Public sector recruitment queries

sweetie

I work in a division of the public sector. I have been in my position for 7 years and have moved to the next grade (say 6) having started on 5. Two colleagues left who had started with me much the same time and their positions were advertised nationally. One was filled by somone outside the company who seems to have the necessary qualifications and the other by someone within who I know to be two grades lower (4), with a degree not really suitable to the job (arts as opposed to engineering) and with less than the requisite two years experience. My other workmates and I have gone to our union and questioned this with the HR section of our company who have come back and said that everything was fine. We have another meeting lined up with our union on where to go next with this. We were told that the equality rule means that specific degrees can't be specified (when I go to my current grade around three years ago it was specified) and that the experience length was deemed to be 'enough.' Now, my own sister was turned down for interview recently in the medical industry (public) for being one week short in experience. I know that this job has been given out due to 'nepotisn' but it's very difficult to use that argument or prove it. Does this sound legitimate to anyone. I have no problem with this person but I feel that they have been handed a position that they haven't earned and I've spent 7 years attaining the same position with the correct experience and qualifications.

calsatron

You can check the cpsa recruitment guidelines online which should be being applied.

If you feel theres been a breach of these guidelines then you can apply for a review by the office holder in the first instance and then the cpsa if that proves unsatisfactory.

You can read the guidelines and procedures here:

http://www.cpsa-online.ie/EN/pdfs/CPSA-CivilPublicServiceCode0107-EN.pdf

sweetie

Thanks. From flicking through it doesn't really say whether the requirements are set in stone or not.

smartypants

ah would you cop, who gives you lot the right to think you can take this action! would you like the see the person who got the job out of that job?

thats the reason the public service is in the state it is in! Because of wingers like you who moan to the union over every little thing. Go off with your 32 hr week, your guaranteed pension and cop on. A majority of public servants are bloody useless and thats why people are so eager to get a job in the public service...becauses its cushy and you can do nothing and get away with it!

So what if this person got the job over someone else or you...thats life! try working outside of the public service, you wouldnt be so vocal then.

sweetie

Would you cop on yourself. What gives you the right to take offence when it's nothing to do with you. If you read properly through the post I made you would see the issues I am concerned about. You know nothing about my job and are obviosuly jealous of people with public sector positions. I work and have worked bloody hard to get to where I am now and am perfectly entitled to question things if I see that they are not being done properly. I have worked in the private sector and know that recruitment is done properly there too. So either retract your bull**** statement or get lost.

smartypants wrote: »

ah would you cop, who gives you lot the right to think you can take this action! would you like the see the person who got the job out of that job?

thats the reason the public service is in the state it is in! Because of wingers like you who moan to the union over every little thing. Go off with your 32 hr week, your guaranteed pension and cop on. A majority of public servants are bloody useless and thats why people are so eager to get a job in the public service...becauses its cushy and you can do nothing and get away with it!

So what if this person got the job over someone else or you...thats life! try working outside of the public service, you wouldnt be so vocal then.

smartypants

i wont comment further...public service incompetency and not being able to teach old dogs (that cant be fired) new tricks probably deserve its own thread.

sweetie

good riddance

BostonB

I can't find a link but I do remember cases being brought where people had been passed over for a new job (in the private sector) by less qualified people. There was a recent high profile one with a woman that was in the media. I think it was the basis of discrimination not nepotism.

the_syco

sweetie wrote: »

I know that this job has been given out due to 'nepotisn' but it's very difficult to use that argument or prove it.

That'd be canvassing, which I'm pretty sure is not allowed in the civil service.

copacetic

sweetie wrote: »

. I know that this job has been given out due to 'nepotisn' but it's very difficult to use that argument or prove it.

so basically you don't 'know'. If you did it would be easy to argue and/or prove it.

Sounds to me you know very little about this person and seem to have too high an opinion about what is required to do the job. Perhaps this person interviewed very well and was deemed to be the best candidate. Qualifications can often count for very little if the person has the correct motivation and apptitude.

This attitude of people not moving upward because it isn't their 'turn' is what antiquated and is purely a public service thing that is trying to be moved away from very quickly.

Surely this person is part of the same union as you, should you be trying to get them out of their job for no good reason?

sweetie

Eh, but I do know! I just don't want to go down that route (yet) because it would cause trouble for some people I've worked with for a long time and although they are involved in this I'd prefer to use other avenues to prove it, i.e. the expereince and qualification ones. Again, I understand that the civil service may have bad rep amongst you privateers but don't paint us all with the same brush. These rules have been ones that I have been held to throughout my career and I feel it's unfair to disregard them now. This person isn't in a union and their qualification isn't at all a technical one and basicially they have made some good friends in the organisation who have wangled them into getting this position. I feel there is something rotten in a place that rewards the 'who you know' and not the 'what you know' brigade. I have the 'correct motivation and apptitude' to be manager of my section but doesn't mean I deserve it. Yes, they interviewed well and knew stuff that they couldn't have known due to the 'coaching' received beforehand.

copacetic wrote: »

so basically you don't 'know'. If you did it would be easy to argue and/or prove it.

Sounds to me you know very little about this person and seem to have too high an opinion about what is required to do the job. Perhaps this person interviewed very well and was deemed to be the best candidate. Qualifications can often count for very little if the person has the correct motivation and apptitude.

This attitude of people not moving upward because it isn't their 'turn' is what antiquated and is purely a public service thing that is trying to be moved away from very quickly.

Surely this person is part of the same union as you, should you be trying to get them out of their job for no good reason?

Noelie

I think you need to lose the attitude. This new person may have gotten the job becasue of whom they knew, but that does not mean that they are not capable to do the job and to any employer that is the most important part. The public sector is riddled with people who think that just because they are on the top of their scale that the should automatically be entitled to a promotion and weather you like it or not that's the opinion you're giving to anyone who reads this post.

smartypants

OP i dont think your gonna get any empathy in here...sorry

those "rules" you are used to is what has the whole public service in the sham state that is in...even when they outsource work that they cannot do themselves they get it wrong, simply because they cannot manage it.

And now it seem public servant employees such as your are also failed by the "rules". An the previous poster is right, you lot all feel you own a place in the public service, would you be happy to see that person let go over your union dispute?

sweetie

I give up. There seems to be a serious bias towards people in the public sector and I'm not going to get any help here. I am not arguing that I should have been promoted instead of someone else but I feel that If I have to work with someone in a critical situation they should be qualified properly to do so and this is not the case here. They got the job because they were coached and their previous experience and qualifications were 'deemed' to be adequate. Mods, I would appreciate if you could lock this thread as I don't wan't to have to defend myself till kingdom come. Oh and next time a nurse or paramedic or firefighter helps you out I suggest you jump off the high horse and thank them rather than show them the same courtesy you've shown me.

smartypants wrote: »

OP i dont think your gonna get any empathy in here...sorry

those "rules" you are used to is what has the whole public service in the sham state that is in...even when they outsource work that they cannot do themselves they get it wrong, simply because they cannot manage it.

And now it seem public servant employees such as your are also failed by the "rules". An the previous poster is right, you lot all feel you own a place in the public service, would you be happy to see that person let go over your union dispute?

They wouldn't be let go, they would go back to their 'clerical' position and the level of work they are qualified to do. If a company is governed by a set of rules surely they apply to everybody all the time not some of the people some of the time.

Noelie

I don't get it, what has thanking someone for doing their job got to do with them being qualified for it? You seem to think that just becasue we don't agree with you that we are infact impolite.

Also shouldn't you be working and not surfing?

smartypants

sweetie wrote: »

They wouldn't be let go, they would go back to their 'clerical' position and the level of work they are qualified to do. If a company is governed by a set of rules surely they apply to everybody all the time not some of the people some of the time.

Come on are you telling me that nobody in the public service ever used their position or power to get a relation or friend into the company...i know for a fact people have done so...so deal with it. thats the environment you choose to work in

do you think because someone is there longer and has a higher qualification that they automatically are better for the job...sorry but its not as simple as that. i know some donkeys out there with engineering degrees that are purely useless and I work with people in an engineering industry that do not have an engineering degree that are very competent.

calsatron

The new recruitment guidelines have been put in place precisely to avoid nepotism and the "old boy network" in the public service. I know of one public body who now routinely include an external recruitment specialist on their panel to ensure that the guidelines are being applied correctly.

Also a lot of positions in the public sector are very highly specialised and therefore it can be extremely difficult to find comparable work in the private sector, thus severly limiting your options if your passed over for promotion.

The recruitment process should have been fully documented on a points basis, this information should be available for review and should clearly show where the candidate scored in comparison to the other applicants.

Presuming you don't get any joy appealing the matter with the office holder you can raise it with the CPSA directly, however I'd continue taking things through the union before I considered anything else as they are no doubt aware of all this.

Best of luck.

copacetic

sweetie wrote: »

Eh, but I do know! I just don't want to go down that route (yet) because it would cause trouble for some people I've worked with for a long time and although they are involved in this I'd prefer to use other avenues to prove it, i.e. the expereince and qualification ones. Again, I understand that the civil service may have bad rep amongst you privateers but don't paint us all with the same brush. These rules have been ones that I have been held to throughout my career and I feel it's unfair to disregard them now. This person isn't in a union and their qualification isn't at all a technical one and basicially they have made some good friends in the organisation who have wangled them into getting this position. I feel there is something rotten in a place that rewards the 'who you know' and not the 'what you know' brigade. I have the 'correct motivation and apptitude' to be manager of my section but doesn't mean I deserve it. Yes, they interviewed well and knew stuff that they couldn't have known due to the 'coaching' received beforehand.

I actually work in the public sector which if anything is why I have more of a problem with your attitude as I have seen it a lot. The fact that you mention this person isn't in your union explains a lot imo.

sweetie

Thanks for the help!

calsatron wrote: »

The new recruitment guidelines have been put in place precisely to avoid nepotism and the "old boy network" in the public service. I know of one public body who now routinely include an external recruitment specialist on their panel to ensure that the guidelines are being applied correctly.

Also a lot of positions in the public sector are very highly specialised and therefore it can be extremely difficult to find comparable work in the private sector, thus severly limiting your options if your passed over for promotion.

The recruitment process should have been fully documented on a points basis, this information should be available for review and should clearly show where the candidate scored in comparison to the other applicants.

Presuming you don't get any joy appealing the matter with the office holder you can raise it with the CPSA directly, however I'd continue taking things through the union before I considered anything else as they are no doubt aware of all this.

Best of luck.

sweetie

copacetic wrote: »

I actually work in the public sector which if anything is why I have more of a problem with your attitude as I have seen it a lot. The fact that you mention this person isn't in your union explains a lot imo.

They may be, I don't know who is in a union or not. Why do I have an attitude if I am simply questioning why someone got a job they are not qualified to do.

smartypants wrote: »

Come on are you telling me that nobody in the public service ever used their position or power to get a relation or friend into the company...i know for a fact people have done so...so deal with it. thats the environment you choose to work in

do you think because someone is there longer and has a higher qualification that they automatically are better for the job...sorry but its not as simple as that. i know some donkeys out there with engineering degrees that are purely useless and I work with people in an engineering industry that do not have an engineering degree that are very competent.

Can I not question why this happens even though I 'choose' to work there?
I believe someone is suitable for this position if they have a relevant qualification and experience. This person has neither, so why did they not apply for the equivalent graduate level? I would have no problem with that.

smartypants

sweetie wrote: »

I believe someone is suitable for this position if they have a relevant qualification and experience. This person has neither, so why did they not apply for the equivalent graduate level? I would have no problem with that.

thats a fairly high horse your on there. The person had every right to apply for the job and they got it! And im sure your competent managers would not hire an unsuitable canditate..maybe you should offer to do the recruiting in future?

also maybe the canditate had a better attitude? wasnt lazy...more motivation...not complacent... i dunno!

calsatron

No one is going to argue against their being a procedure for people who feel that they were unfairly denied a position/promotion to appeal that decision.

So why shouldn't the reverse also apply, ie a procedure to appeal the situation where a person is unfairly appointed.

A lot of this seems to be sour grapes as their is currently no implementation of this in the private sector and I'm sure a lot of people would like to see it, however unlikely it may be.

SerialComplaint

sweetie wrote: »

My other workmates and I have gone to our union and questioned this with the HR section of our company who have come back and said that everything was fine. We have another meeting lined up with our union on where to go next with this. We were told that the equality rule means that specific degrees can't be specified (when I go to my current grade around three years ago it was specified) and that the experience length was deemed to be 'enough.'

There is no equality rule relating to specific degrees, and it is not unusual to require specific degree areas (and the catch-all 'or equivalent') in specialist roles. When the job was advertised, what was said about degree requirements?

Who was on the interview panel for this post - internal or external? Was it a permanent post, or fixed-term contract?