Public Service, Public Servants - a Challenge ... grrr!

Barney Grumble

Hi all,

My recent considered gripe and rant: The public sector / Civil service:

Price hikes, price hikes, price hikes! Our public service is built on screwing every penny out of us taxpayers and with no apology to anyone. Instead, all we hear is how more "public" money has been squandered, the latest being from the enigma that is the HSE. Five star hotels for meetings including overnight accommodation for those in attendance without so much as a second thought. All this from an organisation that is so under-efficient, if it were a private company it would have gone to the wall years ago. Those employed in this and the other great public institutions in this so-called "modern" Ireland, are constantly cribbing at their rates of pay, terms of employment etc. Well, if it's that bad, WHY WORK THERE? You do have a choice but nowhere do I hear a mention of the word that your job is secure in the public service; that your pension is well provided for and secure, no matter what happens; that you will never know the fear of imminent redundancy; that you have the option of job-sharing and should the opportunity of promotion arise, you can study and pass the relevant exams, work full-time for a few months and then, go back job-sharing on a higher rate of pay! I once heard a doctor who works in the public health system complain that their pay wasn't equivalent to their colleagues in the private sector and found myself shouting at the radio that your private sector colleagues took the leap to set up private practice, work longer hours to facilitate their patients and cater for their own retirement planning. Now while I, like many others, feel the rising GP costs are frightening, they are somewhat a reflection of the increased costs brought about by rising electricity, insurance, gas, salaries and so on. WHY DOES NOBODY CHALLENGE THE PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES ON THESE ISSUES? I'll tell you why - because this government behaves in the same manner, grabbing money at every chance, wasting public money because it isn't their own and never once truly justifying any of it. Ah yes, the public service, what an organisation. And while it may not be everyone's aspiration in life to become a member, maybe those who chose to do so should count what they do have instead forever whinging at what they perceive they are missing out on. The private sector is no picnic, whether self-employed or an employee.

Bring it on - comments please,
Cheers
Barney Grumble

bobbyjoe

At least public servants know how to make paragraphs.

Barney Grumble

bobbyjoe wrote:

At least public servants know how to make paragraphs.

Barney Grumble Says:

See, bobbyjoe! Your picking on the positive aspects of yourself as a public servant [ I assume you are one ]. So you DO get my point, but dont over do it ... baby steps

verbatim

I suggest you have a read of "Freedom to Choose" by Milton Friedman. It might help you come to terms with the public service, and how some of it can be rectified.

And why should the public service be efficient? Sure they have a monopoly on their customers (the taxpayers), and if they run out of money, they can just raise taxes. Central governement rarely achieves the same levels of efficiency as the private sector, for exactly that reason. A private company cant just go and order their customers to pay more, if they did, they could go bust, whereas government run organisations can live in a dream world where business realities dont exist, and theres an infinite amount of money to go about.

NewDubliner

Barney Grumble wrote:

My recent considered gripe and rant: The public sector / Civil service:

Actually, your complaint seems to be about the HSE. A body which has been messed up by politicians for many years.

Got any other examples?

Barney Grumble wrote:

Price hikes, price hikes, price hikes! Our public service is built on screwing every penny out of us taxpayers and with no apology to anyone.

Taxes are imposed by politicians. You're paying extra to finance nonsense projects such as 'decentralisation'.

Admittedly, the public sector is not as efficient as the West-Link toll bridge and our beloved banks. Let's not forget dear Microsoft and its over-priced bug-ridden software. The public has a lot to learn from the record industry which can charge more for low-quality, crippled downloads than for CDs.

Five star hotels for meetings including overnight accommodation for those in attendance without so much as a second thought.

Name the hotels and the dates of the meetings?

Gurgle

Barney Grumble wrote:

Five star hotels for meetings including overnight accommodation for those in attendance without so much as a second thought.

If only having meetings in expensive hotels figured on the wastage scale of the public health service. Paying millions to consultants only to ignore their reports, building massive hospitals and then closing them because they cost too much to run, hireing administration staff to do the administration work of senior administration staff, software contracts to the most expensive bidder whether they can make software or not.

I still haven't figured out whether its incompetance or corruption.

Barney Grumble wrote:

WHY DOES NOBODY CHALLENGE THE PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES ON THESE ISSUES? .

BECAUSE THE PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT THE CULPRITS, Its the elected government which, contrary to all common sense keeps getting re-elected.

oscarBravo

Barney Grumble wrote:

See, bobbyjoe! Your picking on the positive aspects of yourself as a public servant [ I assume you are one ]. So you DO get my point, but dont over do it ... baby steps

Your first ever post on boards.ie is a rant, and your second is a snide personal swipe at another poster. Not an auspicious start.

If you want to discuss the issues you've raised, please do so in a more constructive fashion, thanks.

Raskolnikov

A lovely, inflation-busting 9% pay increase for those in the public sector earmarked in the coming budget. Duff beers all round, eh Mr. Gumble?

http://www.finfacts.com/Irelandbudget2006.htm

Raskolnikov

NewDubliner wrote:

Admittedly, the public sector is not as efficient as the West-Link toll bridge and our beloved banks. Let's not forget dear Microsoft and its over-priced bug-ridden software. The public has a lot to learn from the record industry which can charge more for low-quality, crippled downloads than for CDs.

That argument has little relevence as we are free to choose wether we want to use the West-Link toll bridge, our bank, our operating systems and how to buy our music.

On the other hand, I don't remember Brian Cowen consulting us about public sector wage increase. It was a case of cough up and don't ask questions.

I have nothing against public sector workers, my wife has every intention of joining the service once we start our family

bonkey

Barney Grumble wrote:

Well, if it's that bad, WHY WORK THERE? You do have a choice

If its that bad, WHY LIVE THERE? You too have a choice.

Barney Grumble

oscarBravo wrote:

Your first ever post on boards.ie is a rant, and your second is a snide personal swipe at another poster. Not an auspicious start.

If you want to discuss the issues you've raised, please do so in a more constructive fashion, thanks.

Yes OscarBravo & Bobbyjoe,

The above came out late last night while I was still in my uncontrolled rant zone Apologies to all.

Thanks for all the comments so far. Look forward [ bar my little diversion ] to further constructive comment on this subject,

Will have time later today to gather my thoughts and reply more extensively,

Cheers
Barney Grumble

Sleepy

I work pretty closely with the public sector on a daily basis and tbh, harbour intentions of joining it at the later stages of my career when I decide to focus on raising a family rather than developing a career. From what I can see most civil servants have pretty plum jobs where a low work ethic, convenient flexi-time, generous holidays and low stress are the norm. It does grate when I hear their unions demanding parity of pay with the private sector however I'm not inclined to blame the ordinary civil servant for this. Unions are always made up of the most militant (usually belligerant) individuals in any organisation and will always shoot for the stars in salary negotiations.

The management of the service, and the ministers allegedly over-seeing the various institutions I have huge problems with. These people seem to be promoted for their political ability rather than talent, or even competency. I remember early in my career having to explain the basics of double entry accounting (specifically why he couldn't just debit an account without a corresponding credit) to a financial director of a public body! :rolleyes:

To be fair, this seems to be faily standard practice in the private sector in Ireland as well, though not to nearly the same extent. Staff in any enterprise are not going to be efficient or hard-working unless they're managed correctly and placed within the correct structure to allow them to work to their potential.

Want it sorted? Vote Fine Gael this year and put pressure on Enda Kenny to keep his promises in this regard. I don't see him fixing it but I'd imagine at least some headway would be made and none of the other parties are quite as vocal about the incompetence of our current coallition government. Personally, I believe the public sector could only be made efficient were the likes of Michael O' Leary given the reins along with the power to tell unions to go stuff themselves but that's never going to happen.

NewDubliner

Raskolnikov wrote:

That argument has little relevence as we are free to choose wether we want to use the West-Link toll bridge, our bank, our operating systems and how to buy our music.

Well it does demonstrate that the private sector is quite capable of ripping people off. Oh, & my NTL service just went down & I'm still waiting for Eircom to respond to a complaint.

But, I see now you've shifted the blame to the politicians where it belongs. The reason why you get bad value for your tax money is because of wheezes such as moving the legal aid board far away from its customers and into the constituency of the then minister for justice. He then hired inexperienced locals to work there while the real work continues to be done in Dublin.

I take it that you now accept that the hotels referred to in your original post were not, in fact 5-star?

Barney Grumble

Hey Sleepy. New to this board "thing" and just went off on one last night having had a conversation with a civil servant!! Fully agree with your take on Michael O'Leary. Needs someone to face the unions head on and state when enough really is enough. Not so sure re Fine Gael but do feel that this country needs a change in government if only for that very reason. Would like to see a leading politician from an opposition party that brought passion and the sense of outrage back into the Irish people. The sense of apathy and the "me fein" attitude is spilling into every aspect of our lives now and is driven by the constant need for more money and more material things. While I don't put the blame on the employees, I do find the almost persistent moaning about what they don't have rather tiring. Of course, the management have a lot to answer for but I suppose my "rant" was a direct result of my earlier discussion that evening! Good to see it raised some passion here though!

Sleepy

Don't mistake my postings for passion, more resignation to the fact that this ain't gonna change. No government in Ireland will ever have the balls to take on the public sector unions because our population are too stupid to elect anyone actually capable of running the country properly.

NewDubliner, your analogies are still off-base, NTL you chose to purchase. You could have paid more and gotten better service from Sky. Eircom? Well, there you have a perfect example of public-sector (and governmental) incompetency. True, it hasn't gotten much better since privatisation but when a company's that entrenched in the public-sector mindset it'll take decades to retire off the old staff and replace them with competent people.

And nevermind meetings in 5 star hotels, I personally know some local authority workers who spent over a week on a junket in China for what constituted about 3 hours work.

Hotblack Desiato

Raskolnikov wrote:

A lovely, inflation-busting 9% pay increase for those in the public sector earmarked in the coming budget.

That's a 9% increase in the payroll, much of which will be due to extra nurses/teachers/etc. who are undoubtedly needed.

The actual pay increases on offer under Towards 2016 are unlikely to match the published inflation figure (which underestimates the true cost of living)

Colonel Sanders

Sleepy wrote:

I believe the public sector could only be made efficient were the likes of Michael O' Leary given the reins along with the power to tell unions to go stuff themselves but that's never going to happen.

Couldn't agree more sleepy. More money being piled into a civil service that is already bloated and inefficient will certainly not win my vote but possibly the votes of many civil servants. We need a Margaret Thatcher type figure to face unions. A union has a place in the modern workforce as a means to stop worker exploitation etc however I doubt Jim Larkin would approve of bullying tactics adopted by certain public sector unions, using their influence to batter us into submission (give into our unreasonable demands or we'll cripple the country). The situation re. energy prices sickens me. An independant report by deloitte found that the company wastes 100m a year due to poor power plant maintenance and what they deemed 'excessive' wages. But instead of looking at their cost base the increase in costs was just shovelled onto the consumer. The second aerlingus is privatised all the talk is of cost cutting and possible job losses. Why can this not happen when the tax payer was the one footing the bil for any losses incurred?

J.S. Pill

verbatim wrote:

I suggest you have a read of "Freedom to Choose" by Milton Friedman. It might help you come to terms with the public service, and how some of it can be rectified.

And why should the public service be efficient? Sure they have a monopoly on their customers (the taxpayers), and if they run out of money, they can just raise taxes. Central governement rarely achieves the same levels of efficiency as the private sector, for exactly that reason. A private company cant just go and order their customers to pay more, if they did, they could go bust, whereas government run organisations can live in a dream world where business realities dont exist, and theres an infinite amount of money to go about.

This is just knee jerk public service bashing from someone who was clearly asleep in Economics 101. In some circumstances, a private firm CAN just order their customers to pay more and not worrying about going bust. Monopoly market conditions (e.g. Microsoft) obviously spring to mind but even this isn't necessary. In the absence of factors like price transparency and freedom to move from one goods/service provider to another firms can get away with price hikes etc. The telecoms sector in Ireland is a good example. Eircom are not very competitive price wise but they still manage to retain customers mainly because price comparison can be very difficult for the average consumer and switching provider can be a bit cumbersome in practice.
A large private organisation we're all being screwed by is Microsoft (PC users anyway, Macs rock!). How does it get away with charging us through the nose for rickety bug ridden software!? Simple, its a near monopoly, and a natural one at that owing to the nature of the product.

Allocative inefficiencies can be a function of monopoly conditions and the lack of competitive pressures but the sheer size of an organisation, whether public or private, can also cause waste (This kind of inefficiency is called 'diseconomy of scale'). A large multinational company which I once worked for but which shall remain nameless...oh hell, it was Microsoft, displayed some truly farsical inefficiency while I worked there. Human resources hired a load of temps to cover a busy period but the people in services didn't have enough PCs and desks so they effectively were completely idle for 2 weeks! - I could cite loads more examples - This type of thing happens in large organisations, if this happened in the public sector it would be held up as another example of bureaucratic bumbling but nobody seems to care if it happens in the private sector. Granted, the private organisation will have more on an incentive to fix these problems if they impact the bottom line too much - and granted the public sector deserves to be more accountable because everyone in a sense is payng for waste, not just consumers/shareholders.

I have a lot of complaints about the public sector too, I'm just sick of people parroting these knee-jerk 'private good public bad' responses. I think you should redirect your idignation towards large bureaucratic organisations that operate under less than perfectly competitively markets rather than the public sector per se.

The union issue is a whole other can of worms but I got to get back to work now...And no I don't work in the Public sector - I work for an American Multi-national

Hotblack Desiato

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Couldn't agree more sleepy. More money being piled into a civil service that is already bloated and inefficient

How do you know? Because the Indo tells you so?

ESB, Aer Lingus blah blah

They're not the civil service, they're not even the public sector, they're a semi state and an ex-semi-state-now-PLC.

Colonel Sanders

ninja900 wrote:

How do you know? Because the Indo tells you so?




They're not the civil service, they're not even the public sector, they're a semi state and an ex-semi-state-now-PLC.

Nope, because a number of civil servants I know tell me and my brother has auditted books for semi states. Also I live in the real world

In terms of esb and aerlingus yes one is semi state and my comments referred to a time when aerlingus was a semi state but in the event of losses the govt (and indirectly this means the tax payer) has to foot the bill. If you read my post I clearly make a comment about aerlingus being privatised (and hence is no longer a semi state)

Hotblack Desiato

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Nope, because a number of civil servants I know tell me

Other civil servants will tell you of unfilled vacancies, impossible workloads, and unpaid overtime.
A favourite where I work is to allow people to work up huge positive flexitime balances (due to pressure of work) then dock off all those hours at the end of the month, unpaid. Probably illegal under the Working Time directive. Incidentally, the civil service has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century employment-conditions-wise, 30-odd years ago married women were forced to resign, less than 10 years ago men in a men-only grade still got paid more than women (and men) doing identical work in an equivalent grade. The civil service projects the appearance now of a progressive employer but this is largely a facade.

and my brother has auditted books for semi states.

So talk about semi states, don't tar civil servants with that brush

Also I live in the real world

So do I, I trust you did not intend to imply otherwise?
I'm a public servant, but a taxpayer too, and I get as angry about incidents of public sector waste as anyone. However as the OP points out, waste of money is a frequent occurence in large private organisations too.
A friend of my wife joined a very large international financial organisation last year in an experienced, highly paid management position.
For months on end she had literally no work to do, until she resigned in frustration and moved back to her previous employer. How's about that for waste.

banaman

Society decided that certain services were necessary for the better functioning of the society, e.g. education, sewers, public health etc.
The provision of these services to all results in a more stable and cost efficient society (so the economic argument goes).

Therefore the Public sector should NOT be subject to the same criteria as Private business because private(for personal profit) businesses cannot/will not deliver an acceptable level of service across the board.
To focus on narrow Neo-Liberal market arguments is to misunderstand the whole ethos and raison d'etre of Public sector services.

The argument about unions comes from the same historical background of economic exploitation and abuse of workers by private business/industry.

It is purely because of the determination of unions and union members that we have many of the higher employment/wage and safety standards today.

Of course since many of these struggles happened abroad I can understand that Irish people may not realise the debt owed to the Trades Union movement by working people. After all the Irish farmers and middle classes got rich and kept up their living standards by exporting their children and working classes to the UK and US where they became part of the struggle for decent conditions and dignity that is the birthright of ALL human beings.

Anyone who thinks that private business and industry are any more benign and morally responsible today need only look at the explosion of sweatshops, environmental degradation, willful pollution and abuse of workers by "respectable" companies e.g. Gama, Irish Ferries, ESB, Shell (in Nigeria), Union Carbide(remember Bhopal?) etc, etc, etc.

The blame lies with the political oversight of the public servants NOT with the Public service system itself.

Colonel Sanders

Ninja,

Fair point, but you are the first civil servant I have ever heard saying they or any others work hard (Please believe me, I'm being completely honest not taking the p!ss). Most I know go in 10ish leave at whenever they want and take half days most fridays. Tales of a 'wake me up when I reach retirement age' are common. Apologises if I offended you but this is the impression any civil servant I know gave me and also by any dealings I have had with the tax office etc. Another friend of mine left his job in the dept of agriculture as he was fed up going in every day and having to look for work (which his manager gave out to him for doing as it made the rest of the workers in the office look bad)

My main point was an attack on a wasteful government approach and not an attack on any individual person, civil servant or otherwise. I brought up semi states as a further means of highlighting overstaffing and waste where the government or a government body call the shots and ultimately the buck stops with. Maybe going off the point of the thread slightly.

Indeed there is waste in 99% of companies I'm sure but why waste in the private sector annoys people most is that by being a tax payer every citizen of this country is a stake holder and waste in the private sector is paid for straight out of peoples pockets.

Sleepy

It's pretty straight forward really:

In the private sector where unions aren't as militant (because they don't get away with being so), management care about efficiency. If staff don't work, profits don't get made, shareholders don't get dividends, directors/managers don't get their bonuses and staff get laid off. Everyone within the organisation suffers.

In the public sector there's much less motivation to be concerned about efficiency. Unions are hugely powerful so most staff are virtually unsackable. Senior management aren't on the same remuneration packages as their private sector counterparts so they're not as motivated to ensure the organisation runs well, staff can't be laid off and their management are less inclined to motivate them to work hard as there's nothing in it to benefit anyone (nor punish them if their work is unsatisfactory). The benchmarking approach could have tackled this had it been handled correctly but in reality it was the typical 'throw money at the problem and hope it goes away' response of our government.

Sure, there are some people in the public sector who work hard. They're the people who choose to do so despite their mis-management, the one's who feel a duty to do an honest day's work for their pay and ultimately the one's who keep our country running whilst their colleagues do the bare minimum whiling out their flexi-time days til retirement.

Hotblack Desiato

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Most I know go in 10ish leave at whenever they want and take half days most fridays.

This is complete and utter rubbish along the lines of the 'civil servants don't pay tax' myth.
Sure, a few people ignore the rules in some places and are let away with it but it's very much the exception in my 11 years of experience in various departments

I know many more people who regularly work unpaid overtime etc. etc. (to the extent of threatening their health sometimes) than I have ever known people who could be accused of not pulling their weight

If you come in at 10 you must work late to redress the balance i.e. an average of 34.75 clocked hours each week, same thing if you leave early you must arrive early or take shorter lunches.

Time worked in excess of that can be taken as days off subject to workload etc. but this is limited to 1.5 days per 4 weeks (and that only if you worked 10.5 hours extra the previous month)

Flexitime isn't a giveaway, you still have to work the same hours it's just more flexible, and many private sector employers are now recognising that it increases productivity. All hours paid for must be worked, end of.

I find these sort of sweeping statements which are widely believed but untrue offensive tbh.

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, there are some people in the public sector who work hard.

Gee thanks.
How would you feel if I made such a statement about people in your work or profession?

They're the people who choose to do so despite their mis-management, the one's who feel a duty to do an honest day's work for their pay and ultimately the one's who keep our country running whilst their colleagues do the bare minimum whiling out their flexi-time days til retirement.

What is your direct, personal experience of this?
There is certainly mismanagement, as there is in any large organisation, but this more often generates impossibly large workloads rather than small ones

Colonel Sanders

ninja900 wrote:

This is complete and utter rubbish along the lines of the 'civil servants don't pay tax' myth.

This is based on a small enough sample, but 100% of civil servants I have ever spoke to tell me it is a prevalant practice. The same guy i referred to formally employed in the dept of agriculture used to clock back in after his lunch and them head off to the gym in the afternoon if he had no work to do, drop into the office on the way home and clock back out. I am not tarring all civil servants with the one brush, or making a personal attack on anyone, i am highlighting waste and inefficiency in the public sector which you told me my only source or proof was articles in the independant.

CherieAmour

Right!

I'm SICK of people using Taxi Drivers, the Evening Herald, people in supermarket queues and whoever else to perpetuate myths on the Civil / Public Service and how much of a waste of space its staff and purposes are.

I won't write a big rant because no one will read it.

YES there is stress

NO you can't come in at 10 and leave whenever you like

The private sector is ripping you off every day of the week, they just don't have to publish it anywhere.

Public servants are treated like people as opposed to the private sector where you are often treated like complete cr*p and get no thanks

Are they not allowed a wage increase like anybody else?

There are plenty of wonderful things done by the Public Service but no one every concentrates on those.

Finally, you'd whinge too if you were told that if you want to hang on to your particular job you have to move 300 miles away from home, take your kids out of school and sell your house.

Colonel Sanders

CherieAmour wrote:

Right!

I'm SICK of people using Taxi Drivers, the Evening Herald, people in supermarket queues and whoever else to perpetuate myths on the Civil / Public Service and how much of a waste of space its staff and purposes are.

I am using first hand stories from trusted friends who work in the civil service and my own dealings with government run departments as my source of info.

With the private sector you have the choice whether or not to deal with a certain firm if you think you are being ripped off. However if I don't feel that a certain govt dept is not giving value for money for my taxes I have no choice but to still deal with them.

CherieAmour

Colonel Sanders wrote:

I am using first hand stories from trusted friends who work in the civil service and my own dealings with government run departments as my source of info.

With the private sector you have the choice whether or not to deal with a certain firm if you think you are being ripped off. However if I don't feel that a certain govt dept is not giving value for money for my taxes I have no choice but to still deal with them.

It's Pepsi vs Coke. You might think you have choices to make but you don't. You can change bank and might reduce the amount of ways in which you are ripped off, but you're still getting ripped off!!

Yes there are people underperforming in the service but that happens everywhere, it's just because you are 'paying for it' with your 'tax payers money' that makes you feel you deserve better. Well Civil Servants pay taxes too and must deal with other Departments on a personal level in a queue like anyone else and would also be annoyed if they were on the receiving end of bad service.

All I'm saying is the Public Service gets an undue and unfair amount of bad press and is blamed for every single thing that goes wrong in this country. It's time we showed a bit of pride instead of downing everything that is done for us. Yes there is room for improvement, but isn't there always? I can be as mad as the next person about some things, but I know when I see good done and that is often and I appreciate the work that must have gone into whatever it is.

DublinEvents

Yup I agree that public service officials waste money a lot. The only way to stop them is to elect honest representatives of your community that really care about public welfare and are unwilling to compromise their moral and ethical principles no matter what.

Gurgle

DublinEvents wrote:

The only way to stop them is to elect honest representatives of your community that really care about public welfare and are unwilling to compromise their moral and ethical principles no matter what.

honest and competant

though the two qualities in one person effectively rule them out of a career in politics.

Colonel Sanders

Gurgle wrote:

though the two qualities in one person effectively rule them out of a career in politics.

Very true, a politician will never do whats best for the country but whats best for keeping his/her party in power.

Can I just reiterate that in posting on this thread I never meant to attack or offend any civil servant, my gripe was with a wasteful goverrnment. I used evidence given to me by friends to highlight what happens in certain departments and nothing is done by senior management etc. As I said possibly away from the actual subject so apologises if this is so.

Hotblack Desiato

Colonel Sanders wrote:

This is based on a small enough sample, but 100% of civil servants I have ever spoke to tell me it is a prevalant practice.

Just how many is that?
And just because they've heard of someone who's heard of someone doesn't mean it's prevalent.

The same guy i referred to formally employed in the dept of agriculture used to clock back in after his lunch and them head off to the gym in the afternoon if he had no work to do

Literally hundreds of people in Agriculture were left with no work to do overnight when the EU farm subsidies system changed.
This sounds like a bad thing but in reality means moving them away from bureaucratic old-fashioned tasks into more worthwhile ones
That takes time though and isn't helped one bit by the decentralisation debacle (like most of the high-profile problems in the public service, it is the result of a POLITICAL decision.)

I am not tarring all civil servants with the one brush, or making a personal attack on anyone, i am highlighting waste and inefficiency in the public sector which you told me my only source or proof was articles in the independant.

You are quoting hearsay and anecdotal evidence, which come to think of it is pretty much all the Indo does these days...

Sleepy

ninja900 wrote:

Gee thanks.
How would you feel if I made such a statement about people in your work or profession?

What is your direct, personal experience of this?
There is certainly mismanagement, as there is in any large organisation, but this more often generates impossibly large workloads rather than small ones

I work with local authorities on a daily basis and a number of government departments, state and semi-state bodies on pretty much a weekly basis. Much of this work involves spending time on-site with state employees and I've personally experienced the fact that it's common-place for staff to start at 9.30 and finish at 4, taking an hour for lunch and two half-hour tea-breaks they don't clock out for. My experience of those clients has given me the impression that hard-working, competent staff are very much in the minority in the public sector.

CherieAmour wrote:

The private sector is ripping you off every day of the week, they just don't have to publish it anywhere.

The difference is in the private sector we can choose to go elsewhere. As it stands we can't decide to contribute our tax to a more efficient organisation. (I can choose to fly with Ryanair if I prefer a cheaper service than BMI for example)

Public servants are treated like people as opposed to the private sector where you are often treated like complete cr*p and get no thanks

Are they not allowed a wage increase like anybody else?

Like anyone else would indicate that their pay-raises were based on individual performance ratings rather than pay scales and that raises wouldn't be given without improved performance. This simply isn't the case in the public sector. Also, given the better working conditions (higher holidays, flexi-time, job-security etc.) there's no argument for parity of pay with the private sector (despite the fact it's been given in most cases anyway).

There are plenty of wonderful things done by the Public Service but no one every concentrates on those.

Can you give an example of something wonderful done by the Public Service in the last few years that was on-time, on-budget and not simply doing their jobs? I can't think of anything off-hand yet I can see a health service the government have thrown money at that's still failing, falling education standards, a rail network that boast about the fact they're years behind where they should be, a department of justice that can't get even the basics right, an electricity supply board who's inefficiencies are partly put down to 'excessive wages' by an independent audit, etc. etc. etc.

Finally, you'd whinge too if you were told that if you want to hang on to your particular job you have to move 300 miles away from home, take your kids out of school and sell your house.

I might not be happy about it but I'd accept that I had to either move or find a new job. My boss can decide to move or disolve this company in the morning and my statutory redundancy would no doubt be a hell of a lot less than what would be given to a civil servant who chose not to move.

On a personal level, my family moved across the country twice before I was 14 because my father's employer decided to change his place of work so I find it very hard to feel sympathy for civil servants when they lose a privilege no-one else has ever had (and that afaik was never written into their contracts either).

As I've already said in this thread, I've nothing against public servants and intend to become one myself whenever I want to focus my life on other areas than career because from everything I've seen, it's a cushy (if rather uninspiring) looking number. It does, however get up my nose when people who have better working conditions than 90% of the rest of the country start whining about things that are commonplace for the rest of us.

gazzer

Just like to add some comments to this thread.

I am a civil servent and at the moment work in an IT area in a government deparment. When I started in my section there were 8 of us (4 civil servents and 4 contractors). Over the last 18 months this figure has been eroded to just 3 civil servents(we need 2 more people for the amount of work we do).

One of the 3 staff is on maternity leave so that leaves 2 of us. The other civil servent is on 2 weeks holidays. That leaves me.. doing the work of 5 people. Coming in at 8.30. leaving at 7pm.. taking a 10 minute break in the morning and a half hour break for lunch. (I got to leave work early today for the first time in 2 months) I HATE it when people make generalisations like:

'you have a great pension plan' (well ive been paying superannuation since I was 19 so I should expect to get a half decent pension.. which incidentally will be 50% of what my salary on retirement will be. If i was was at retirement age now my pension would be 330 euro per week.. its not that good in fairness).

'You cant be fired' (eh yes you can. 3 people in the last section i worked in where fired for excessive sick leave and constantly being late.

'You get tons of holidays' You get 21 days when you join the civil servents.. 4 weeks and a day.. about the average I would have thought. You can work up a day and a half flexi leave per month.. but you only get that leave if you work the hours.. its not handed to you.

"If my job was moved to the other side of the country I would have to go". Now maybe I am wrong but if somebody in the private sector had to move with their job would they not be entitiled to moving expenses etc (if I am wrong on this point I apolgise).

Granted there are some in the civil servents who are lazy bast**ds.. but with my hand on my heart the majority of the people who I have worked with over the last number of years are hardworking and diligent people..

You cant tar all civil servents with the same brush... times have changed. I know a lot of people were angry with the benchmarking findings but they did come with a lot of conditions attached. For instance from next year yearly increments are only giving if you reach a certain level of grading on your yearly assessment. I agree with this as it will flush out the people who do not do their work properly

Hotblack Desiato

Sleepy wrote:

Much of this work involves spending time on-site with state employees and I've personally experienced the fact that it's common-place for staff to start at 9.30 and finish at 4, taking an hour for lunch and two half-hour tea-breaks they don't clock out for.

As I've pointed out, this is total guff

Like anyone else would indicate that their pay-raises were based on individual performance ratings rather than pay scales and that raises wouldn't be given without improved performance.

Actually, public servants are generally agreeable to this. The sticking point is a fair system of appraisal. The private sector sometimes pays by actual merit but more often rewards those who are good at sucking up to the boss.

Also, given the better working conditions (higher holidays

Legal 20-day minimum for most staff

flexi-time

Not a perk as all hours must be worked, and the private sector finds it increases productivity.

, job-security etc.)

The reason for job security is to prevent the firing of civil servants on a political whim (therefore making them beholden to the current government.)
Instead we have to accept the relocation of jobs on a political whim...
Moving civil service jobs to one's own constituency to win votes is corrupt.

there's no argument for parity of pay with the private sector (despite the fact it's been given in most cases anyway).

You've got to be kidding, most public servants don't receive anything like the market rate for their skills, especially those working in areas like IT (which is why consultants are taking over at 5 - 10 times the cost)

I can't think of anything off-hand yet I can see a health service the government have thrown money at that's still failing

Political domination of health boards and politicisation of the shutdown of every boreen hospital

falling education standards

Proof? I think we're doing a good job compared to the likes of the UK.

a rail network that boast about the fact they're years behind where they should be

a certain recent government decided that the rail network would be let die a slow death and receive no investment

a department of justice that can't get even the basics right

Are you talking about judicial decisions, they're independent remember.

an electricity supply board who's inefficiencies are partly put down to 'excessive wages' by an independent audit, etc. etc. etc

Due to POLITICIANS who decided that massive pay rises for ESB were better than blackouts, can you say "Bertie Ahern" ?
If you don't like the decisions that your government makes, vote for someone else. Don't blame the public servants who are tasked with implementing these decisions.

My boss can decide to move or disolve this company in the morning and my statutory redundancy would no doubt be a hell of a lot less than what would be given to a civil servant who chose not to move.

First off, no civil servant will get redundancy, Dept Finance will not allocate the money, they'd rather allocate excess staff to 'white rooms' and hope many will retire early on medical grounds
Secondly, NO private sector business would relocate without a valid business case. Certainly not on the whim of a rural politician hoping to gain votes for "delivering jobs" - and the people to fill those jobs, not locals - do they really think their electorate is that thick?

Sleepy

ninja900 wrote:

As I've pointed out, this is total guff

I've seen it with my own eyes. I'll trust them over your opinion. Sorry.

Actually, public servants are generally agreeable to this. The sticking point is a fair system of appraisal. The private sector sometimes pays by actual merit but more often rewards those who are good at sucking up to the boss.

Always the case when some form of appraisal is used tbh. In an ideal world the right person for every job would be the one doing it. However, we don't live in an ideal world.

Legal 20-day minimum for most staff

I saw a position in Galway City Council advertised externally recently which stated a starting point of 28 days a year.

Not a perk as all hours must be worked, and the private sector finds it increases productivity.

How can you not consider flexi-time to be a benefit in a job? Would you prefer a job with it or without it? While it can increase productivity, the realities of the business world (customers who expect to be able to contact you during business hours) make it impossible to offer for many if not most jobs.

The reason for job security is to prevent the firing of civil servants on a political whim (therefore making them beholden to the current government.)
Instead we have to accept the relocation of jobs on a political whim...
Moving civil service jobs to one's own constituency to win votes is corrupt.

Do you not accept that it's something of a fair trade off? Protection from one risk of working in the private sector and facing while facing another?

You've got to be kidding, most public servants don't receive anything like the market rate for their skills, especially those working in areas like IT (which is why consultants are taking over at 5 - 10 times the cost)

While that certainly used to be the case (and definitely would have been the case during the dot-com boom for IT workers), it's far less so now. I agree that consultants are a resource to be used sparingly (and I am one), reliance on consultants for core-business activities is awful management of any enterprise.

Due to POLITICIANS who decided that massive pay rises for ESB were better than blackouts, can you say "Bertie Ahern" ?
If you don't like the decisions that your government makes, vote for someone else. Don't blame the public servants who are tasked with implementing these decisions.

I somehow doubt that Bertie Ahern (much as I dislike the man) personally decided how much to pay ESB workers. However, they do shoulder a huge amount of the blame for not forcing the ESB to be more efficient (i.e. sacking the over-paid workers and replacing them with people at the market rate for their jobs). But this is the real world and such a move would be mighty unpopular amongst public sector voters.

First off, no civil servant will get redundancy, Dept Finance will not allocate the money, they'd rather allocate excess staff to 'white rooms' and hope many will retire early on medical grounds
Secondly, NO private sector business would relocate without a valid business case. Certainly not on the whim of a rural politician hoping to gain votes for "delivering jobs" - and the people to fill those jobs, not locals - do they really think their electorate is that thick?

I can see a valid long-term business case for moving government departments out of the capital. Rural staff are cheaper to hire as they don't have to face the expense of living in Dublin, property/rents are cheaper etc. It's a change which is being woefully managed (imho, the departments should have been moved over a number of years, moving those who would be willing to move and any new hires at first and allowing natural attrition/movement of staff to other departments to gradually erode the 'Dublin office' of each department until that office can eventually be closed) but a good idea doesn't become a bad one because it's poorly implemented. The reasoning remains sound, although in practice it's been a disaster due to an incompetent government and poor top-level management of the civil service.

Sleepy

gazzer wrote:

"If my job was moved to the other side of the country I would have to go". Now maybe I am wrong but if somebody in the private sector had to move with their job would they not be entitiled to moving expenses etc (if I am wrong on this point I apolgise).

AFAIK, you're not entitled to moving expenses though most companies would cover it rather than risk losing talent. Moving people's jobs with no expenses being covered or promotion has been known as a means of forcing people to quit in the private sector before.

You cant tar all civil servents with the same brush... times have changed. I know a lot of people were angry with the benchmarking findings but they did come with a lot of conditions attached. For instance from next year yearly increments are only giving if you reach a certain level of grading on your yearly assessment. I agree with this as it will flush out the people who do not do their work properly

This is a point I can't argue with. Things are undeniably better than they used to be but there's still areas for improvement. I personally don't mind public sector employees having better working conditions than me, the private sector offers me far greater opportunities for rapid advancement and at my age (26) that's more important to me right now than having flexi-time, nicer holiday entitlements, better job security etc. It just annoys me when civil servants start whining about what they lose on the swings without aknowledging what they win on the roundabouts.

Colonel Sanders

ninja900 wrote:

Just how many is that?
And just because they've heard of someone who's heard of someone doesn't mean it's prevalent.

You are quoting hearsay and anecdotal evidence, which come to think of it is pretty much all the Indo does these days...

Untrue, if you had read my posts all of the things I highlighted were said to me by civil servants, not by someone who heard it from a civil servant or anyone else i.e. the info came straight from the horses mouth. I also have day to day dealings with tax offices etc and my experience have been anything but professional. For example when i lost my wallet containing my blood donor card it took 16 months for it to be re-issued, i visited the tax office about 4 weeks ago to claim rent relief. there was a que of 10-12 people being served by one person despite the fact that two people were standing around talking about football (they can't have been on lunch braek, it was 3pm, the tax office I deal with closes at 4pm) and only started serving when someone kicked up a fuss.

I have come on here and given my opinions based on first hand evidence yet have been accused of quoting what I have read in papars etc as being my only evidence. I point out that this is not true yet still get accused of quoting 'hearsay'. I have not once quoted a newspaper or used hearsay or anecdotal evidence

Colonel Sanders

Sleepy wrote:

I've seen it with my own eyes. I'll trust them over your opinion. Sorry.
QUOTE]

I've also seen this and had friends boast about how cushy their work place is re. hours worked. I agree with sleepy, I will trust this over someone else's opinion.

sovtek

verbatim wrote:

I suggest you have a read of "Freedom to Choose" by Milton Friedman. It might help you come to terms with the public service, and how some of it can be rectified.

And why should the public service be efficient? Sure they have a monopoly on their customers (the taxpayers), and if they run out of money, they can just raise taxes. Central governement rarely achieves the same levels of efficiency as the private sector, for exactly that reason. A private company cant just go and order their customers to pay more, if they did, they could go bust, whereas government run organisations can live in a dream world where business realities dont exist, and theres an infinite amount of money to go about.

Ah ol' Milt...his buddy Pinochet will probably join him in the not too distant future.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

It's pretty straight forward really:

In the private sector where unions aren't as militant (because they don't get away with being so), management care about efficiency. If staff don't work, profits don't get made, shareholders don't get dividends, directors/managers don't get their bonuses and staff get laid off. Everyone within the organisation suffers.
.

...and then you have BOI without a militant union laying off workers whilst making billions.
Private firms are generally efficient at making a few people a LOT of money.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

The difference is in the private sector we can choose to go elsewhere. As it stands we can't decide to contribute our tax to a more efficient organisation. (I can choose to fly with Ryanair if I prefer a cheaper service than BMI for example)

Can you really? Can I fly for more on Aer Lingus (which almost got lost to the Mick too) or BMI and get treated like a customer more or less...or be treated like livestock on Ryan Air and maybe pay less, sometimes...when I don't want to fly...and then get raped for baggage. I'm not going to get into the difference of the staff's attitude.
Can I also go to a better bank, phone/broadband service, drink in a pub that isn't owned by a member of the VFI, buy groceries at a good value? Can I afford to by a car, a house, a health insurance policy.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

How can you not consider flexi-time to be a benefit in a job? Would you prefer a job with it or without it? While it can increase productivity, the realities of the business world (customers who expect to be able to contact you during business hours) make it impossible to offer for many if not most jobs.

So you are saying that because the private sector generally treats their workers like a means to an end that the public sector should go the same direction?
I as a customer wish I could go to the bank sometime other than lunch...when it's impossible anyway.

Sleepy

sovtek wrote:

Can you really? Can I fly for more on Aer Lingus (which almost got lost to the Mick too) or BMI and get treated like a customer more or less...or be treated like livestock on Ryan Air and maybe pay less, sometimes...when I don't want to fly...and then get raped for baggage. I'm not going to get into the difference of the staff's attitude.
Can I also go to a better bank, phone/broadband service, drink in a pub that isn't owned by a member of the VFI, buy groceries at a good value? Can I afford to by a car, a house, a health insurance policy.

Yes, I can choose Ryanair who I prefer to Aer Lingus, whilst you can choose Aer Lingus who you prefer to Ryanair. Seems like a pretty good example of choice to me.

There are how many banks operating in Ireland these days? You can choose whichever you want to bank with. Broadband is lagging behind because of Eircom (behaviour which started before they went private and only continued because of useless management inheritted from their days as a state-owned body) and the impotence of Comreg (i.e. a lack of political will to force Eircon to comply with the country's best interests). Buy Groceries at good value? Have you never heard of Lidl or Aldi? Or even Tesco's Value range? Or do you turn your nose up at these, exercising the choice afforded to you by the freedom of the grocery retail market?

Communism was tried and it failed but that's a discussion for another thread (and forum). We're discussing the differences between the private and public sector within the confines of the Irish political and economic system.

Sleepy

sovtek wrote:

...and then you have BOI without a militant union laying off workers whilst making billions.
Private firms are generally efficient at making a few people a LOT of money.

Trust me, I've worked for BOI and my father and mother both still work there. BOI could shed a few hundred more staff without any negative effect on their customer service (in fact if a hundred of the right people were sacked and replaced by maybe ten competent individuals, customer service (and their profit levels) would increase).

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

Trust me, I've worked for BOI and my father and mother both still work there. BOI could shed a few hundred more staff without any negative effect on their customer service (in fact if a hundred of the right people were sacked and replaced by maybe ten competent individuals, customer service (and their profit levels) would increase).

their profits are soaring and I will trust my own experience. They never have enough staff and their solution is to get someone to bother you in the queue and try to get you to do an "express" lodgement.

Sleepy

So what if their profits are soaring? We live in a market economy where their high profits are taxed by our government, where the company in question is almost entirely owned by our pension funds and where BOI making profit is, on the whole, good for society.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

Yes, I can choose Ryanair who I prefer to Aer Lingus, whilst you can choose Aer Lingus who you prefer to Ryanair. Seems like a pretty good example of choice to me.

My point was that there isn't very much choice and the privatisation of one of them almost led to no choice (and might still). That's one reason Ryan Air charges more to fly out of Dublin than any other route.

There are how many banks operating in Ireland these days? You can choose whichever you want to bank with.

There are a few and they basically operate the same. I will grant that very recently foreign banks have moved in to improve the situation. No thanks to Irish banks trying to keep them out.

Broadband is lagging behind because of Eircom (behaviour which started before they went private and only continued because of useless management inheritted from their days as a state-owned body) and the impotence of Comreg (i.e. a lack of political will to force Eircon to comply with the country's best interests).

And as a private enterprise why would Eircon bring in broadband when it could charge much more for ISDN? Also as a private enterprise it took the EU (a government body) to force it to act in the country's best interest.

Buy Groceries at good value? Have you never heard of Lidl or Aldi? Or even Tesco's Value range? Or do you turn your nose up at these, exercising the choice afforded to you by the freedom of the grocery retail market?

Whilst Aldi and Lidl offer good value you can't get everything there. Tesco's and Dunnes are a rip you off.

Communism was tried and it failed but that's a discussion for another thread (and forum). We're discussing the differences between the private and public sector within the confines of the Irish political and economic system.

Any attempts at communism in a democratic context were thwarted by the best efforts (including assassination, war and terrorism) of the strongest capitalist nations.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

So what if their profits are soaring? We live in a market economy where their high profits are taxed by our government, where the company in question is almost entirely owned by our pension funds and where BOI making profit is, on the whole, good for society.

"In the private sector where unions aren't as militant (because they don't get away with being so), management care about efficiency. If staff don't work, profits don't get made, shareholders don't get dividends, directors/managers don't get their bonuses and staff get laid off. Everyone within the organisation suffers."

mountainyman

Sleepy wrote:

AFAIK, you're not entitled to moving expenses though most companies would cover it rather than risk losing talent. Moving people's jobs with no expenses being covered or promotion has been known as a means of forcing people to quit in the private sector before.

You are mistaken, expenses would have to be paid or redundancy would have to be paid. In this area as in all others you don't know what you are talking about.

MM