UK Govt. cul 600,000 PS Jobs. Should we follow?

The Express

In light of the UK government's approach to it's own budgetary crisis, didn't Lenihan promise something similar back in late '08 - or was it just the Quangos who'd get the axe?

Should have been done IMO a long while ago. Some shocking amount of staff levels in one particular tourism body I came across. 'Tripping over themselves in there' as one frustrated associate once commented.

So what about it?

Het-Field

Such sweeping changes should have been made when they were offered by the Progressive Democrats in their "New Deal" manifesto of 1997. Had it been done in 1997 it would have been at a time when the Government could have used the resources to send people to/back to college, engage them in up-skilling/re-training, and encouraging a stimulus in the private sector. Instead the government took a populist approach, given the hammering administered to the PDs, and have never culled a single public sector job. I dont expect them to start now.

TheRealPONeil

The Express wrote: »

... Should have been done IMO a long while ago.

You're late - this was started 2 years ago in Ireland

The Express wrote: »

... Some shocking amount of staff levels in one particular tourism body I came across. 'Tripping over themselves in there' as one frustrated associate once commented.

- once again anonymous sources with their own unverified particular world view

[/QUOTE] So what about it?[/QUOTE]

UK Office for National Statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk)
" Compared with the previous quarter, public sector employment decreased by 7.000 in the first quarter of 2010, to 6.090 million"

Get your frustrated associate to dig out the job losses in the Irish public sector over the last two years and compare to the British 10% !!
It's already been done.

IrishTonyO

Simple answer, YES

douglashyde

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Lets fix this country and lets do it right this time.

Shea O'Meara

Putting thousands more on the unemployment line will really give the country the shot in the arm it needs:rolleyes:

TheRealPONeil

douglashyde wrote: »

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Lets fix this country and lets do it right this time.

Yes, YES, lets >> fix this country <<

TheRealPONeil

douglashyde wrote: »

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Lets fix this country and lets do it right this time.

We could also do it by engaging competent >> risk "officers" <<

There isn't enough room on boards.ie to contain all the ways we could "fix" this country.

BluntGuy

It'll all be great until people start to see their services shredded. There needs to be a cutback of course, but people would be foolish to think 600,000 redundancies are going to be achieved without a dramatic reduction in service.

And his private sector job creation figures are optimistic, to say the very least.

deise blue

This question is purely academic in the short term as the Government have agreed that there will be no compulsory redundancies until at least 2014.

The only real option to shed jobs is by incentivised voluntary redundancy/early retirement packages with a consequent reduction in services to the public.

Manach

So reduced "services" mean that I don't have to pay as much tax for a lesser product, I don't think so.

OhNoYouDidn't

No doubt all you blaming our small and efficient public sector are the same ones whining that there is now a queue at the passport office due to cutbacks. I can only imagine the explosion when there are less Gardaí, nurses, firemen, bin collections etc.

The public sector is not, and never was, the problem.

SeanW

The U.K. has public service bloat and maladministration far worse than Ireland does.

I remember seeing a video (cannot find it now) by Conservative (semi-libertarian) MP Daniel Hannan, who claimed that during the boom years, the Labour government simply hired more and more useless public servants such as racism awareness counsellors and global warming counsellors and local government officials etc.

We still need to take an axe to our mollycoddled PS and the teachers' recent rejection of a deal that (despite the country being bankrupt) offered them a guarantee of no pay cuts and no redundancies, proves this beyond doubt. You can be sure this charade would never happen in a private sector organisation that has to economise to survive.

But while we need an axe, the British need a chainsaw.

Oh and lest anyone think I'm just bashing the Irish PS, no. Mollycoddled, overcompensated, underworked, spoiled with too many fringe benefits (such as being virtually unsackable and with generous pensions) are a worldwide problem.
Check out this analysis of public versus private sector compensation packages in the United States here:
http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

rightwingdub

600,000 proposed redundancies is only 10% of the public sector in the UK ,they should be looking at 1.5 million redundancies.

If 10% of the PS were made redundant in Ireland that would only be 36,000 jobs, there needs to be at least 90,000 redundancies in the public sector in Ireland.

Guards need to be cut to 11,500 put them all on a 45 hour week
Army 7,000
Civil service needs to be cut to 26,000
Nurses need to be cut to 32,000 from over 40,000 at the moment.

OhNoYouDidn't

rightwingdub wrote: »

600,000 proposed redundancies is only 10% of the public sector in the UK ,they should be looking at 1.5 million redundancies.

If 10% of the PS were made redundant in Ireland that would only be 36,000 jobs, there needs to be at least 90,000 redundancies in the public sector in Ireland.

Guards need to be cut to 11,500 put them all on a 45 hour week
Army 7,000
Civil service needs to be cut to 26,000
Nurses need to be cut to 32,000 from over 40,000 at the moment.

Where do these numbers come from? 90,000 less? You seriously think we could cut 1/4 of the already stretched public service and maintain standards?

The idea that we have too many nurses is a new one.

What will happen in that sort of situation is overtime will increase and we will have the same level of service on paper, delivered by less people for the same cost, but worse as they are tired. 45 hour basic week for Gardaí? Seriously?

SeanW

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Putting thousands more on the unemployment line will really give the country the shot in the arm it needs:rolleyes:

Getting the public finances in order without raping all non PS-workers with new taxes WILL give the country the shot in the arm it needs:D

Now where did I leave that axe ...

dan_d

Why do we look at front line staff? Surely guards/nurses etc should be the last to be cut.Hate to say it, but they're the "easy" option when it comes to cutting staff. Surely we want to be looking above them at the various layers of management, not all of which are required. Surely we should be able to go through depts - I would be very, very surprised if we couldn't find jobs that are being done by 2 or 3 people that could easily be done by one, or at most 2, people.We need to look long and hard at jobs that are being shared etc. I have a relative in the Dept of Health....they job share - a week on and a week off - and the last 2 years she's being taking the term time thing every summer. If she can vanish for 8 weeks of the year, plus share a job with somebody else (no continuity there), and neither of them are replaced by anyone when they're not there, I'd seriously question whether that job is necessary.

That's the kind of inefficiencies we need to be targeting...not wholesale cuts through frontline staff in hospitals etc.

SeanW

Agreed, plenty of room among the quangos and managerial/admin posts to get the bulk of efficiencies.

Chuchoter

You can't cut doctors/nurses when there are people still doing 72 hour shifts. There is too much paperwork and too many inefficiencies. Get rid of those before you even think of getting rid of frontline staff. The other thing would be porters, I don't really understand why that is an entire job.

IrishTonyO

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No doubt all you blaming our small and efficient public sector are the same ones whining that there is now a queue at the passport office due to cutbacks. I can only imagine the explosion when there are less Gardaí, nurses, firemen, bin collections etc.

The public sector is not, and never was, the problem.

The queues at the passport office were due to industrial action and the CPSU's refusal to allow the recruitment of 50 temporary staff which was normal at that time of year.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You seriously think we could cut 1/4 of the already stretched public service and maintain standards?

You seriously think the public service is operating at optimum efficiency? You seriously think that every single member of staff currently employed by the HSE is critical to the provision of a quality health service?

deise blue

Quite a number of posters seem to be forgetting that the Croke Park agreement clearly states that there will be no compulsory redundancies , this pertains until at least 2014.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seriously think the public service is operating at optimum efficiency? You seriously think that every single member of staff currently employed by the HSE is critical to the provision of a quality health service?

Absolutely not. But rightwingdub didn't mention the surplus administration staff getting chopped. He mentioned nurses.

OhNoYouDidn't

IrishTonyO wrote: »

The queues at the passport office were due to industrial action and the CPSU's refusal to allow the recruitment of 50 temporary staff which was normal at that time of year.

Why should they allow temporary staff come in when overtime had been cut? The entire dynamic was different to previous years.

But we had a model passport service, cutbacks were imposed and we had a massive backlog. Its not difficult to join those dots.

IrishTonyO

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Why should they allow temporary staff come in when overtime had been cut? The entire dynamic was different to previous years.

But we had a model passport service, cutbacks were imposed and we had a massive backlog. Its not difficult to join those dots.

You are leaving out the industrial action plus every year at that time the extra staff were hired to cope with the seasonal demand. By the way overtime is a not a right!

OhNoYouDidn't

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You are leaving out the industrial action plus every year at that time the extra staff were hired to cope with the seasonal demand. By the way overtime is a not a right!

You remove staff overtime and then hire people to do the overtime work on a temporary basis you get an industrial relations issue. Why not pay the overtime to the experienced staff and not hire temporary workers? The net result is the same.

Long and short of it, this is what happens when a good service is cut back. And people want 1/4 of public sector staff axed? Nothing would work.

Sleepy

So the temporary workers were being hired at a wage that was the equivalent of the permanent staff's overtime rate then OhNoYouDidn't?

Pull the other one.

IrishTonyO

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You remove staff overtime and then hire people to do the overtime work on a temporary basis you get an industrial relations issue. Why not pay the overtime to the experienced staff and not hire temporary workers? The net result is the same.

Long and short of it, this is what happens when a good service is cut back. And people want 1/4 of public sector staff axed? Nothing would work.

No that was what happened when PS workers did not do the job they were paid to, answer phones and open public service counters. There a a couple of thread about this issue already over the past few months where all this was dealt with.

deise blue

SeanW wrote: »

Getting the public finances in order without raping all non PS-workers with new taxes WILL give the country the shot in the arm it needs:D

Now where did I leave that axe ...

I think you will find that axe in a glass case behind Brian Lenihan's desk marked " do not break until 2014 at the earliest "

OhNoYouDidn't

Sleepy wrote: »

So the temporary workers were being hired at a wage that was the equivalent of the permanent staff's overtime rate then OhNoYouDidn't?

Pull the other one.

Thats my point. The temporary staff were not hired to help out at a busy time, they were hired as a cheaper alternative to the overtime arrangement.

In any environment if you cut wages and eliminate overtime and then hire temporary staff to do that overtime you will have war. In a unionised environment where its done without consultation its double the war.

Now if this is the result of a handful of staff working to rule, what will 1/4 of public sector staff being fired result in?

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats my point. The temporary staff were not hired to help out at a busy time, they were hired as a cheaper alternative to the overtime arrangement.

I should bloody well hope so. That's exactly the sort of efficiency improvement that's required across the public service.

TheInquisitor

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats my point. The temporary staff were not hired to help out at a busy time, they were hired as a cheaper alternative to the overtime arrangement.

In any environment if you cut wages and eliminate overtime and then hire temporary staff to do that overtime you will have war. In a unionised environment where its done without consultation its double the war.

Now if this is the result of a handful of staff working to rule, what will 1/4 of public sector staff being fired result in?

If it happens every year at that time of year why the hell would ye need to be consulted?

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

I should bloody well hope so. That's exactly the sort of efficiency improvement that's required across the public service.

Yeah, worked a blinder, didn't it....

OhNoYouDidn't

TheInquisitor wrote: »

If it happens every year at that time of year why the hell would ye need to be consulted?

But in previous years it was in addition to overtime. This year it was a replacement for. Completely different dynamic and a change in work practices that are moody under partnership.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Yeah, worked a blinder, didn't it....

No, the unions scuppered it. Not to worry, we'll just keep borrowing from the next couple of generations to pay those overtime bills.

ixoy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Yeah, worked a blinder, didn't it....

No it could have worked a blinder if there had been co-operation towards the idea of making budgetary savings. I imagine these are exactly the sort of savings that will be required to be made under the Croke Park agreement. Overtime is a big wage bill and overtime should not be taken for granted or as a right.

kippy

Cutting certain roles and jobs - yep, totally agree.
There are numerous levels of nonsense in the public sector.
You could start at the top and cut the amount of boards, directors, assistant directors and indeed the matrix management system in general.
Lots of managers in most places with very little "power" or "foresight".

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, the unions scuppered it. Not to worry, we'll just keep borrowing from the next couple of generations to pay those overtime bills.

So why do it in conflict with the unions? We have a partnership process where unions have dropped pay and changed work practices. Use that.

Finance picked a fight and got a slap for their troubles.

Any approach involving temporary staff has to be workable. Life isn't as simple as internet chatrooms.

OhNoYouDidn't

ixoy wrote: »

No it could have worked a blinder if there had been co-operation towards the idea of making budgetary savings. I imagine these are exactly the sort of savings that will be required to be made under the Croke Park agreement. Overtime is a big wage bill and overtime should not be taken for granted or as a right.

Agreed. But when a system, like the passport office, functions on overtime as a result of a hiring freeze, don't act all surprised when problems emerge when overtime is cut.

Its incredolous to me that people are shocked and stunned when they don't get whatever public service they want as efficiently as last year after savage cuts.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So why do it in conflict with the unions? We have a partnership process where unions have dropped pay and changed work practices. Use that.

Yeah, because partnership has been so effective in curbing the public sector pay bill.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, because partnership has been so effective in curbing the public sector pay bill.

It got the Croke Park deal through...

Like it or not, we have a quasi legal mechanism for industrial relations issues in the public sector which has seen strikes fall to a minuscule amount. The mechansism was ditched in the passport office case and there was unrest.

ixoy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Agreed. But when a system, like the passport office, functions on overtime as a result of a hiring freeze, don't act all surprised when problems emerge when overtime is cut.

But you agree that it can function equally as well under a different arangement if people are co-operative?

Its incredolous to me that people are shocked and stunned when they don't get whatever public service they want as efficiently as last year after savage cuts.

What's incredulous to others is the reluctance to change or work towards change at a pace faster than glacial, especially with an ever-worsening economic crisis. I think a lot of the change that's happened so far has been badly implemented (agreed) but I also don't think there's been any support by the PS/CS towards the alternative (job cuts).

Lu Tze

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its incredolous to me that people are shocked and stunned when they don't get whatever public service they want as efficiently as last year after savage cuts.

What shocks me is people cut the amount of work they are doing by half, as a work to rule, and are still getting paid the same.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No doubt all you blaming our small and efficient public sector are the same ones whining that there is now a queue at the passport office due to cutbacks. I can only imagine the explosion when there are less Gardaí, nurses, firemen, bin collections etc.

The public sector is not, and never was, the problem.

While not untrue, you're statement is incorrect.

It is part of the problem, and without reform, and cuts it will continue to be an archaic monster, which is losing money hand over fist.

Again, it is easy to use examples such as guards, and nurses in an atempt to reject attempts to cull the public sector. When most speak of reform and cuts, the are talking about middlemen in agencies, they are talking of cuts in QUANGO, and the abolition of limbs of the public sector which have outgrown their usefulness.

In the boom years we have overseen vast expansions of the public sector, and the crazy Benchmarking ii. It may not be the problem, but the public sector is part of it.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Like it or not, we have a quasi legal mechanism for industrial relations issues in the public sector which has seen strikes fall to a minuscule amount.

...and the public sector pay bill soar to an unsustainable level. Was it worth it?

OhNoYouDidn't

ixoy wrote: »

But you agree that it can function equally as well under a different arangement if people are co-operative?

Yes. But yet again the issues in the public sector are not the frontline staff, they are senior management who can't achieve meaningful change keeping the stakeholders on board.

ixoy wrote: »

What's incredulous to others is the reluctance to change or work towards change at a pace faster than glacial, especially with an ever-worsening economic crisis. I think a lot of the change that's happened so far has been badly implemented (agreed) but I also don't think there's been any support by the PS/CS towards the alternative (job cuts).

I disagree. The rank and file public sector worker is flexible. The rigidities are structural and thats not their fault.

Why would the PS support job cuts? Turkeys. Christmas.

Lu Tze

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The rank and file public sector worker is flexible. The rigidities are structural and thats not their fault.

Like cooperating with temporary seasonal staff?

OhNoYouDidn't

Lu Tze wrote: »

Like cooperating with temporary seasonal staff?

They have done in previous years and other sections do so...

IrishTonyO

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats my point. The temporary staff were not hired to help out at a busy time, they were hired as a cheaper alternative to the overtime arrangement.

In any environment if you cut wages and eliminate overtime and then hire temporary staff to do that overtime you will have war. In a unionised environment where its done without consultation its double the war.

Now if this is the result of a handful of staff working to rule, what will 1/4 of public sector staff being fired result in?

The temporary staff are hired every year just before Easter. And you seem to think that CPSU members are entitled to overtime, they are not.

Lu Tze

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

They have done in previous years and other sections do so...

I was seconded into a PS office for a year as a consultant. They are inflexible. Anytime somebody wanted a work practice changed, there had to be some form of compensation or else nothing was happening.

Threats that the unions would get involved, was something that management wouldn't push against, as they themselves were in a union, and it was not the done thing (at the time).

Cooperation was minimal. Or agreement was reached up front, and the work just wasn't done. And the problem here was there was no stick to beat them with, everything had to be incentivised to get them to do their job.

I have worked in other PS offices as well (briefly), and it was the same. Maybe i just got unlucky. That said, some very talented individuals working in there, with motivation, trying to change things. It made no difference, they were in the vast minority.

kippy

Lu Tze wrote: »

I was seconded into a PS office for a year as a consultant. They are inflexible. Anytime somebody wanted a work practice changed, there had to be some form of compensation or else nothing was happening.

Threats that the unions would get involved, was something that management wouldn't push against, as they themselves were in a union, and it was not the done thing (at the time).

Cooperation was minimal. Or agreement was reached up front, and the work just wasn't done. And the problem here was there was no stick to beat them with, everything had to be incentivised to get them to do their job.

I have worked in other PS offices as well (briefly), and it was the same. Maybe i just got unlucky. That said, some very talented individuals working in there, with motivation, trying to change things. It made no difference, they were in the vast minority.

Id be in agreement in general with that summation although the minority is increasing somewhat, only not fast enough and a lot of the minority get in the bad books with the staff that are very agaisnt change.