Civil Servants to be culled in Budget?

spadder

Do you think Cowan / Lenihan are going to trim the civil service? What depts should be cut?

NewDubliner

spadder wrote: »

Do you think Cowan / Lenihan are going to trim the civil service? What depts should be cut?

Civil Service or Public Service?

If the 'decentralisation' scheme is scrapped, then the jobs of people hired/promoted on condition that they decentralise would be at risk. That's one reason why I'd expect that they'll 'defer' the plan indefinitely instead. There'd be votes lost in rural constituencies.

Sacking public/civil servants would be very popular with some Sunday Independent readers. But, trimming the fat is much easier said than done. A quango would have to be formed to investigate and report on it.:D

Maybe, some token trimming of ministerial advisors will take place with cuts in constituency support, then the people quietly re-hired on contract.

dresden8

Generally the cuts are done with absolutely no thought of spreading them around or how it will impact service.

If you're 2 people down in a 6 person section and another person leaves, you won't get a replacement. The service goes to f*ck but that's not the government's problem, they've done their job and cut expenditure. It's those lazy feckin civil servants whose workload has doubled in the last year that get the blame.

oscarBravo

spadder wrote: »

Do you think Cowan / Lenihan are going to trim the civil service? What depts should be cut?

What do you think? Please read the charter.

lostexpectation

apparently not, that was what that civil servants privately contacting oecd or someint was about, i read they cut the civil servants in australia and then had to hire them back.

maybe they replace the with agencies where things will be worse that anything anti-union,anti-civil service people can imagine paying extra for useless temps

BostonB

dresden8 wrote: »

Generally the cuts are done with absolutely no thought of spreading them around or how it will impact service.

If you're 2 people down in a 6 person section and another person leaves, you won't get a replacement. The service goes to f*ck but that's not the government's problem, they've done their job and cut expenditure. It's those lazy feckin civil servants whose workload has doubled in the last year that get the blame.

Thats exactly what will happen.

The Govt been unable to do anything with the HSE. So with that track record I'm not sure what they'll do. But I think what will happen is that certain services will be cut. Thats will be the easy way out.

I'm in the public sector and where I am we're understaffed, have been for years, and there big demand for new projects, and replace outdated systems. A lot of demand (40-50%) for these services, (that I see) is from immigrants. While its great to see, people have to accept that its has a cost, in budget and in resources needed to deal with it.

The amount of union interference in every aspect of work is ridiculous. I'm not against unions, but the scope of their influences need to be reigned in.

Red Alert

I think a trimming of non-essential staff in state bodies should be included too. For example, in UCD there are ridiculously too many admin staff at pretty much all levels, and this number is rising all the time. Which seems a bit strange, since more and more administration is being done 'direct to student' using online services. Presumably UCD isn't the only place that's top heavy with people who do nothing for the core functioning. It should be looked at IMHO.

irish_bob

Red Alert wrote: »

I think a trimming of non-essential staff in state bodies should be included too. For example, in UCD there are ridiculously too many admin staff at pretty much all levels, and this number is rising all the time. Which seems a bit strange, since more and more administration is being done 'direct to student' using online services. Presumably UCD isn't the only place that's top heavy with people who do nothing for the core functioning. It should be looked at IMHO.

you have to keep in mind that civil service positions exists 1st and foremost to keep civil servants in jobs , whether theese positions are needed is secondary

jmayo

Red Alert wrote: »

I think a trimming of non-essential staff in state bodies should be included too. For example, in UCD there are ridiculously too many admin staff at pretty much all levels, and this number is rising all the time. Which seems a bit strange, since more and more administration is being done 'direct to student' using online services. Presumably UCD isn't the only place that's top heavy with people who do nothing for the core functioning. It should be looked at IMHO.

Would you be a young Postgrad by any chance ?
If so I would say the inocence of youth.
What will happen is the fulltime admin staff will stay, but the temporary tech staff and the contract research staff will be let go.
Ahd here will be the kicker, the number of postgrads will drop since no funding because why would you invest in research :rolleyes:

You see the same thing happens in the HSE where you have fewer people at what they call "the coal face" but you still have lots of poeple administering them.

On the plus side, eventually the number of postgrads will probably increase because it will be seen as a way of keeping people off the dole.

Looking at thread title I had images of getting a license for my rifle and then proceeding with the culling

NewDubliner

irish_bob wrote: »

you have to keep in mind that civil service positions exists 1st and foremost to keep civil servants in jobs , whether theese positions are needed is secondary

Growth in civil service numbers has been driven by politicians trying to get jobs into their own constituencies.

irish_bob

NewDubliner wrote: »

Growth in civil service numbers has been driven by politicians trying to get jobs into their own constituencies.

growth in civil service numbers has been driven by politicians trying to increase and maintain votes for them and thier running mates in thier own constituencies , i call it the bertie aherne doctrine

we broadly agree my friend

BostonB

On that thought, they aren't going to enjoy losing jobs from their own constituencies.

NewDubliner

irish_bob wrote: »

you have to keep in mind that civil service positions exists 1st and foremost to keep civil servants in jobs , whether theese positions are needed is secondary

Its natural that people want to keep their jobs. The same people would have no interest in supporting growth in numbers of staff as this increases competition for promotion.

irish_bob wrote: »

growth in civil service numbers has been driven by politicians trying to increase and maintain votes for them and thier running mates in thier own constituencies

This means that the sole responsibility for the growth in public service numbers lies with politicians.

gandalf

Was thinking about this the other day and it dawned on me for a country hung up on 800 years etc and trying the shun everything British we have embraced their invention the 19th century civil service with gusto? Strange eh!

Time to moderise, remove the influence of the unions, get the same work conditions that the standard private sector PAYE workers get and trim out all the people who are basically there just to take home a pay cheque. Welcome to the 21st century.

jon1981

gandalf wrote: »

Was thinking about this the other day and it dawned on me for a country hung up on 800 years etc and trying the shun everything British we have embraced their invention the 19th century civil service with gusto? Strange eh!

Time to moderise, remove the influence of the unions, get the same work conditions that the standard private sector PAYE workers get and trim out all the people who are basically there just to take home a pay cheque. Welcome to the 21st century.

nice idea, we need a public sector that is easily shrinked as it is expanded...but could it ever be reality. The public sector have one massive leaverage weapon over the government...the power to bring the country to its knees by striking.

gandalf

jon1981 wrote: »

nice idea, we need a public sector that is easily shrinked as it is expanded...but could it ever be reality. The public sector have one massive leaverage weapon over the government...the power to bring the country to its knees by striking.

Legislate in advance with prohibited fines for unions that strike from essential services.

Then take them on, destroy them financially. There will be pain but short term pain is now needed to sort the mess that we have. Tax payers monies are being haemorrhaged at an alarming rate because of the inefficiencies of the civil service, public service and semi state sectors.

The problem is we need politicians who actually have some balls and not he variety that talk like they do but turn out to be pussies.

irish_bob

NewDubliner wrote: »

Its natural that people want to keep their jobs. The same people would have no interest in supporting growth in numbers of staff as this increases competition for promotion.

This means that the sole responsibility for the growth in public service numbers lies with politicians.

off course it lies with politicians , everything that happens in the public service is political

NewDubliner

gandalf wrote: »

Time to moderise, remove the influence of the unions, get the same work conditions that the standard private sector PAYE workers get and trim out all the people who are basically there just to take home a pay cheque. Welcome to the 21st century.

You mean run the public service like the banks?

heyjude

I can't remember exactly how many quangos there are supposed to be, but I think it was over 400, so if they want to cut some civil servants why not start by cutting 5 staff from each quango ? Then any quango that has got too small to function, should be merged with another quango. There could also be cost savings from amalgamating the administrative functions of many quangos.

They could also examine whether, besides providing jobs for political appointees and providing plausible deniability for ministers, many of these quangos actually serve any useful purpose at all and if not, they should be closed down. If they do serve such an useful and important decision making function, then what are the government departments actually doing ?

dresden8

heyjude wrote: »

I can't remember exactly how many quangos there are supposed to be, but I think it was over 400, so if they want to cut some civil servants why not start by cutting 5 staff from each quango ? Then any quango that has got too small to function, should be merged with another quango. There could also be cost savings from amalgamating the administrative functions of many quangos.

They could also examine whether, besides providing jobs for political appointees and providing plausible deniability for ministers, many of these quangos actually serve any useful purpose at all and if not, they should be closed down. If they do serve such an useful and important decision making function, then what are the government departments actually doing ?

Well you may remember that the quangos were instituted to provide jobs for Bertie's friends. Bertie's gone now........

heyjude

dresden8 wrote: »

Bertie's gone now........

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

BostonB

dresden8 wrote: »

Well you may remember that the quangos were instituted to provide jobs for Bertie's friends. Bertie's gone now........

You mean FF. They are not gone, and neither are their friends. Its not a new dawn...

markpb

NewDubliner wrote: »

You mean run the public service like the banks?

Retail banks in Ireland are more like the public service than any other kind of company. Entrenched bitter unions, recognizes the 'national' pay deal, only recently stopped offering defined benefits pensions...

dresden8

Dresden?

Plus you're hi-jacking a thread about something else.

Poor form.

gandalf

NewDubliner wrote: »

You mean run the public service like the banks?

Jesus no, run them they like they are private enterprises. The banks are worse!

jmayo

It is not pure civil servants that need to be culled, it is public sector workers.
The huge numbers employed in public sector bodies is where the money is being eaten up not in the civil service.
Included in those numebrs are the inflated numbers of HSE admin staff.
Will they be culled or will it be front line staff such as doctors and nurses ?

Mr.Micro

It is estimated that 90% of the HSE budget goes on wages and salaries.There are over 700 higher grade managers now compared to 70 about 6 years ago. None of these are medical and have entrenched themselves now so much so that the HSE has become a behemoth and top heavy. Start the cull here and have no mercy IMO.

NewDubliner

gandalf wrote: »

Jesus no, run them they like they are private enterprises. The banks are worse!

OK, so, give an example of a private enterprise with 200,000 employees and and a non-profit business?

SeanW

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It is estimated that 90% of the HSE budget goes on wages and salaries.There are over 700 higher grade managers now compared to 70 about 6 years ago. None of these are medical and have entrenched themselves now so much so that the HSE has become a behemoth and top heavy. Start the cull here and have no mercy IMO.

+1

fitzyshea

First of all this thread asked if the civil service will be culled not the public service ie: the HSE, local gov, quangos, teachers, gardai, nurses etc etc. There is a difference between the civil and public service.
I am a civil servant and I was also involved in the unions before I left my old job. What I would like to see, as would allot of my colleagues, is that the gov would bring in a redundancy package or something similar so that the older staff who have been there for years and have no interest in promotion or anything else would be given the chance of leaving. I am working in the service for over 5 years and I enjoy my job, I also think I am quite good at it. I also understand that allot of people who are not in the service might think we all sit around drinking tea and playing solitaire all day, this is not what I see in my job on a daily basis. I do however see people who hate the job and want to get out but for some reason wont or cant. If the gov provided an incentive for these people to leave then I think they will go.

On Decentralisation, we all know this was an idea plucked from the sky on Budget day 4-5 years ago. Hopefully the gov will drop this plan or at least scale it back.

Kama

I heard (correct me if wrong) that there was a recent change in Civil Service promotion procedure, further linking advance to seniority. Can anyone confirm this? Seems a back-assward move compared to what is needed from my small xp in the civil service...but looked like a union-backed play to get people to jump.

Agree on the quangos being hit first, pure case of our clientelistic culture playing jobs for the boys and taking the worst mistakes of the UK as best practice. First step would be actually accounting and auditing 'em...last I checked no one actually knew how many there was...

BostonB

jmayo wrote: »

It is not pure civil servants that need to be culled, it is public sector workers....

I thought Civil Servants are public sector workers. The Civil Service is the Public Sector. Its just a subset.

jmayo

BostonB wrote: »

I thought Civil Servants are public sector workers. The Civil Service is the Public Sector. Its just a subset.

Well spotted .
We are now getting into semantics and that usually ends up going nowhere fast.
When people shout about culling government employees they often mix up the definition of civil service and public sector employees.
I would guess most of the wastage is in public sector bodies e.g FAS, HSE, quango infinity etc rather than pure civil servants but of course the civil service should be reviewed as well.

DadaKopf

The Civil Services is part of the public sector. The public sector includes all state and semi-state bodies (i.e. bodies that receive total or massive state financial support and have been formally established by a parent Ministry (except in the case of 2 agencies which were created by parent agencies).

There's no doubt the public sector needs a shakeup. Unfortunately, the government is choosing to take the easy way out, hitting the most vulnerable and least able to defend their positions rather than tackling poor management, lack of governmental leadership and a degree of cronyism.

BolBill

Kama wrote: »

I heard (correct me if wrong) that there was a recent change in Civil Service promotion procedure, further linking advance to seniority. Can anyone confirm this? Seems a back-assward move compared to what is needed from my small xp in the civil service...but looked like a union-backed play to get people to jump.

Agree on the quangos being hit first, pure case of our clientelistic culture playing jobs for the boys and taking the worst mistakes of the UK as best practice. First step would be actually accounting and auditing 'em...last I checked no one actually knew how many there was...

Recently, promotions have been directly linked to Decentralisation. In other words, if 40 people go for 15 promotion positions and there are 10 of the 40 that will re-locate to wherever the dept is decentralising to then they will get 10 of the 15 positions regardless of experience or suitability. If you think I'm joking I wish I was, it has already happened.

BostonB

jmayo wrote: »

Well spotted .
We are now getting into semantics and that usually ends up going nowhere fast.
When people shout about culling government employees they often mix up the definition of civil service and public sector employees.
I would guess most of the wastage is in public sector bodies e.g FAS, HSE, quango infinity etc rather than pure civil servants but of course the civil service should be reviewed as well.

Semantics would be if there was no difference. But there are differences between Civil Servants and other public sector workers.

I'm completely baffled why you'd think there was much difference in wastage between Civil Servants and anywhere else in the Public Sector. Or why you think its ok to guess which is worse. .

At the end of the day its the Govt and the various ministers that are in charge. Why do people accept excuses that its not the Govt or ministers but the public servants who they delegate too where responsibility and fault lies. This coming from a Govt who tried to give themselves huge pay rises, while telling everyone else not to. The same Govt who had a National Development Plan, and then ignored it to create a decentralisation plan, with idea of cost either to implement or to maintain.

Hotblack Desiato

gandalf wrote: »

Time to moderise, remove the influence of the unions

Civil service (as opposed to some other parts of the public sector) unions already have practically no influence as it is. This is certainly not what the media would have you believe, but it's the truth, I have been serving on a civil service union branch committee for several years now. Many of the committee, never mind the members no longer see a real point in the union as it is, to all intents and purposes, powerless as long as 'partnership' is in effect. Management do what they like and 'Partnership' rubber-stamps it. If you are not happy with how the civil service is run (and many civil servants aren't!) the fault lies with top managment and ultimately the Cabinet.

There are far too many people mouthing off about public sector this and civil service that, who have no knowledge of either apart from the utter tripe they read in the Indo.

It is funny to hear all the people (FG and Labour TDs prominent among them) who were clamouring for decentralisation to their areas a few years ago, now belatedly condemning it as an ill-thought out unworkable waste of money. The staff knew this from day one, but no-one listened.

Mr.Micro

In affluent times the civil service and other public service areas have grown along with Government coffers. If public services in health, care and whereever else are to be cut then it is only right that they staff numbers be cut as well. I mentioned only this week alone that there are over 700 higher grade wasters, I mean higher grade executive managers in the HSE compared to about 70 overall when the Health Boards existed. This type of excess including quangos, consultants and other wasters is probably widespread. Its painful but necessary that the excess is cut now, across the the whole sector. On another point I note that Enda Kenny's offer to take a 5% paycut was greeted with muted response from other TD's, so much for political example and unity.

trellheim

Everyone wants the quangos gone except those that use and need them.
Quangos are not useless; they have a defined purpose. A lot of them recently are the decision to separate implementation and regulatory functions from line government departments. Many are also self-funding, relying on levies from their own industries to keep going

However a cold,cold eye should be cast across them for savings, especially for centralising back office functions that have no connection to the operational role of the office concerned, for example HR/Payroll/accounting

Centralized purchasing would also help across the entire PS, give the GSA a new lease of life

the HSE unless backed all the way to the hilt by the government cannot dump the overhang from the health boards since those are powerful people.

cyclopath2001

trellheim wrote: »

Quangos are not useless; they have a defined purpose. A lot of them recently are the decision to separate implementation and regulatory functions from line government departments. Many are also self-funding, relying on levies from their own industries to keep going .

Such as RegTel, the quango which is supposed to protect consumers from premium-rate phone scams?

trellheim

? probably. ? so ?

cyclopath2001

trellheim wrote: »

? probably. ? so ?

Demonstrates the danger of handing over regulatory functions to industry-funded bodies.

Hotblack Desiato

Mr.Micro wrote: »

In affluent times the civil service and other public service areas have grown along with Government coffers.

The core civil service has grown comparatively little, there is a cap on numbers and this has been in place for several years.

I mentioned only this week alone that there are over 700 higher grade wasters, I mean higher grade executive managers in the HSE compared to about 70 overall when the Health Boards existed.

The HSE is not part of the civil service, quangos aren't either.

On another point I note that Enda Kenny's offer to take a 5% paycut was greeted with muted response from other TD's, so much for political example and unity.

TBH what did you expect, it's just a publicity stunt. Back in the day MPs were not paid at all, and had to be independently seriously wealthy (Imagine Dail Eireann filled with Declan Ganleys) that's not to say we can objectively justify the raises in the last couple of years, but the alternative to a good wage for politicians is (even) more corruption and influence of private wealth.

jaqian

fitzyshea wrote: »

First of all this thread asked if the civil service will be culled not the public service ie: the HSE, local gov, quangos, teachers, gardai, nurses etc etc. There is a difference between the civil and public service.
I am a civil servant and I was also involved in the unions before I left my old job. What I would like to see, as would allot of my colleagues, is that the gov would bring in a redundancy package or something similar so that the older staff who have been there for years and have no interest in promotion or anything else would be given the chance of leaving. I am working in the service for over 5 years and I enjoy my job, I also think I am quite good at it. I also understand that allot of people who are not in the service might think we all sit around drinking tea and playing solitaire all day, this is not what I see in my job on a daily basis. I do however see people who hate the job and want to get out but for some reason wont or cant. If the gov provided an incentive for these people to leave then I think they will go.

On Decentralisation, we all know this was an idea plucked from the sky on Budget day 4-5 years ago. Hopefully the gov will drop this plan or at least scale it back.

I too am a civil servant going on six years. I have to say that the majority of us are hard workers although you always get a slacker here or there (the only person I ever see play solitare is one of my bosses). We've had a few people leave our section and not be replaced due to lack of finances, which means their work isn't done until our own is completed. Another thing you have to realise about the CS is that they will employ people who wouldn't be employed anywhere else. I know of at least two people; one who is schizophrenic and another who has a form of autism and they both do good jobs at filing but they would probably be let go if jobs were axed, what would they do then?

People complain a lot about the bloated CS but as with the HSE you'll find its management, there are as they say more chiefs than indians. The CS usually manages its numbers by attrition... retirement & death

Sleepy

ninja900 wrote: »

TBH what did you expect, it's just a publicity stunt. Back in the day MPs were not paid at all, and had to be independently seriously wealthy (Imagine Dail Eireann filled with Declan Ganleys) that's not to say we can objectively justify the raises in the last couple of years, but the alternative to a good wage for politicians is (even) more corruption and influence of private wealth.

Pay them a salary linked to average private sector wage, Give them twice the annual average to discourage corruption, have it adjusted annually to reflect their performance (country does well, they do well and vice versa). Make no difference between ministers, junior-ministerial positions and the regular TD to encourage cross-party unity when it came to the tough decisions and finally, but most importantly imho, get rid of their pensions. They're paid well enough to have private pensions like the rest of us imho.

It goes without saying that pensions should be forfeit for those found guilty of corruption or inapropriate dealings with no statute of limitations.

fly_agaric

jaqian wrote:

Another thing you have to realise about the CS is that they will employ people who wouldn't be employed anywhere else.

So true. And they make accomodations for people with kids etc which I don't think you'll find in too many places in the "real world".
The CS/public sector are expected to be up at the forefront for all the latest "equality" initiatives. This must be at least part of the dead wood the public sector kickers are on about at present but they never couch it in such terms. It's easier to just confine any discussion to "wasters", "slackers with a cushy number" etc who deserve the axe:)

Hotblack Desiato

fly_agaric wrote: »

And they make accomodations for people with kids etc which I don't think you'll find in too many places in the "real world".

Whisper it, but a lot of this is very unpopular with the full-time-no-kids staff who are always expected to pick up the slack. "Job sharing" (I have NEVER seen a job shared, i.e. where there actually is a person to do the job the other half of the time) is really just a way of reducing headcount by the back door.

ednwireland

wasn't it jean-claude juncker that said (of reducing public sector sizes
"Every finance minister knows what to do. But then no one knows how to win the next election"

therein lies the nub of the problem anyone who lays off a small percentage of the public sector will not get re-elected

irish_bob

ednwireland wrote: »

wasn't it jean-claude juncker that said (of reducing public sector sizes
"Every finance minister knows what to do. But then no one knows how to win the next election"

therein lies the nub of the problem anyone who lays off a small percentage of the public sector will not get re-elected

no politician ever lost thier job in this country be pulling for the short sighted ( whats in it for me ) voter