civil service/public service redundancies

sakigrant

I've heard (off the record of course) from my Union Rep that the executive officers within the public/civil service Unions are having talks presently, about how to deal with the redundancies their members are going to experience in 2009.

He suggested that there are going to be voluntary redundancy packages offered initially and then compulsory redundancies on a last in first out basis.

I am currently working in an Authority within the Public Service but was moved over from the Civil Service so still retain the Civil Service terms and conditions. It looks likely that I will be able to apply to transfer back into the Civil Service if you are in the Public Service.

Has anyone heard anything similar or different?

The_Conductor

I've heard similar rumours.

What I was told was that there was talk of an early retirement scheme- with a maximum of 4 years additional notional service for those who volunteered- and a minimum age of 55.

Outside of this- there would be a voluntary redundancy scheme- however the terms I heard did not sound attractive in the least- so I'd be surprised if people took it up at all.

If sufficient numbers were not made up from a combination of early retirement and voluntary redundancy- then it would fall to last-in-first-out compulsary redundancies.

Apparently there is already prior agreement that the terms which applied to any previous redundancy schemes in the public sector will not apply to the current proposals- and will not be used as a basis for securing better terms for those affected.

There are two seperate things being looked at in the current proposals- on one hand the absolute number of staff, and on the other hand- the paybill.

The rumours I have heard were not specific to the EO grade by any means though....... Keep in mind they have already pretty much commuted the EO grade into the graduate recruitment grade- where previously this was the preserve of AOs........

sakigrant

smccarrick wrote: »

I've heard similar rumours.

What I was told was that there was talk of an early retirement scheme- with a maximum of 4 years additional notional service for those who volunteered- and a minimum age of 55.


Outside of this- there would be a voluntary redundancy scheme- however the terms I heard did not sound attractive in the least- so I'd be surprised if people took it up at all.

Apparently there is already prior agreement that the terms which applied to any previous redundancy schemes in the public sector will not apply to the current proposals- and will not be used as a basis for securing better terms for those affected.

QUOTE]

I've heard that they are loathe to offer any form of enhanced service - so the 4 years additional notional service seems on the ball.

I also believe they are looking at the bare minimum redundancy package which, as you say, will not be attractive.

The_Conductor

There was a worry that previous schemes in some of the State Bodies would be held up by the unions as precedence when coming to discussions over the current proposals- something the Department of Finance are not willing to concede under any circumstances whatsoever.

Things do not look good

channelsurfer

cant see any compulsory redundancies in the civil service to be honest.(dont know about the public service) I would be more of the opinion that anyone joining in 5 years times or that will not be offered the same job security or the guaranteed pension. their terms will be completly different and the job for life for them as people call it will not be guaranteed.

The_Conductor

They've already changed pension rights significantly lowering them for new starts. The changes started to happen around 2002 (there have been 3 revisions that I'm aware of since).

When people bitch about the public sector pensions- its the Pre-1995 people they are talking about. The media don't like to tell the story of what the situation is for everyone else......

channelsurfer

smccarrick wrote: »

They've already changed pension rights significantly lowering them for new starts. The changes started to happen around 2002 (there have been 3 revisions that I'm aware of since).

When people bitch about the public sector pensions- its the Pre-1995 people they are talking about. The media don't like to tell the story of what the situation is for everyone else......

agreed.... I am one of those post 1994 entrants on the new terms. but I am still on a final salary pension. I meant it will be eroded further to where they change it to defined contributions from a defined benifit scheme ( i think that is the correct term??) for new entrants with no guarantee.

Nolanger

You all need to request transfers to a dole office fast!

muddled1

sakigrant wrote: »

smccarrick wrote: »

I've heard similar rumours.

What I was told was that there was talk of an early retirement scheme- with a maximum of 4 years additional notional service for those who volunteered- and a minimum age of 55.


Outside of this- there would be a voluntary redundancy scheme- however the terms I heard did not sound attractive in the least- so I'd be surprised if people took it up at all.

Apparently there is already prior agreement that the terms which applied to any previous redundancy schemes in the public sector will not apply to the current proposals- and will not be used as a basis for securing better terms for those affected.

QUOTE]

I've heard that they are loathe to offer any form of enhanced service - so the 4 years additional notional service seems on the ball.

I also believe they are looking at the bare minimum redundancy package which, as you say, will not be attractive.

Hoping to revive this thread. I'm in the public sector and rumors started a couple months ago about voluntary redundancy, as the uptake to early retirement has been low and Croke Park agreement stopping any compulsory redundancies Anyone hear anything about voluntary redundancies at this stage?

The_Conductor

muddled1 wrote: »

sakigrant wrote: »

Hoping to revive this thread. I'm in the public sector and rumors started a couple months ago about voluntary redundancy, as the uptake to early retirement has been low and Croke Park agreement stopping any compulsory redundancies Anyone hear anything about voluntary redundancies at this stage?

As far as I know- the non-renewal of contracts for contract staff, alongside non replacement through natural wastage (and the original 'early retirement' scheme) mean that most areas are now understaffed (some more than others- but technical and professional grades especially) and having difficulties fulfilling core functions. In these circumstances- I really can't see how they would initiate an early retirement scheme.....?

Godge

smccarrick wrote: »

muddled1 wrote: »

As far as I know- the non-renewal of contracts for contract staff, alongside non replacement through natural wastage (and the original 'early retirement' scheme) mean that most areas are now understaffed (some more than others- but technical and professional grades especially) and having difficulties fulfilling core functions. In these circumstances- I really can't see how they would initiate an early retirement scheme.....?

True for general adminstrative grades but not necessarily true for specialist grades.

To take the decline in the construction industry and the capital budget for a start, there must be an oversupply of road engineers in the NRA and local authorities, too many architects in the OPW and too many apprentice lecturers in VECs and IoTs.

These specialists are not easily redeployable with their current skills and in many cases it must be cheaper to make them redundant. We will wait and see.

The_Conductor

Godge wrote: »

smccarrick wrote: »

True for general adminstrative grades but not necessarily true for specialist grades.

To take the decline in the construction industry and the capital budget for a start, there must be an oversupply of road engineers in the NRA and local authorities, too many architects in the OPW and too many apprentice lecturers in VECs and IoTs.

These specialists are not easily redeployable with their current skills and in many cases it must be cheaper to make them redundant. We will wait and see.

I suppose the response to this is- how many road engineers, junior lecturers and architects- along with allegedly redeployable admin grades are there- in comparison to those grades that are experiencing grave difficulties in fulfilling core functions because of a lack of specialist or technical grades/support?

Its no coincidence that the highest proportion of applications under the early retirement scheme were from laboratory and IT grade staff- not only are they under immense pressure- but they also have skillsets that even in our appalling economy- are readily in demand in the private sector. Many of them have reached the conclusion that its simply not worth putting up with the degradation of pay and conditions- ontop of the significant increase in all their work loads because of the non-replacement of staff.

Its quite ironic that the policy of non-replacement is in actual fact haemorrhaging the very staff who are most necessary to ensuring the smooth running of the very business units that are held up as examples of what can be achieved through the 'modernisation' model.......

What do they intend to do- do a trawl of the admin grades in the HSE and persuade them to retrain as doctors and nurses- and the admin grades in the civil service and get them all trained up as lab technicians? I'm not even going to think about the various quangoes- whose staff have already refused to redeploy to vacant technical posts in the public sector- as they're not willing to accept the depleted public sector pay and conditions.........

As a first step- there has to be an audit of the qualifications and skills of all pre-existing staff- be they admin or technical grades, and alongside this, some sort of incentive put in place to encourage those with requisite skills to move to posts where they can be of maximum use. The number of qualified doctors, accountants, scientists and engineers- in admin posts, is I imagine startling........

RATM

If sufficient numbers were not made up from a combination of early retirement and voluntary redundancy- then it would fall to last-in-first-out compulsary redundancies.

This just epitomises the Irish civil service. In any other organisation HR would be saying 'What talent do we have and what talent can we not afford to lose?' when deciding on compulsory redundancies.

But the Civil Service isn't a meritocracy. The same goes for promotions, the best person for the job isn't really a consideration, more credence is given to the person 'who has been there the longest'.

The_Conductor

RATM wrote: »

This just epitomises the Irish civil service. In any other organisation HR would be saying 'What talent do we have and what talent can we not afford to lose?' when deciding on compulsory redundancies.

But the Civil Service isn't a meritocracy. The same goes for promotions, the best person for the job isn't really a consideration, more credence is given to the person 'who has been there the longest'.

Allied to this is what almost seems like a policy to place staff in areas in which they cannot use skills they may have, all the while there being a skills shortage for those selfsame skills......

It was laughable how many consultants were hired- when existing staff had similar skills, but weren't allowed to move into vacant positions.

There is almost a feudal mentality......

Godge

smccarrick wrote: »

Godge wrote: »

I suppose the response to this is- how many road engineers, junior lecturers and architects- along with allegedly redeployable admin grades are there- in comparison to those grades that are experiencing grave difficulties in fulfilling core functions because of a lack of specialist or technical grades/support?

Its no coincidence that the highest proportion of applications under the early retirement scheme were from laboratory and IT grade staff- not only are they under immense pressure- but they also have skillsets that even in our appalling economy- are readily in demand in the private sector. Many of them have reached the conclusion that its simply not worth putting up with the degradation of pay and conditions- ontop of the significant increase in all their work loads because of the non-replacement of staff.

Its quite ironic that the policy of non-replacement is in actual fact haemorrhaging the very staff who are most necessary to ensuring the smooth running of the very business units that are held up as examples of what can be achieved through the 'modernisation' model.......

What do they intend to do- do a trawl of the admin grades in the HSE and persuade them to retrain as doctors and nurses- and the admin grades in the civil service and get them all trained up as lab technicians? I'm not even going to think about the various quangoes- whose staff have already refused to redeploy to vacant technical posts in the public sector- as they're not willing to accept the depleted public sector pay and conditions.........

As a first step- there has to be an audit of the qualifications and skills of all pre-existing staff- be they admin or technical grades, and alongside this, some sort of incentive put in place to encourage those with requisite skills to move to posts where they can be of maximum use. The number of qualified doctors, accountants, scientists and engineers- in admin posts, is I imagine startling........

In response to your first point, a lot is the answer. It is amazing how many civil servants fail to realise that their Department is only a small part of a small minority of public servants. One of the big failures of the Department of Finance is that it has tried to manage the larger public service from a distance as if it was a small civil service Department full of obedient civil servants.

In response to the point about the early retirement applicants, who let them go? There was a facility for managers to refuse applications if the applicant was essential to the maintenance of the service. Blame the local management, not the scheme or the applicants.

In response to your last point, who was it that said: those who can, do; those who can't do, teach; those who can't teach, administer (become civil servants)!!!!!

Why are the civil servants who are qualified doctors, accountants and engineers out there in the private sector instead of sitting in clerical and administrative jobs? Is it the cushy number? Is it their own lack of confidence? Is it something else like the job market?

Godge

RATM wrote: »

This just epitomises the Irish civil service. In any other organisation HR would be saying 'What talent do we have and what talent can we not afford to lose?' when deciding on compulsory redundancies.

But the Civil Service isn't a meritocracy. The same goes for promotions, the best person for the job isn't really a consideration, more credence is given to the person 'who has been there the longest'.

You are wrong in relation to the last point. To be fair to the civil service (and I have criticised them on this forum a number of times) at least 95% of vacancies are filled on a competitive merit basis.

That does not apply elsewhere in the public sector where seniority-based promotions still apply in some cases or seniority is given serious weighting in otherwise apparently meritorious promotion systems - the education sector is particularly rife with these.

Funnily enough, the Department of Finance, which you would expect to set an example, is one of the few civil service Departments to make promotions based on seniority that fall into the 5% mentioned above.