to regenerate Ballymun. The cost and expense of it all! :rolleyes:

newdubliner wrote:

So, isn't this a very unreliable way of bailing out 'poor' towns?

What about poor areas of cities, forget them too. Ballymun, Sheriff St. They're poor areas, f*** them basically. If that's better Govt. and doing things by cost/benefit analysis, well thank God for decentralisation.

very miffed dub

Seanies32 wrote:

What about poor areas of cities, forget them too. Ballymun, Sheriff St. They're poor areas, f*** them basically. If that's better Govt. and doing things by cost/benefit analysis, well thank God for decentralisation.

The good old cost/benefit analysis rears its head again.

Here are a few facts based on my knowledge of newly decentralised locations.

1. Mistakes have been made in publications which have had to be re-published at a cost of tens of thousands of euros. I know this to be a fact because I was the one that spotted the errors.

2. The overtime bill has gone up because the new staff are not familiar with the work and it takes longer to get it done.

3. I had to attend several inter-departmental meetings in Dublin (usually in Government Buildings) when I worked in my old section. This involved a few minutes walk. Now when there are such meetings held Travel and Subsistence has to be paid to attendees because they are hundreds of miles away in the country.

4. The work in the sections that we were forced to go to has also suffered because we have to constantly answer frantic phone calls or e-mails because our replacements do NOT have the necessary knowledge.

5. The level of sick leave has increased because of the stress associated with Decentralisation. One of my ex-colleagues likened it to waiting on 'Death Row'!!

How much has Dentralisation cost so far? We'll never know because the Department of Finance refuse to release any figures in spite of several FOI requests and Parliamentary Questions.

Firetrap

It's clear that there are people out there who really don't care about the side-effects of decentralisation as long as shiny new offices open up in their designated locations. They don't give a toss about the untold anxieties it has caused people, the fracturing of departments, the loss of knowledge, the horrendous waste of taxpayers money that would be far better spent on useful things like hospitals and schools. Because, hey, it happens in the private sector and just because it happens there, that makes it alright.

K-9

very miffed dub wrote:

The good old cost/benefit analysis rears its head again.

Everthing like the Ballymun regeneration should have cost/benefit analysis? Jaysus, we really are a materialistic people. Those city centre problem areas, we'll subject them to cost/benefit analysis too. As so many say when they bring up personal circumstances, this isn't the private sector!

very miffed dub wrote:

Here are a few facts based on my knowledge of newly decentralised locations.

1. Mistakes have been made in publications which have had to be re-published at a cost of tens of thousands of euros. I know this to be a fact because I was the one that spotted the errors.

Yeah agreed. All decentralisations fault? If there was no decentralisation, no mistakes, no publications re-published?

very miffed dub wrote:

2. The overtime bill has gone up because the new staff are not familiar with the work and it takes longer to get it done.

That will happen eventually, anyway. So when these staff get to retirement age, will the new staff employed then suddenly get familiar with their work quicker?

very miffed dub wrote:

3. I had to attend several inter-departmental meetings in Dublin (usually in Government Buildings) when I worked in my old section. This involved a few minutes walk. Now when there are such meetings held Travel and Subsistence has to be paid to attendees because they are hundreds of miles away in the country.

Fair point. Do the costs necessarily outweigh the benefits. Then again, why don't we move all civil/public/semi-private employees back to Dublin. That'll end all those expense problems. Anybody hear of e-mail/voicemail/webcams? This problem will lessen in time.I do take your point though.

very miffed dub wrote:

4. The work in the sections that we were forced to go to has also suffered because we have to constantly answer frantic phone calls or e-mails because our replacements do NOT have the necessary knowledge.

Not being smart, but if you don't move with your job and your employer offers you another job, which off course may/could not be the exact same, that will happen. Think of the inconvenience you are, to people ringing you and you not knowing your job. Not being flippant, because if civil servants had been offered redundancy or decentralisation, the Unions and employees would be saying, what about transfers?

very miffed dub wrote:

5. The level of sick leave has increased because of the stress associated with Decentralisation. One of my ex-colleagues likened it to waiting on 'Death Row'!!

A wee bit OTT, don't you think! Again, as New Dubliner pointed out, partof your contract of employment as civil servants, is that you may be moved.

very miffed dub wrote:

How much has Dentralisation cost so far? We'll never know because the Department of Finance refuse to release any figures in spite of several FOI requests and Parliamentary Questions.

What about the benefits? How much did the regeneration of Ballymun cost, repeating myself I know, but it's a fair point. Why bother with Sheriff St., Kilbarrack etc.? Maybe the Dept. wont release figures and cost/benefit analysis reports on those either? They're wrong too because the economic cost outweights the benefit?

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

It's clear that there are people out there who really don't care about the side-effects of decentralisation as long as shiny new offices open up in their designated locations. They don't give a toss about the untold anxieties it has caused people, the fracturing of departments, the loss of knowledge, the horrendous waste of taxpayers money that would be far better spent on useful things like hospitals and schools. Because, hey, it happens in the private sector and just because it happens there, that makes it alright.

But this isn't the private sector. Profit/Costs/Benefits isn't supposed to be the end all. Loss of knowledge that would have to be replaced anyway, the contracts that said, as civil servants, you may have to move job, the fracturing of depts. that with IT will heal.

Hospitals and Schools? I thought they weren't civil servants and not comparable? The increase in the public service wage bill, the pension bill etc. they weren't comparable before and could not be blamed on the civil service! Now let's save the money and spend it on the hospitals and schools! We know where 2/3'rds of the savings will be spent?

K-9

very miffed dub wrote:

4. The work in the sections that we were forced to go to has also suffered because we have to constantly answer frantic phone calls or e-mails because our replacements do NOT have the necessary knowledge.

So if you got a promotion and better pay, you would still be moaning? Probably!:rolleyes:

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

And the point that I was making is that they are not considered equal. 7000 odd unemployed people in Donegal will always get a lot more media attention, task forces and political will- than will 7000 odd unemployed in Tallaght. There is an active discrimination going on- only its not against people in Donegal (or Kerry or where-ever) its an anti-Dublin bias. Its true.

Goes back to percentages too. If say its 5/6% unemployment in Tallaght, it's very difficult to get below 4%, as shown by the last few years here. Part of that 4% is people who just find it very hard to be employed! :rolleyes: and there always will be some level of unemployment as well. 0/1/2% is unattainable, unfortunately, there will always be some percentage unemployed. So targetting the 3,000 unemployed in Tallaght maybe a waste of resources compared to the 3,000 in Carlow or whereever! Back to cost/benefit analysis again I'm afraid!

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Goes back to percentages too. If say its 5/6% unemployment in Tallaght, it's very difficult to get below 4%, as shown by the last few years here. ....compared to the 3,000 in Carlow or whereever! Back to cost/benefit analysis again I'm afraid!

Are you proposing to move people who live in Tallaght and make them live in Carlow? How will that improve unemployment stats in Carlow?

In summary, your policy is:

1: Financial cost is not important.
2: Benefit cannot be measured.
3: Screw Dublin.
4: It might make some people outside of Dublin happier.
5: Just do it.

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

What about poor areas of cities, forget them too. Ballymun, Sheriff St. They're poor areas, f*** them basically. If that's better Govt. and doing things by cost/benefit analysis, well thank God for decentralisation.

First of all- there are offices in these poorer areas of the city being closed and moved elsewhere around the country as part of decentralisation- I already pointed out about the offices in Finglas- but you could just as easily point at DSFA headquarters off Gardiner Street in Dublin 1 (which I don't think anyone will argue with me when I suggest its one of the poorest inner city areas in the country)- its due to be hived off to Letterkenny and Dundalk. There are actually some of their employees living in the immediate vicinity- so that is a definite negative.

Re: Civil servants and contracts obliging them to move- its only since the current decentralisation scheme was mooted that a clause on agreeing to decentralise was inserted into the contracts of people newly recruited (in a lot of cases specifically recruited for decentralised locations- irrespective of when that might occur). People in the civil service prior to this were recruited for specific regions- I myself was recruited in a "Dublin only" competition many years ago.

As I previously pointed out- Dublin based civil servants do not have preference over those already decentralised when applying to be moved out of Dublin. I was forced to rescind my decentralisation application- and reinstate it, which lost my place in a queue- now the 12 locations on my list are all over subscribed (mostly by people who are not even working in Dublin in the first place). What sort of a mess is that? And for good measure- my department have refused to release me to job offers that I am qualified to do elsewhere- jobs that I went to a lot of trouble to meet with personnel officers and undergo testing and interviews for- because they can't recruit someone to do my job until such time as it is decentralised (if that is what happens).

The person who compared the current situation to being on death row- is using a good analogy. Its a voluntary scheme- but it doesn't really matter whether you volunteer or not- you're a little pawn in the hands of politicians. If you volunteer- they won't let you go- if you don't volunteer- you have no idea whether they're going to sell the building around you and give you something totally pointless to do, just to give you something to do.

Seanies- admit it- you want those jobs in Donegal, and you don't care what the consequences elsewhere or for the taxpayer are. You also don't particularly care whether those jobs are real jobs or not- or whether there will be another 12,000 people at the ends of phones for several years clearing up messes as they occur. I tried to help you- by showing you how to price redundancy for the Dublin staff, there are also calculations from me earlier in this thread showing the costs of continuing to employ them. People want this decentralisation scheme come what may- they just don't give a damn for sitting down and evaluating it in a logical manner. Its an extension of the parochial politics that this country is infamous for.......

Schuhart

NewDubliner wrote:

Seanies32 wrote:

Goes back to percentages too. If say its 5/6% unemployment in Tallaght, it's very difficult to get below 4%, as shown by the last few years here. ....compared to the 3,000 in Carlow or whereever! Back to cost/benefit analysis again I'm afraid!

Are you proposing to move people who live in Tallaght and make them live in Carlow? How will that improve unemployment stats in Carlow?

In summary, your policy is:

1: Financial cost is not important.
2: Benefit cannot be measured.
3: Screw Dublin.
4: It might make some people outside of Dublin happier.
5: Just do it.

That seems to be the essence of his case. We can only boggle at the vague dismissal of the idea that costs have to produce some kind of benefit. By this logic we should be willing to spend a billion to shift 100 jobs to Letterkenny on the basis that benefit cannot be quantified.

The comparison to Ballymun regeneration is utterly inappropriate as the effect of that investment should actually be quantifiable. If you found that Ballymun were no better off - that indicators like employment levels, educational attainment, crime levels for the sake of argument showed no improvement - then someone could argue that the investment is wasted.

Cost most certainly requires benefit. The fact that a defender of decentralisation finds it necessary to reject common sense to deny this speaks volumes. This really is about someone saying 'I don't give a damn if a massive cost is imposed on the country for a bit of window-dressing in Donegal'.

I honestly don't know what is the response to that mentality. For some reason, many Irish people seem to define their identity around county. That's what allows this kind of nonsense to float. It may simply be that the only thing that claims an allegience in the minds of many is GAA (and if this seems superficial - then explain it to me some other way).

How do we get the county jersey to be left behind at the match? Because its doing real damage to people's lives.

Firetrap

Seanies32 wrote:

But this isn't the private sector. Profit/Costs/Benefits isn't supposed to be the end all. Loss of knowledge that would have to be replaced anyway, the contracts that said, as civil servants, you may have to move job, the fracturing of depts. that with IT will heal.

Problem is, the government wants to decentralise a lot of departments all at once and within a short time span. Maybe you're under the impression that a civil service job is like working in a canning factory and that people will be able to learn their new jobs very quickly. Other people on this thread with hands-on experience of the reality of decentralisation have pointed out time and time again that there are people in new departments who haven't got a clue what's going on and are having to get help from their predecessors. This despite their being "trained" for a period of time.

Seanies32 wrote:

Hospitals and Schools? I thought they weren't civil servants and not comparable? The increase in the public service wage bill, the pension bill etc. they weren't comparable before and could not be blamed on the civil service! Now let's save the money and spend it on the hospitals and schools! We know where 2/3'rds of the savings will be spent?

I wasn't talking about the staff in hospitals and schools. I meant the problems we're facing at the moment with shortages of school places in many areas and the problems with hospital waiting lists. By the looks of things, the Minister for Finance won't have the same big wad of cash to wield in the upcoming budget and choices will have to be made. Would the money being blown on decentralisation not be better spent on something that's actually useful and of benefit to the Irish taxpayer? It baffles me that you think that decentralisation is going to save money.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Are you proposing to move people who live in Tallaght and make them live in Carlow? How will that improve unemployment stats in Carlow?

In summary, your policy is:

1: Financial cost is not important.
2: Benefit cannot be measured.
3: Screw Dublin.
4: It might make some people outside of Dublin happier.
5: Just do it.

You ever hear of full employment? Expecting to get 3 or even under 4% unemployment is unreasonable and probably impossible.

Fiancial cost is not the end all and be all. Everybody gave out about the cost of the Luas and its benefits. Doesn't mean it wasn't a bad idea. There're benefits, sometimes benefits that can't be measured are more important than ones that can't. Economics ignores that. Ireland was a failed economy in the 80's, like you say rural economies are, why bother?

Just do it - as said before "no employer can guarentee the exact location for 30/40 years. Simple as, they can't, full stop! Public/Semi-State or Private sector. They just can't. "


The screw Dublin - typical attitude from somebody who refuses to see any benefits in decentralisation. Tallaght has been doing well economically and employment wise in the last 15 years, it's not being screwed, or indeed Dublin.

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

First of all- there are offices in these poorer areas of the city being closed and moved elsewhere around the country as part of decentralisation- I already pointed out about the offices in Finglas- but you could just as easily point at DSFA headquarters off Gardiner Street in Dublin 1 (which I don't think anyone will argue with me when I suggest its one of the poorest inner city areas in the country)- its due to be hived off to Letterkenny and Dundalk. There are actually some of their employees living in the immediate vicinity- so that is a definite negative.

"some of the employees live in the immediate vicinity" - so the majority don't. How many are employed from the unemployment city centre blackspots?

You also previously pointed out about Tallaght which has at least 1/3 of the unemployment it had 15 years ago. Finglas has also benefitted. Major improvements have been made in reducing employment in these areas. Rural areas are now major parts of unemployment blackspots, they deserve offices being decentralised just as Finglas & Tallaght did before.

smccarrick wrote:

Re: Civil servants and contracts obliging them to move- its only since the current decentralisation scheme was mooted that a clause on agreeing to decentralise was inserted into the contracts of people newly recruited (in a lot of cases specifically recruited for decentralised locations- irrespective of when that might occur). People in the civil service prior to this were recruited for specific regions- I myself was recruited in a "Dublin only" competition many years ago.

As you say, it was many years ago. Unfortunately, employer and Govt. priorities change over time.

smccarrick wrote:

As I previously pointed out- Dublin based civil servants do not have preference over those already decentralised when applying to be moved out of Dublin. I was forced to rescind my decentralisation application- and reinstate it, which lost my place in a queue- now the 12 locations on my list are all over subscribed (mostly by people who are not even working in Dublin in the first place). What sort of a mess is that? And for good measure- my department have refused to release me to job offers that I am qualified to do elsewhere- jobs that I went to a lot of trouble to meet with personnel officers and undergo testing and interviews for- because they can't recruit someone to do my job until such time as it is decentralised (if that is what happens).

I've agreed it should have been definitely better planned. Even if was, the personal circumstances still remain which is the main reason employees have objections. The Govt. offered decentralisation and relocation. Other than offering redundancy I can't see the perfect alternative they could offer and even then, personally, people would be against it.

smccarrick wrote:

Seanies- admit it- you want those jobs in Donegal, and you don't care what the consequences elsewhere or for the taxpayer are. You also don't particularly care whether those jobs are real jobs or not- or whether there will be another 12,000 people at the ends of phones for several years clearing up messes as they occur. I tried to help you- by showing you how to price redundancy for the Dublin staff, there are also calculations from me earlier in this thread showing the costs of continuing to employ them. People want this decentralisation scheme come what may- they just don't give a damn for sitting down and evaluating it in a logical manner. Its an extension of the parochial politics that this country is infamous for.......

I gave you the costs saved and benefits that would happen, but you never came back with any other ideas. Do you want a Govt. that only considers cost/benefit analysis and anything else when coming to decisions. That wouldn't have helped the failed Irish and Dublin economy in the 80's.

Donegal as far I am aware hasn't got one job yet from the scheme and I don't care. Helping disadvantaged areas I do care about. Most of these costs are being brought forward anyway. Staff have to be replaced and trained eventually anyway.

Smccarrick, the personal problems you have with decentralisation will always be there. You don't want decentralisation for your own reasons, that's grand, admit it. If the Govt. come out with fantastic and amazing proposals tomorrow, you'll still not want to move your family and job. Understandable.

schuhart wrote:

I honestly don't know what is the response to that mentality. For some reason, many Irish people seem to define their identity around county. That's what allows this kind of nonsense to float. It may simply be that the only thing that claims an allegience in the minds of many is GAA (and if this seems superficial - then explain it to me some other way).

How do we get the county jersey to be left behind at the match? Because its doing real damage to people's lives.

Eh, what? It's not about county, and I'm not chatting about the GAA , it's that some rural areas are dying.

firetrap wrote:

Would the money being blown on decentralisation not be better spent on something that's actually useful and of benefit to the Irish taxpayer? It baffles me that you think that decentralisation is going to save money.

So its not useful and of no benefit. Well no point arguing with you then! The Luas was a waste of taxpayers money, but there are benefits to it. Should it never have been built, should any extensions not go ahead? This economy and society is starting to sound money obsessed. They'll bring personal reason into it when it suits them.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Just do it

The details of how its is done are important. It's an issue that you constantly evade. Your approach is to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Seanies32 wrote:

- as said before "no employer can guarentee the exact location for 30/40 years. Simple as, they can't, full stop! Public/Semi-State or Private sector. They just can't. "

Why do you keep raising this red herring? It's not an issue. Be aware though, that this cuts two ways. The precedent has now been established that people will be moved from town to town to satisfy the ebb and flow of electoral advantage for the ruling party.

Seanies32 wrote:

The screw Dublin - typical attitude from somebody who refuses to see any benefits in decentralisation.

This is simply not true. Decentralisation has already happened. Most of the public serice is already located outside of Dublin. I favour further moves where there is a valid business case and it can be accomplished in a way that will minimise costs and risk to customer service. Similarly, failed decentralisation instances should be moved back to Dublin where appropriate.

Seanies32 wrote:

Tallaght has been doing well economically and employment wise in the last 15 years, it's not being screwed, or indeed Dublin.

Tell that to the people in Tallaght whose jobs you want to take.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

The screw Dublin - typical attitude from somebody who refuses to see any benefits in decentralisation.

But, objectively, there are no significant benefits to be obtained from decentralisation. So all we're left with is the possibility that some people get some kind of satisfaction from seeing something being ripped out of Dublin.

Seanies32 wrote:

Eh, what? It's not about county, and I'm not chatting about the GAA , it's that some rural areas are dying.

And the point is relocation of central Government offices does very little for regional development as it doesn't address the identified problem - which is the need to concentrate within the regions, not the need to blindly rip stuff out of Dublin and scatter it about.

The policy fails to address the issue you state to be important. So the only identifiable reason for you to support it is simply blind support for anything that mentions Donegal, regardless of whether it makes sense.

I'd ask again - is there any level of cost at which you would say 'yeah, its not worth doing it at that price'. Can you envisage a situation in which you would say 'I do not favour moving 100 civil servants from Dublin to Letterkenny'. Bear in mind, I would support moving 100 civil servants from Dublin to Letterkenny if it was demonstrated to be a more effective use of resources. But the simple fact it that it isn't.

MG

ninja900 wrote:

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

I'd be very surprised in the circumstances if this wa\s applicable. There are sufficient options open to show that due regard was shown for the employees welfare.

ninja900 wrote:

I sincerely doubt that any work practices are going to become more efficient as a result of this, quite the opposite in many cases.

More inefficient!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I still see this as an opportunit to reduce waste and inefficiency by introducing productivity measures such as training and better work practices.

ninja900 wrote:

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?

Surely no more so than the current system of rewarding willingness to centralise? I mean if someone from say Mayo declared today that they weren't willing to leave Mayo, how far would they get in the Civil service? If it was properly decentralised that merit driven promotions would be possible in the regions too.

ninja900 wrote:

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

I disagree it's an economic basket case and the decentalisation of power and the apparatus of power would serve the country well economically.

ninja900 wrote:

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

Do you mean your current contract or the new one?

If you mean your current one then that is seriously worrying. If you mean the new one, then I don't understand how this is different to the current arrangement (other than Dublin is not the location), nor do I understand why interdepartmental/service transfers are not possible.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

the decentalisation of power and the apparatus of power would serve the country well economically.

But power will still be centralised - its a little disappointing when the logic of real decentralisation is applied to this proposal to relocate office staff.

Real decentralisation would involve moving powers from central government to local authorities, enabling them to raise their own funds and spend them as they wish. If that was what was proposed, I'd support it. But its not. What's proposed is moving office staff about at great cost for no real benefit.

MG

Schuhart wrote:

But power will still be centralised - its a little disappointing when the logic of real decentralisation is applied to this proposal to relocate office staff.

Real decentralisation would involve moving powers from central government to local authorities, enabling them to raise their own funds and spend them as they wish. If that was what was proposed, I'd support it. But its not. What's proposed is moving office staff about at great cost for no real benefit.

Agreed but you can't expect real power to be decentralised until the apparatus of power, i.e. the civil service is decentralised.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

you can't expect real power to be decentralised until the apparatus of power, i.e. the civil service is decentralised.

I’m sorry, but that’s just not a meaningful statement. There is absolutely no reason why we could not empower local authorities if that's what we choose to do, and no dependency on splintering of central Government offices across many locations. The two things just don’t relate – this really is an example of just stringing words together that say nothing, just for the sake of making a response.

I can’t honestly see the need to do this. Why not simply say ‘yes, this current programme is meaningless and does nothing to empower local communities or enable them to make decisions about their own areas’, as that is the case.

That said, there does seem to be reluctance by regional development advocates to call for local empowerment. They seem to prefer having the role of advocate, presumably as this avoids the need to take responsibility for decisions.

MG

Schuhart wrote:

I’m sorry, but that’s just not a meaningful statement. There is absolutely no reason why we could not empower local authorities if that's what we choose to do, and no dependency on splintering of central Government offices across many locations. The two things just don’t relate – this really is an example of just stringing words together that say nothing, just for the sake of making a response.

If you didn't understand the statement, I would have been happy to explain it to you. I'm not simply out for an argument for the sake of arguing. The above comments are disappointing and incorrect.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

If you didn't understand the statement, I would have been happy to explain it to you.

Feel free to explain.

MG

Schuhart wrote:

Feel free to explain.

I don't see how you can decentralise power without decentralising the apparatus to wield power. I think it's naive to think that we can suddenly empower local government by act of legislation without providing a localised civil service to run that local government. Can power really be decentralized if the elected representatives do not have the civil servants to carry out their wishes? This isn't the Congo, if we want local government then the trained civil service have to be there, physically in the locality. The current decentralisation plan does not do this, of course, but it does facilitate the future possibility by having trained civil servants on the ground. Even if these civil servants must go to Dublin to advance in their careers, the notion of living outside Dublin is no longer alien. Moreover, the transfer of the political power of the civil service to the regions will empower the regions. I don’t think enough attention is given to the actual power that these departments have and how much power can be decentralized just by moving some department staff. There is too much paying lip service to decentralisation of power without realising that it actually involves the decentralisation of people too.