Inefficiencies in the public and private sector

luckat

People give out yards here about inefficient, overpaid public servants.

I don't agree at all, most of the time, though there is the occasional spectacular waste of time and money. But often this criticism is totally misdirected - for instance, all those spat-upon 'administrators' are often the kindest and most efficient people in hospitals.

But here's your chance. Name your most hated inefficiency - in either the public sector or the private sector - and say why it's inefficient, and how it could be done better.

SimpleSam06

Lets start with the whole damn thing and take it from there.

Irish Public Service 2001-2006: Salaries up 59%; Payroll up 18% - 38,000 workers and Pensions up 81.3%
By Finfacts Team
Jun 29, 2006, 08:27

Irish public service salaries have risen by 59% in the past five years and the payroll has expanded by 38,000 extra staff. The increase in the average industrial wage for a male worker in the period 2001-2005, was 19%.

The Exchequer’s annual wages and pensions bill increased sharply from €10.2 billion in 2001 to €16.2bn last year, with what has been termed "benchmarking" accounting for up to €1.32bn of the rise.

The number of public servants grew by 38,760, or 18%, since 2001 to 257,013 last January.

The education sector saw the biggest increase with pay costs rising by 65%. Health sector pay surged by 63% in the period, civil service salaries rose 48% and in the security sector they rose by 34.8%. The average weekly earnings for non-health service public sector workers stood at €848 last September, according to the CSO.

This was above the €754 for the banking and insurance sector and €579 for industrial workers.

Public sector pay rose by 8% in 2005 and pensions now account for 10% of the total pay bill, up from 8.6% in 2001. The pensions bill has increased from €876m in 2001 to €1,588m in 2006 representing an 81.3% increase over the period. The increase in the health sector has been 104%. Pensioners also received the special benchmarking increase of an average of 9%.

The core finding was that on average, public servants earned 13 per cent more than their private sector counterparts on a like-for-like basis in 2001. The researchers also discovered that the size of this margin (the public sector premium) in 2001 was not significantly different from what it had been in 1994, suggesting that pay increases in the public sector had kept pace with the private sector throughout the Celtic Tiger period.

Another discovery was that the margin by which public service workers outearned their private sector counterparts tended to be significantly larger at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top.

A particularly striking finding was that the estimate of the public sector premium for Ireland was more than twice as large as the available estimates for other countries.

Last November, Davy Stockbrokers said that Irish public sector pay is on average around 120 percent of private sector earnings, having risen from 113 percent in the past five years, according to Davy Stockbrokers.

In a weekly market comment, Davy said that figures from the CSO (Central Statistics Office) indicated that average earnings in the public sector are now more than €43,000 a year. This compares with €33,500 in the private sector (industrial, construction, distribution and other sectors).

"Moreover, these crude comparisons take no account of the superior pension entitlements available to the public sector," Chief Economist Robbie Kelleher said.

Kiera

Waaaay too deep for a Sunday morning!

luckat

Hmm, I'm not talking about what people earn, but about what they do, and how efficient it is. For instance, there used to be a section in at least one department which cut articles out of newspapers. Later, that work was devolved to a private company that did it for a dozen different departments. The old system was totally mad - two clerical workers whose main work was to cut up newspapers.

Carrigart Exile

Salaries up 59%; Payroll up 18% wonder how those two stats tie in??


I find private sector telecoms companies are the most inefficient organisations I have ever had the misfortune to deal with.

nhughes100

Where to start, I don't know anyone that has a good word to say about NTL, any of the big pc manufacturers, agreed with any telecom company including the mobile operators. I deal with the private sector every day of the week and constantly wonder how a lot these people stay in business.

I once changed money in a bank from euro to dollars, I'd about 150 left over so went back to change it in the same branch but was told they wouldn't change the money as one was a 100$ bill even though they gave me the same 100$ bill two weeks previous and I've had an account with them for ove ten years!

It's easy to tar the entire public sector with the same brush and I agree there is problems in the public sector but it's not the be all and end all of our problems. Michael O'Leary seems to think we can run the country like running a low cost airline, fortunately life isn't like that.

irish_bob

im not a farmer but grew up on one and my brother is one , let me give you an example of what passes for a days work in one of the local dept of agriculture offices

officially the day begins at 9.30 am but you still have the recorded message that the joint is shut playing untill around 9.45 am so dont bother trying to ring someone untill near 10 am , tea break is from 11 am untill 11.15 am but dont bother ringing between 10.45 am and 11.30 am as molly or mary or maurice is still at the biscuits , btw , if you have managed to get speaking to molly or mary ( one of them will either be not in that day , only just started that day so not used to the place or one of them is in another privincial town that day ) , you will be told the computer is down so they cant get into your file

lunch time is officially 12.30 pm to 2pm yet everyone is gone for the spud by 12.25 and dont expect the phone to be answered or the door to be open untill around 2.15 pm that afternoon , the day officially ends at 4.30 pm but they stop answering the phones at 4.20 pm

btw , i forgot to mention if you ask to have a document you handed in to be stamped and signed , you very often get a reply like this , you mean i have to go upstairs now to do that for you and i dont mean a look that says that , i mean litterally that is the kind of reply you recieve

that is the local dept of ag , the county council office is a million times worse , i wrote a letter to the county manager 4 yrs ago about a problems with a public highway and as yet have not recived a reply
in 2003 the local engineer in my town took 3 months to return my call and this was only after i got a local td to lobby for a return call

BostonB

If someone starts with sweeping generalisations of the public sector its usually a rant, and you're not going to get much of a logical debate. Theres great inefficiency in both sectors. I haven't seen a huge difference between sectors and I've worked in both. Its largely dependent on the quality of the people involved, but especially the quality of the managers. In the public sector you have more complication from unions, and they tend to slow things down and often add inefficiency. They exist in the private sector too. But then you have nepotism and tin pot dictators in both sectors too. Public sector has constant political interference too.

SimpleSam06

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

Salaries up 59%; Payroll up 18% wonder how those two stats tie in??

Payroll is the number of people employed, salary is how much you pay them.

nhughes100 wrote: »

I once changed money in a bank from euro to dollars, I'd about 150 left over so went back to change it in the same branch but was told they wouldn't change the money as one was a 100$ bill even though they gave me the same 100$ bill two weeks previous and I've had an account with them for ove ten years!

They do that because of the amount and quality of forged $100 bills in circulation.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Michael O'Leary seems to think we can run the country like running a low cost airline, fortunately life isn't like that.

While its true that you can't run a country like a business, you can certainly do a hell of a lot better job than the clowns currently at the wheel. I mean for all the money blown (and thats the cash from the boom by the way) where are our great roads? Where is the improved medical care? Where is there any improvement in service at all? And as if that wasn't bad enough, we need to keep paying them now the boom is over, since they can't be fired for fear they might bring the country to its knees.

Its a bad joke.

SimpleSam06

BostonB wrote: »

Theres great inefficiency in both sectors.

The difference is that inefficient private sector companies go out of business or otherwise get eaten, and this happens all the time. The only people I've ever heard denying that are public sector workers, who never worked a day for a private company in their lives. Inefficiency in the public sector just means the balance comes out of yours and my pockets, they can't go bust.

SoWatchaWant

Example: I had a job during the summer two years ago in a well-known Northside Dublin psychiatric hospital run by the HSE. I was a porter, meaning I basically did the work that nurses and doctors in clinics were too lazy to do themselves, filing etc.

They paid me 12.50 an hour (absurdly high for back then) and the work was so laidback, my superiors would honestly say nothin if I did no work at all.

But that's probably the worst.

So that's where our money goes. Still kinda feel bad about it.

thelordofcheese

irish_bob wrote: »

im not a farmer but grew up on one and my brother is one , let me give you an example of what passes for a days work in one of the local dept of agriculture offices

officially the day begins at 9.30 am but you still have the recorded message that the joint is shut playing untill around 9.45 am so dont bother trying to ring someone untill near 10 am , tea break is from 11 am untill 11.15 am but dont bother ringing between 10.45 am and 11.30 am as molly or mary or maurice is still at the biscuits , btw , if you have managed to get speaking to molly or mary ( one of them will either be not in that day , only just started that day so not used to the place or one of them is in another privincial town that day ) , you will be told the computer is down so they cant get into your file

lunch time is officially 12.30 pm to 2pm yet everyone is gone for the spud by 12.25 and dont expect the phone to be answered or the door to be open untill around 2.15 pm that afternoon , the day officially ends at 4.30 pm but they stop answering the phones at 4.20 pm

btw , i forgot to mention if you ask to have a document you handed in to be stamped and signed , you very often get a reply like this , you mean i have to go upstairs now to do that for you and i dont mean a look that says that , i mean litterally that is the kind of reply you recieve

S'funny, I know someone who works for the Dept of agriculture back home. He leaves the house at 7 is back about 5 or so and has yet more paperwork to do, keeping him busy until about 9. But you're right, he's rare that he's in the office, but because *shock and fucking horror here* farms tend to be out in the asshole of nowhere and they have to go to the farms.
Amazing isn't it.

But no, you're right, they're all lazy and useless.


Also: Their IT system *is* an utter shambles, having had to deal with it before, i'm not surprised things are on the blink half the time. Hardly the fault of the people that man the office.

dotsman

There are, of course, inefficiencies in the private sector. The difference is that, usually, the customer can go somewhere else if they are not satisfied, and more importantly, if a private sector company wastes money, it wastes it's owner's money. In the public sector, it's the taxpayer's money that is wasted.

I don't believe in giving out about the whole public sector, and certainly not the majority of individual workers. What the problem basically comes down to is the processes and standards that are used. There is such a high proportion of bull**** admin and inefficient practices. There is also a huge reluctance to change, and change is also very badly managed. This is very notable in the large projects such as IT systems (HSE payroll, e-voting, Pulse etc), and decentralization etc. Change cannot seem to be implement, unless everyone gets slice. Hence, usually unions start making their (often huge) demands any time a change is being implemented. In the private sector there is frequent change. If you don't like it, tough toilet!

The unions need to be told to **** off. This is not the start of the last century. What we've had over the past few decades is that the unions are trying to validate their existance and earn the ridulous subs they charge their members/minions. Thus the threats of strikes every few years if ridiculous pay demands are not met. The unions can come back if employees are ever treated like slaves etc. Unitl then, they are pretty redundant.

luckat

Hm. As I suspected, a lot of opinions and generalisations, but so far no examples of actual specific inefficiencies.

asdasd

Hm. As I suspected, a lot of opinions and generalisations, but so far no examples of actual specific inefficiencies.

Ok heres one. The HSE budget increases by 300% in less than a decade. The service provided by the HSE is the same.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

luckat wrote: »

Hm. As I suspected, a lot of opinions and generalisations, but so far no examples of actual specific inefficiencies.

In my contact with the piblic sector, I encountered an employee who was kept on basically pushing paper around a desk after he fraudulently acquired a position in which he was not qualified.

I also encountered teams of people who's work could adequately have been done by one person.

asdasd

And in general terms across the board:

1) Nobody can be sacked. Clearly then here is no penalty for inefficacy.
2) The vacation time is way too large. 35 days a year is 7 weeks.
3) 35 hours a week is a joke.
4) Working more than 35 hours a week gives time in lieu. so by working a normal private sector hours you can get a day off every 2 weeks. In addition to the 35 days. It can add up to 50 days in theory and about 45+ in practice ( taking holiday removes your option for time in lieu). Thats 9-10 weeks. Clearly no department is ever fully staffed.
5) The budget system is a joke. If the buget isnt spent it is handed back to finance and the dept. has "proven" it can operate on a lower budget next year. Thus the incentive is to spend.
6) Beuracracies are never entrepenurial ( with one exception - broadcasting - but broadcasters and producers are subject to market and critical feedback from outside the enterprise. Nobody can deny that the BBC does a good job for instance).

thelordofcheese

asdasd wrote: »

Ok heres one. The HSE budget increases by 300% in less than a decade. The service provided by the HSE is the same.

Well i should hope so, i'd hate for them to suddenly branch out into being an IT company or something.

But seriously, that only holds true is you can quantify the second half. And to do that you'd have to find some way to measure the QoS or something like that.

asdasd wrote: »

6) Beuracracies are never entrepenurial ( with one exception - broadcasting - but broadcasters and producers are subject to market and critical feedback from outside the enterprise. Nobody can deny that the BBC does a good job for instance).

I dunno, have you seen torchwood?

Tails142

In the office I work in there is a reception that nobody walks through, everybody enters through a side door as its closer to where the desks are. If somebody was coming in for a meeting, say once or twice a week they would enter through the reception and sign the visitor book. In this reception there is a huge plasma TV that plays a promotional video, this plasma tv runs all day and presumably turns off in the evening through an automatic timer.

In the other regional offices there is a similar set up however in some offices there are several even larger plasma screens, all playing this promotional video.

If you walk into any government offices you will see something similiar. Its pretty wasteful in my opinion, both in terms of wasted energy and the waste of buying all these TV's when the offices were fitted out.

asdasd

Of course the [quality of] service provided by the HSE is fully quantifiable. Number of beds. Time at A&E. Waiting list numbers. Survival percentages after operations. Number of people not getting sicker in hospitals. And so on.

luckat

asdasd wrote: »

Ok heres one. The HSE budget increases by 300% in less than a decade. The service provided by the HSE is the same.

In what sense is the service the same? Have no machines been bought? Are the same number of patients treated? Are the treatments given to these patients the same? Are the drugs the same, and do they cost the same? I think not.

But no, still too general. What I'm talking about is a way in which a company or civil service section fails to use efficient methods of doing something.

asdasd

But no, still too general. What I'm talking about is a way in which a company or civil service section fails to use efficient methods of doing something.

Obviously the only people who know exactly how the civil service works would be inside. In any case my first post on this - hours worked, holiday entitlements, and the way budgets are spent was a clear example of inefficiency. You are clearly not going to accept any answers at all.

This however reveals the attitude

In what sense is the service the same? Have no machines been bought? Are the same number of patients treated? Are the treatments given to these patients the same? Are the drugs the same, and do they cost the same? I think not.

An IT worker could argue that his machines are different, the programing language is not the same, the clients different etc. What measures success is output. Not excuses. The point of buying a machine in the health service was not to buy the machine but to increase efficiency or decrease mortality, or produce better diagnostic results.

these can be measured using the criteria I mentioned.

mikedragon32

asdasd wrote: »

And in general terms across the board:

1) Nobody can be sacked. Clearly then here is no penalty for inefficacy.

False. Civil servants can be sacked, it doesn't happen often, granted, but that's mainly because the union will tie a department up in knots and failing that, there's litigation. There are other routes for penalising poor performance. Increments (pay rises) can be withheld and managers can recommend that staff are not suitable for promotion. This stays on their record and can be a disaster for someone who had hoped to make a career out of slouching.

asdasd wrote: »

2) The vacation time is way too large. 35 days a year is 7 weeks.

The vast majority of civil servants get between 20 and 25 days annual leave. I don't know of any that get 35 days, with the exception of teachers.

asdasd wrote: »

3) 35 hours a week is a joke.

Civil servants are supposed to do 37.5 hours a week, which is in line with the industrial average.

asdasd wrote: »

4) Working more than 35 hours a week gives time in lieu. so by working a normal private sector hours you can get a day off every 2 weeks. In addition to the 35 days. It can add up to 50 days in theory and about 45+ in practice ( taking holiday removes your option for time in lieu). Thats 9-10 weeks. Clearly no department is ever fully staffed.

I refer to points above. What you seem to be referring to is flexi-time, which is available in many areas of the private sector also. In the civil service you can work up 1.5 days in a four week period. 13 flexi periods in a year equates to 19.5 days, but the time you work up must be taken in the following period, so it's not like you can build up time for a monster holiday.

asdasd wrote: »

5) The budget system is a joke. If the buget isnt spent it is handed back to finance and the dept. has "proven" it can operate on a lower budget next year. Thus the incentive is to spend.

This I agree with. I have witnessed what can only be described as panic as department heads rush out to buy anything within purchasing/acquisition constraints in order to hit the budget. Insane.

asdasd wrote: »

6) Beuracracies are never entrepenurial ( with one exception - broadcasting - but broadcasters and producers are subject to market and critical feedback from outside the enterprise. Nobody can deny that the BBC does a good job for instance).

I wouldn't call RTE entreprenurial.


I can't deny that there are great inefficiencies in the civil service, but the vast majority of civil servants are conscientious and hard working. I think in areas where there are inefficiencies, the attitude tends to trickle down from management. Perhaps there's no coincidence that the departments that deal with the public are the ones that offices like mine are the most frustrated with. Believe me, they don't just treat the public like an inconvenience. There are times when I would love to reach down the phone and shake the muppet at the end of the phone by the throat, but I find that I could be dealing with someone at a very high level from that office and they're exactly the same...

The proposed reductions in staffing won't make for a leaner meaner civil service. Many areas will just use it as an excuse for further inefficiency. The stock excuse for delays will become "insufficient staffing".

PaddyofNine

The thing that twists my **** is the constant breaks everybody has to go on. I can't, I'm on my break is the usual refrain. In the private sector, or in certain aspects of the public sector, if it's busy enough you just stay and do the work. It shows you give a **** about your job. But if there's no negative consequences of being a lazy ****, why bother your hole? And this attitude gets to even the most eager after a while. Case in point, there's this lad at work who does the same job as me - a basic entry-level position for which we are surprisingly well paid. He is shee-it - without doubt the most infuriatingly lazy clown to ever receive a paycheck. He disappears constantly but he knows each and every one of his rights - when questioned where he was, the usual reply is "It's a personal matter". What can you say to that? On the odd occassion over the years when some boss has actually been pissed off enough to haul him into the office, he demands a union rep present. Fair enough the union rep is embarrassed to be even sitting beside this pathetic excuse for an employee, but this is one of the fundamental problems with the public sector. It is extremely, excrutiatingly difficult to fire somebody. They would have to set a customer on fire or something, and even then they'd be sent on some bull**** course on pyro-relations or something first. And people say there's negative incentives to this kind of behaviour - there's not, not if you don't give a **** about being promoted and are happy to sit on yer hole in your pensionable job for the next 40 years. And that's the problem - far too many people are. There is so much fat that could be trimmed from every department in the country, it's not even funny.

Another example, I went to the tax office in Nutgrove the other morning to get tax. Queued from nine for the office to open at half past (as if it'd kill them to open from 8.30 and accommodate people who have to go to work. The office hours are 9.30-3.30. 6 hours a day, for ****'s sake? God help them. And they stop answering phones at 2.30! Anyway...) and finally got in. Four windows opened up, and after serving about two customers each, ten minutes later, two of them closed their curtains again. One girl went for a cup of tea (I saw all this once I was standing for a while at my window) while the other lad had closed his curtain to tidy up his desk! I swear to Jaysus he was actually putting staples in his stapler. I thought my blood pressure was going to give me a stroke or something.

It's not just give me an example of the woeful inefficiences in the public sector, it's where to begin...

SimpleSam06

luckat wrote: »

In what sense is the service the same? Have no machines been bought? Are the same number of patients treated? Are the treatments given to these patients the same? Are the drugs the same, and do they cost the same? I think not.

To put the shoe on the other foot, can you show us a 300% improvement in any areas? Anywhere?

luckat wrote: »

But no, still too general. What I'm talking about is a way in which a company or civil service section fails to use efficient methods of doing something.

Nah, what you're looking for is names and numbers, dates and hard evidence of slovenly behaviour. You can dismiss everything else as anecdotal, handily enough.

So your entire premise from the get-go is false, unless you think someone wants to take the risk of landing in court for naming names. Which you know full well they won't.

mikedragon32 wrote: »

Increments (pay rises) can be withheld and managers can recommend that staff are not suitable for promotion. This stays on their record and can be a disaster for someone who had hoped to make a career out of slouching.

Sorry now, but you are referring to a sector where performance is set by yourself and if you meet the targets you set yourself, you've done well. Give over.

mikedragon32 wrote: »

The vast majority of civil servants get between 20 and 25 days annual leave. I don't know of any that get 35 days, with the exception of teachers.

For someone who claims to know a lot about the inner workings of the public sector, you seem to have missed that the civil service is a seperate branch and actually quite small part of the public sector- teachers aren't in it.

mikedragon32 wrote: »

I can't deny that there are great inefficiencies in the civil service, but the vast majority of civil servants are conscientious and hard working.

Good for them, but we don't need them. the public sector premium in Ireland is twice that for other countries. They can tell their stories walking.

mikedragon32 wrote: »

The proposed reductions in staffing won't make for a leaner meaner civil service. Many areas will just use it as an excuse for further inefficiency. The stock excuse for delays will become "insufficient staffing".

That stunt is old hat, particularly in the health sector. The time is coming when refusal to do their jobs will result in more severe penalties than pay and hiring freezes.

luckat

PaddyofNine wrote: »

I went to the tax office in Nutgrove the other morning to get tax. Queued from nine for the office to open at half past (as if it'd kill them to open from 8.30 and accommodate people who have to go to work.

Now that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Or the post offices not taking credit cards - ludicrous, and a make-work, because all that cash has to be dealt with.

Or I ordered a photo from a government department recently, and they *hire in a private photographer* to set up a studio, take a photo of the photo, get it developed in a laboratory, and drop it back - do they not know about scanners?

Or the old business where the ESB open a road and mend the wires, then the gas company comes in and does the same, then the council for the waterworks, then the council again to put ramps in.

axel rose

If you guys think that the public and civil servants have it so handy why dont you bloody well work there?

yea all the rumours are true- some days I dont bother turning up, It doesnt matter. In fact last wednesday there were no civil or public servants at work at all! We all went to the pub.....FACT!!!
Im on mat leave at the moment.....btw we all get 15 years on full pay... its brilliant.

My job involves putting the clocks foward an hour in the various offices in my area. My collogue is trained to put them back. For this responsibility I get €87,650 pa. :rolleyes:

PaddyofNine

axel rose wrote: »

yea all the rumours are true- some days I dont bother turning up

That's not a million miles from the truth - an awful lot of people call in an awful lot of days with the old "I can't come in today, I'm sick". Sure some of them are sick, but a lot (I'd hazard about 50% of them) are not. The old "sore back" is another favourite.

And I do work in the public sector...

Thomas_S_Hunterson

mikedragon32 wrote: »

False. Civil servants can be sacked, it doesn't happen often, granted, but that's mainly because the union will tie a department up in knots and failing that, there's litigation. There are other routes for penalising poor performance. Increments (pay rises) can be withheld and managers can recommend that staff are not suitable for promotion. This stays on their record and can be a disaster for someone who had hoped to make a career out of slouching.

So the Peter Principle in action then.

axel rose

PaddyofNine wrote: »

That's not a million miles from the truth - an awful lot of people call in an awful lot of days with the old "I can't come in today, I'm sick". Sure some of them are sick, but a lot (I'd hazard about 50% of them) are not. The old "sore back" is another favourite.

And I do work in the public sector...

Yes paddy youre so right! seriously how did you find out it was 50%? God I remember the day 53% went out on fake sick leave :rolleyes:. There was war I tell ya!

The amount of nurses out with a 'sore back' Its all a big laugh alright. Sure what would they be doing to get a sore back!!! :rolleyes: I say all public and civil servants are drug dealers who keep immigrant children under the stairs to clean their house!! (The unions arranged it you know!!)

axel rose

incidently paddy have you considered taxing your car online?.........but sure arent you a civil servant? just take the day off and tax your car

BrianD3

asdasd wrote: »

And in general terms across the board:

1) Nobody can be sacked. Clearly then here is no penalty for inefficacy.

Many of those in the public sector are on temporary contracts, these contracts sometimes don't get renewed. There'll be a lot more of this in the near future. Permanent employees can also get sacked, it's rare enough but does happen. When I was in school one of our teachers was sacked, a few months of incompetence and he was gone. I also know of a Garda that was sacked. Also one of my relations was a Garda and was sacked.

2) The vacation time is way too large. 35 days a year is 7 weeks.

What public servants apart from teachers get 35 days? Last civil service job I applied for had 21 days rising to 22 days after 5 years service

3) 35 hours a week is a joke.
4) Working more than 35 hours a week gives time in lieu. so by working a normal private sector hours you can get a day off every 2 weeks. In addition to the 35 days. It can add up to 50 days in theory and about 45+ in practice ( taking holiday removes your option for time in lieu). Thats 9-10 weeks. Clearly no department is ever fully staffed.

There are many grades in the public service who are not on flexitime, don't earn overtime and are not entitled to time in lieu. So if they work past 5 o' clock, tough.

A lot of the public sector bashing in this forum and in the media is a load of exaggerated rubbish. Stirred up by idiots such as Brendan O'Connor and the Sunday Independent rag he writes for. More of it today, at least 5 articles having a go at the public sector. Anyone notice how O'Connor continually aligns himself with the downtrodden private sector workers and tries to stir up an "us and them" scenario. Meanwhile he's off working for the State Broadcaster on that appalling rubbish You're A Star, now there's a waste of taxpayer's money if ever there was one.

How many of those accusing the evil inefficient public servants of screwing the country have ever done a "nixer" or evaded tax in some other way? Pot, kettle black in that case, the black economy costs the exchequer a huge amount every year. Yet nobody ever seems to point that out. Probably because it's not popular to be seen to point a finger at "the working man" and so many in this country regard taxes as optional and applaud those who get away with evasion.

PaddyofNine

BrianD3 wrote: »

So if they work past 5 o' clock, tough

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

Carrigart Exile

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The difference is that inefficient private sector companies go out of business or otherwise get eaten, and this happens all the time. The only people I've ever heard denying that are public sector workers, who never worked a day for a private company in their lives. Inefficiency in the public sector just means the balance comes out of yours and my pockets, they can't go bust.

now that's not entirely true, once companies become multinational corporations their decision making grinds to a near halt and the level of bureaucracy increases by a factor of 4.

I've worked in both the private and public sector and the only difference I see once you are dealing with organisations of similar size is that bad decisions are made quicker in the private sector and the rewards for those decisions are many times higher.

luckat

Most of what people are posting here is about laziness or (perceived) overpay. That's not at all what I'm talking about.

After all, a lot of clerical jobs in the civil service are little different from a job in a shop - and certainly little difference in the pay and conditions. And we don't get so *wildly* indignant when shop assistants are lazy or thick.

I'm trying to get down to the reality of what people complain about. If I had a medical card for every time someone here said the civil service was *inefficient*, I could supply the old and the young.

*How* is the civil service inefficient? Specifically? And ditto big companies. It's all very well to have a warm furry opinion that there are great inefficiencies. It's the facts I'm after, not generalities.

Just the facts, ma'am.

irish_bob

axel rose wrote: »

Yes paddy youre so right! seriously how did you find out it was 50%? God I remember the day 53% went out on fake sick leave :rolleyes:. There was war I tell ya!

The amount of nurses out with a 'sore back' Its all a big laugh alright. Sure what would they be doing to get a sore back!!! :rolleyes: I say all public and civil servants are drug dealers who keep immigrant children under the stairs to clean their house!! (The unions arranged it you know!!)

let us know when youve finished throwing your toys out of the pram , us adults will continue our discussion on the need for public sector reform while your squealing

irish_bob

luckat wrote: »

Most of what people are posting here is about laziness or (perceived) overpay. That's not at all what I'm talking about.

After all, a lot of clerical jobs in the civil service are little different from a job in a shop - and certainly little difference in the pay and conditions. And we don't get so *wildly* indignant when shop assistants are lazy or thick.

I'm trying to get down to the reality of what people complain about. If I had a medical card for every time someone here said the civil service was *inefficient*, I could supply the old and the young.

*How* is the civil service inefficient? Specifically? And ditto big companies. It's all very well to have a warm furry opinion that there are great inefficiencies. It's the facts I'm after, not generalities.

Just the facts, ma'am.

many in here have presented facts on why its inneficent but the obvious bias you bring to the table on this issue , blocks you from seeing it

irish_bob

BrianD3 wrote: »

Many of those in the public sector are on temporary contracts, these contracts sometimes don't get renewed. There'll be a lot more of this in the near future. Permanent employees can also get sacked, it's rare enough but does happen. When I was in school one of our teachers was sacked, a few months of incompetence and he was gone. I also know of a Garda that was sacked. Also one of my relations was a Garda and was sacked.

What public servants apart from teachers get 35 days? Last civil service job I applied for had 21 days rising to 22 days after 5 years service

There are many grades in the public service who are not on flexitime, don't earn overtime and are not entitled to time in lieu. So if they work past 5 o' clock, tough.

A lot of the public sector bashing in this forum and in the media is a load of exaggerated rubbish. Stirred up by idiots such as Brendan O'Connor and the Sunday Independent rag he writes for. More of it today, at least 5 articles having a go at the public sector. Anyone notice how O'Connor continually aligns himself with the downtrodden private sector workers and tries to stir up an "us and them" scenario. Meanwhile he's off working for the State Broadcaster on that appalling rubbish You're A Star, now there's a waste of taxpayer's money if ever there was one.

How many of those accusing the evil inefficient public servants of screwing the country have ever done a "nixer" or evaded tax in some other way? Pot, kettle black in that case, the black economy costs the exchequer a huge amount every year. Yet nobody ever seems to point that out. Probably because it's not popular to be seen to point a finger at "the working man" and so many in this country regard taxes as optional and applaud those who get away with evasion.

what was so wrong with what brendan o connor wrote today in the sindo , do tell

axel rose

Bob
just responding to some of the accusations.....seriously... take the likes of the opening hours of say the tax offices and social welfare.........
The work itself does not just stop at the counter people. there is a certain amount of paperwork involved. Oh and when we are at it - there are targets that have to be met. Even looking at sw. There has been a serious increase in the numbers applying for it in the last 12 months alone but the staffing levels expected to process these claims havent increased at all!
Paddy contradicts himself all over the place.....cant tax car outside office hours but he happily ignores my solution of using the internet. He works in the civil service and informs us all that half of ill workmates are faking sick leave......however he cant grab a days sick leave to tax his car!!!! It doesnt add up really!!!

Its all too easy to put all civil and public servants down as lazy and incompetent but i have yet to see 1 point backed up with an actual fact. As luckcat says just the facts.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

luckat wrote: »

*How* is the civil service inefficient? Specifically? And ditto big companies. It's all very well to have a warm furry opinion that there are great inefficiencies. It's the facts I'm after, not generalities.

They fail to deliver value to the tax payer.

axel rose

Sean_K wrote: »

They fail to deliver value to the tax payer.

sean, where are your specifics? If you had this said to you in a review how would you take it? You fail to deliver to the service users?????
how??? Is this all areas???? public service? civil service? Any specific department get your all knowing disapproval? are we all the same?

I would love to have half the the perks and benefits that some gobsh1te tells me I have.
yes there are some lazy feckers that could do with a good kick up the backside but no more or less than any other sector.

I honestly believe that a lot of the responses are a case of the 'grass is greener.'.......

There are a lot of very naive people out there if they really think that you can keep a job if you either do nothing or or not even turn up. If there are criticisims they should be with the system-not the people that are limited to working within it.

portomar

innefficiencies in the public sector are different than innefficiencies in the private sector for 2 reasoins:

1) if i dislike the service eircom give me, i can change my line to BT (i know its not always this simple, but for the most part, you can pull your custom) i have no choice but to pay income tax, prsi, vat, etc. etc. hence, im stuck paying for the civil service, no matter what i do

2) private sector have the profit motive, if they fail, they go bust. Public sector has a "service motive" (not so as you'd notice at times) which is much harder to define as being a success or failure.

Now, the public sector is highly, highly unionised at all levels. i do not begrudge anyone union representation, quite the opposite. what is annoying is that the state has NEVER fought for the taxpayer, always caved or played softball. now, i work in a sector where some employers have made it impossible to get a union in (threat of sacking, sacking etc etc., seen this in other jobs ive worked in in other sectors) the state never tackle this and there is about 6 workplace inspectors to make sure the entire private sector employers stay within the law. so the effect of all this is that public servants get all these benefits, when other employers are free to flout the law.

i will spend my life funding this, and will never benefit, and i rue it.

dresden8

portomar wrote: »

2) private sector have the profit motive, if they fail, they go bust. Public sector has a "service motive" (not so as you'd notice at times) which is much harder to define as being a success or failure.

Ahem, only some of the private sector have this motive as we have just found out.

portomar wrote: »

Now, the public sector is highly, highly unionised at all levels. i do not begrudge anyone union representation, quite the opposite. what is annoying is that the state has NEVER fought for the taxpayer, always caved or played softball. now, i work in a sector where some employers have made it impossible to get a union in (threat of sacking, sacking etc etc., seen this in other jobs ive worked in in other sectors) the state never tackle this and there is about 6 workplace inspectors to make sure the entire private sector employers stay within the law. so the effect of all this is that public servants get all these benefits, when other employers are free to flout the law.

i will spend my life funding this, and will never benefit, and i rue it.

That's not the fault of the public service. Politicians have not provided funding for labour inspectors and tax inspectors and all sorts of people who would support employees and tax-payers against their employers and rich people.

By employers and rich people I mean donors to political parties.

BroomBurner

portomar wrote: »

Now, the public sector is highly, highly unionised at all levels. i do not begrudge anyone union representation, quite the opposite. what is annoying is that the state has NEVER fought for the taxpayer, always caved or played softball. now, i work in a sector where some employers have made it impossible to get a union in (threat of sacking, sacking etc etc., seen this in other jobs ive worked in in other sectors) the state never tackle this and there is about 6 workplace inspectors to make sure the entire private sector employers stay within the law. so the effect of all this is that public servants get all these benefits, when other employers are free to flout the law.

i will spend my life funding this, and will never benefit, and i rue it.

• A lot of private industry is highly unionised to the benefit of the employee, look at Siptu, Ibec, etc.
• Civil and public service workers ARE tax payers too
• A lot of people that begrudge the civil/public service are most often than not a victim of their own begrudgery

There are so many ineffiencies in both the public and private sector, I have worked extensively in both areas, in large and small companies and departments/organisations. The main issue for a large organisation is it's size. UNfortunately, the more people you have to manage, the harder it is to get anything done. This applies to all sectors.

portomar

dresden8 wrote: »

Ahem, only some of the private sector have this motive as we have just found out.



That's not the fault of the public service. Politicians have not provided funding for labour inspectors and tax inspectors and all sorts of people who would support employees and tax-payers against their employers and rich people.

By employers and rich people I mean donors to political parties.

at no point did i blame public servants for this, my problem is with the governments, successive ones, who have left this situation develop and fester.

portomar

BroomBurner wrote: »

• A lot of private industry is highly unionised to the benefit of the employee, look at Siptu, Ibec, etc.
• Civil and public service workers ARE tax payers too
  

There are so many ineffiencies in both the public and private sector, I have worked extensively in both areas, in large and small companies and departments/organisations. The main issue for a large organisation is it's size. .

agreed, as i said, that doesnt affect me as a taxpayer, so ive no reason to have any issue with it.

BroomBurner wrote: »

• A lot of people that begrudge the civil/public service are most often than not a victim of their own begrudgery

not sure what you mean by this

BroomBurner wrote: »

UNfortunately, the more people you have to manage, the harder it is to get anything done.

This applies to all sectors

i agree, and at no point do i think that it would be easy to change ANY facet of public servants working arrangemants, but again, i can choose not to give intel or dell my business, i must fund the public service.

SimpleSam06

BrianD3 wrote: »

A lot of the public sector bashing in this forum and in the media is a load of exaggerated rubbish. Stirred up by idiots such as Brendan O'Connor and the Sunday Independent rag he writes for.

Did you even bother to read the article I posted at the start of the thread?

BrianD3 wrote: »

and so many in this country regard taxes as optional and applaud those who get away with evasion.

When you look at the way they are spent, its hard not to feel sympathy.

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

now that's not entirely true, once companies become multinational corporations their decision making grinds to a near halt and the level of bureaucracy increases by a factor of 4.

Multinationals get eaten too. It just takes longer. Anyone remember DEC?

luckat wrote: »

After all, a lot of clerical jobs in the civil service are little different from a job in a shop - and certainly little difference in the pay and conditions.

The civil service is only a small part of the public sector. The larger issue, and the name of the thread, is the public sector, and their pay and pensions have grown tremendously in the last ten years, far beyond the private sector.

PaddyofNine

axel rose wrote: »

Paddy contradicts himself all over the place.....cant tax car outside office hours but he happily ignores my solution of using the internet.

I ignored your so called 'solution' because it isn't relevant to the argument at hand. I can't tax my car online because it's a recent purchase and the previous owner lost the log book, so I needed to go in to the office in person to admire the smooth efficiency that is the Irish Public Sector Bureaucratic Machine. But thanks for your concern.

axel rose wrote: »

He works in the civil service and informs us all that half of ill workmates are faking sick leave......however he cant grab a days sick leave to tax his car!!!! It doesnt add up really!!!

I don't work in the civil service, nor have I said I did - I work in the public sector. That's bad enough, I think if I worked in the civil service I'd go crazy.
And if you'll read what I've written more closely (hey, maybe you can do it on a 'tea-break' at work tomorrow ) you'll see I was hazarding a guess that maybe half of all workers who call in sick tomorrow morning might be actually sick. A guess, that's all. And thanks for illustrating my point about the mentality of the Irish Civil Servant so beautifully. I'd probably be in breach of my contract if I was to simply take a day's SICK LEAVE in order to go and run some personal errand.

axel rose wrote: »

Its all too easy to put all civil and public servants down as lazy and incompetent but i have yet to see 1 point backed up with an actual fact. As luckcat says just the facts.

I've highlighted a number of facts in the preceding posts.

Let's have some more:

FACT: There are a large number of very hard workers in the public sector who work hard, take great pride in their work, and are rewarded accordingly.

FACT: There are a large number of people in the public sector in general and the civil service in particular who wouldn't last a month in a private sector job. They enjoy excellent benefits, a salary which certainly matches their equivalents in the private sector, and are sitting pretty with among the best job security in the country, knowing that their incompetence would want to standout in a culture of gross incompetence in order for them to be even reprimanded, much less fired.

axel rose

eh no paddy, you said half of your ill workmates were faking it, I only suggested that if that was the culture in your area then why not join them. Ok I accept that your car tax issue was unique and neede to be sorted at the office but its a bit rich to say that the tax office only caters for those who work outside 9 to 5. There are other options and even then its hardly the fault of those who processed your form. Its the system thats the ass-not the individuals.

In the 10 years I have been in the public service any sick leave over 3 days required a doctors cert. Believe me its followed up. Why would any manager want to be disrespected in this way?

As for tea break....:rolleyes: At the moment Im on mat leave, when im at work I dont have access to either the internet or tea breaks.....or lunch breaks.......or dinner breaks.....my shifts last 25 hours long (and no I dont have a problem with that). so whats your point?
It gets a bit tiring when the individual gets criticized when the system is at fault.
I found more inefficiencies in working in a family run business. Now that I would never do again.

portomar

25 hour shift with no breaks? what do you do?

axel rose

I work with young people in care.And my workmates and manager (and the kids) would take great exception to someone skiving off.
My leave has not been covered by HSE staff, it has been covered by agency staff who cost at least twice the price and are not familiar to the kids. we can thank ms harney (aka Mrs VHI) Is that the fault of me, the manager or the system?