TUI members to be made redundant

murphaph

Reading the independent today it seems that the govt is intent on making some lecturers redundant. It claims that SIPTU members would be redeployed to institutes of higher education while TUI members in that institute would be made redundant as they are not party to the CP agreement.

The article claims that this would be the first time compulsory redundancy has been used since the foundation of the state.

Personally I don't know whether or not to believe the story but I have to say I think it would be a perfect measure to take against members of a union that is not party to the CP agreement, just as Aer Lingus targeted the Mandate members in that firm when they refused to accept the new T&Cs like their SIPTU colleagues.

It would also be a long overdue shot across the bows of the whole PS that the notion of a job for life does no longer apply as the country is broke, flat broke. The article however highlights a huge flaw of the CP agreement: a surplus admin worker would be retrained and redeployed ahead of a more qualified specialist in a non-participating union. SO more of the same in that regard, instead of getting rid of the genuinely surplus to requirements staff we will be firing more useful ones and wasting yet more money retraining and redeploying staff.

ardmacha

This doesn't sound quite right, so I don't believe it. Any legal redundancy approach has to make people redundant who are not needed, rather than targeting individuals in unions etc and those who are now not needed might be in TUI, SIPTU or in no union at all. What is more likely is that there is need to redirect people and that individuals who refuse retraining/redeployment can then be made redundant. This arises as TUI members might refuse such retraining/redeployment.

By and large teachers do not need to redeployed in great numbers as their services remain in demand. This case arises in Institutes of Technology where specialist building courses and the like are no longer needed.

But people cannot carry on doing nothing and in the light of this agreement certain previous cases of people doing nothing should be revisited.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

This doesn't sound quite right, so I don't believe it. Any legal redundancy approach has to make people redundant who are not needed, rather than targeting individuals in unions etc and those who are now not needed might be in TUI, SIPTU or in no union at all. What is more likely is that there is need to redirect people and that individuals who refuse retraining/redeployment can then be made redundant. This arises as TUI members might refuse such retraining/redeployment.

Actually I think the point of the story was that a surplus to requirements member of SIPTU would be offered redeployment whereas a surplus to requirement TUI member would be shown the door.

ardmacha wrote: »

By and large teachers do not need to redeployed in great numbers as their services remain in demand. This case arises in Institutes of Technology where specialist building courses and the like are no longer needed.

These are the types of courses specifically referenced in the article. I am in general agreement with you that in general teachers will not need redeploying as we have a young population still and it is not as practical to amalgamate roles in teaching as class sizes can't really go much higher. The likes of headmasters not teaching etc, however is clearly an issue.

The wider PS however is riddled with surplus to requirements staff who need a dose of reality and sending the message that the govt is prepared to reduce numbers actively as opposed to just through natural attrition would be a very positive step. The safety net mentality has to be removed from the permanent staff members throughout the PS.

randylonghorn

Their argument is that as the TUI has not signed up to the Croke Park agreement, their members are not covered by the guarantees enshrined in that agreement re: redeployment / job security etc.

It all falls apart as soon as you hit the practicalities though. A previous court ruling during the ASTI strike prevents the colleges (or the state) from using the data held on file re: union membership (in order to deduct union contributions from salary) to identify and / or penalise members of a specific union. Rightly so, it's personal / confidential information.

So unless the relevant TUI lecturers choose to identify themselves, therefore volunteering for redundancy ...

Might get a bit awkward though for a lecturer in one of the building trades who has sat on the board of governors of a college as a TUI rep for the last 20 years though!

roy rodgers

fire them.... you wouldnt get away with it in any other company..

Godge

randylonghorn wrote: »

Their argument is that as the TUI has not signed up to the Croke Park agreement, their members are not covered by the guarantees enshrined in that agreement re: redeployment / job security etc.

It all falls apart as soon as you hit the practicalities though. A previous court ruling during the ASTI strike prevents the colleges (or the state) from using the data held on file re: union membership (in order to deduct union contributions from salary) to identify and / or penalise members of a specific union. Rightly so, it's personal / confidential information.

So unless the relevant TUI lecturers choose to identify themselves, therefore volunteering for redundancy ...

Might get a bit awkward though for a lecturer in one of the building trades who has sat on the board of governors of a college as a TUI rep for the last 20 years though!

Only TUI have representation rights for third-level so the issue of identification does not arise. Similarly, only TUI have representation rights in VECs.

gizmo555

Godge wrote: »

Only TUI have representation rights for third-level so the issue of identification does not arise. Similarly, only TUI have representation rights in VECs.

Individual lecturers are not obliged to join the TUI or any other union, so the employers cannot assume that any given lecturer is a TUI member.

randylonghorn

Godge wrote: »

Only TUI have representation rights for third-level so the issue of identification does not arise. Similarly, only TUI have representation rights in VECs.

IFUT?

May not apply to IoTs though.

However ...

gizmo555 wrote: »

Individual lecturers are not obliged to join the TUI or any other union, so the employers cannot assume that any given lecturer is a TUI member.

^^ this.

And whoever has representation rights, there are members of other unions employed to teach in IoTs, as they moved in from business / industry, and never changed union. So if their union was party to the Croke Park agreement ...

femur61

Is it written in law that a PS job is for life, or is it an unsaid rule that some will fight tooth and nail for. Is it part of the constitution?

murphaph

randylonghorn wrote: »

It all falls apart as soon as you hit the practicalities though. A previous court ruling during the ASTI strike prevents the colleges (or the state) from using the data held on file re: union membership (in order to deduct union contributions from salary) to identify and / or penalise members of a specific union. Rightly so, it's personal / confidential information.

I disagree that an employee can be a "secret" member of a union. Unions are about standing together, not cowering in a corner.

People should have the courage of their convictions...if you want (as you are entitled to do) to join a union, you should have the decency to take the good as well as the bad. I'm sure the TUI members would have made themselves known if they were missing out on something.

The law can and should be changed to nullify that ASTI ruling, including a referendum if needs be. We can't have a situation whereby a union can be as feckless as it likes, knowing full well that its members can't be singled out. It's a complete nonsense. Unions in Ireland appear to be able to operate in a reality vacuum because of stuff like this.

Cavehill Red

We have umpteen more health service administrators than we need, endless pen pushers in government departments playing tetris all day and who do the government decide should be the first compulsory redundancies?

College lecturers.

Not even the ivory tower merchants on 400 grand a year, but actual educators.

This country is in desperate need of a revolution.

murphaph

Cavehill Red wrote: »

We have umpteen more health service administrators than we need, endless pen pushers in government departments playing tetris all day and who do the government decide should be the first compulsory redundancies?

College lecturers.

Not even the ivory tower merchants on 400 grand a year, but actual educators.

This country is in desperate need of a revolution.

Actually I agree, except about the revolution bit: we have the vote, we just need to take an interest and use it.
The CP deal was and is a joke. Giving a guarantee of employment and conditions to all subscribing unions, regardless of what their members actually do (or don't do). There are undoubtedly surplus to requirements lecturers in the building trades (a sector that should never get so big again) but there is so much more scope to make people redundant in the admin, management and IT sections of the PS. In the case of the HSE of course, these people should have already been made redundant when the health boards merged and the actual dept. of health appear to do absolutely nothing now, so they could go as well.

deise blue

randylonghorn wrote: »

IFUT?

May not apply to IoTs though.

However ...



^^ this.

And whoever has representation rights, there are members of other unions employed to teach in IoTs, as they moved in from business / industry, and never changed union. So if their union was party to the Croke Park agreement ...

Which also raises the question of how vulnerable are non union aligned teachers who obviously fall outside the remit of the Croke Park agreement ?

mikemac

murphaph wrote: »

just as Aer Lingus targeted the Mandate members in that firm when they refused to accept the new T&Cs like their SIPTU colleagues.

Impact,

Mandate is a union for retail and service staff, the likes of Dunnes Stores for example

ardmacha

People should have the courage of their convictions.

Perhaps they should require employees to identify themselves if they voted for Fianna Fail, surely they should be willing to stand up for what they believe in?

We have umpteen more health service administrators than we need, endless pen pushers in government departments playing tetris all day and who do the government decide should be the first compulsory redundancies?

College lecturers

The point about educators is that is clear enough what they do and to how many people they do it and the same applies in other frontline areas. So you can clearly say that such and such a class is not needed and so we need to reassign its teacher. Fair enough. But the more important problem is the lumpen bureaucracy where it is not alway obvious what people do and it will be more impressive if the government moves on this sector.

Which also raises the question of how vulnerable are non union aligned teachers who obviously fall outside the remit of the Croke Park agreement ?

If the intention is to penalise people who are not in unions then things are worse than anyone thought. In reality the equitable approach is to offer redundant people retraining, whatever about their union status, and let them choose whether to avail of the offer or leave.

Godge

gizmo555 wrote: »

Individual lecturers are not obliged to join the TUI or any other union, so the employers cannot assume that any given lecturer is a TUI member.

But non-members of any union don't have the protection of Croke Park Agreement as only unions can sign up to Croke Park.

So if you are not a member of the TUI in a lecturing grade you are in the same position as a TUI member.

If you are a member of another union, they cannot protect you as they have no negotiating rights.

Godge

Cavehill Red wrote: »

We have umpteen more health service administrators than we need, endless pen pushers in government departments playing tetris all day and who do the government decide should be the first compulsory redundancies?

College lecturers.

Not even the ivory tower merchants on 400 grand a year, but actual educators.

This country is in desperate need of a revolution.

Administrators can be redeployed as they are not specialists.

A lecturer in carpentry hasn't got a lot of places to go.

Amhran Nua

femur61 wrote: »

Is it written in law that a PS job is for life, or is it an unsaid rule that some will fight tooth and nail for. Is it part of the constitution?

Some professions have specific protection like the Judges and the Civil Service to prevent political tampering with the legislative process, but I'm not aware of any particular permanence outside of contractual obligations and normal employment rights for most of the public sector. Its more union pressure and "tradition".

I'd be in favour of removing special protections for the civil service entirely as well to be honest, some of them are taking a lot more interest in the executive decision making processes governing the country than they have any right to.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

...
I'd be in favour of removing special protections for the civil service entirely as well to be honest, some of them are taking a lot more interest in the executive decision making processes governing the country than they have any right to.

That's a big claim. Can you back it up?

randylonghorn

murphaph wrote: »

I disagree that an employee can be a "secret" member of a union. Unions are about standing together, not cowering in a corner.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they are secret societies, rather the court decision was that the state doesn't have the right to trawl through records for personal information to identify people to penalise.

Lord knows, little enough of our personal information is private any more; do you really want to breach what protection is left? Remember that any changes won't just apply to the public sector, they will apply to anyone.

I don't think it came up at the time, but there might also be difficulties in that I'm pretty sure that there is a principle enshrined somewhere in our laws that no-one can be disadvantaged for being a member of a union. The question could therefore arise as to whether that meant union membership in general, or would it protect against penalties arising out of being a member of a specific union?

Or maybe you would want to change that principle too?

While I'm inclined to agree that the unions have too much of a stranglehold these days, esp. in the PS, do you really want to go back to the days when employers could refuse to take someone on because they were a member of a union? ... where engaging in worker representation or attempting any kind of collective bargaining could get you fired? It happened in Ireland (think the Dublin Lockout as the most famous example), it still happens in other parts of the world. And times of high unemployment are exactly when employers can get away with that kind of stuff unless there is legal protection. As Rosie said above, history has much to teach us.

murphaph wrote: »

The law can and should be changed to nullify that ASTI ruling, including a referendum if needs be.

Ah right, 'cause the country can afford millions to run a referendum to get rid of what little privacy we have left ... one which most people would probably vote down anyway, on personal grounds rather than on the TUI issue.

And then we would probably find ourselves in breach of EU law if it passed ...

Cavehill Red wrote: »

We have umpteen more health service administrators than we need, endless pen pushers in government departments playing tetris all day and who do the government decide should be the first compulsory redundancies?

College lecturers.

Not even the ivory tower merchants on 400 grand a year, but actual educators.

This country is in desperate need of a revolution.

All true, but in fairness this:

murphaph wrote: »

There are undoubtedly surplus to requirements lecturers in the building trades (a sector that should never get so big again) ...

is also true.

deise blue wrote: »

Which also raises the question of how vulnerable are non union aligned teachers who obviously fall outside the remit of the Croke Park agreement ?

Good question. The obvious answer would seem to be that they don't have protection.

Though I do have a suspicion that this threat to target TUI members in the IoTs is a deliberate ploy to force the TUI into line on the Croke Park agreement, so non-union members may not be under the microscope in the short-term.

In the longer term though, they could be in a dicey enough position.

Cavehill Red

Godge wrote: »

Administrators can be redeployed as they are not specialists.

A lecturer in carpentry hasn't got a lot of places to go.

Why the hell would you want to 'redeploy' feckers who've done sweet FA since the health boards merged except junket their fat arses off?

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a big claim. Can you back it up?

Given a team of auditors and about four months, I probably could, in particular at the senior governmental advisory levels. Either that or incompetence, which is even more of a reason to remove the secure job status. Until such time you'll have to file it under "suspicion".

murphaph

randylonghorn wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting they are secret societies, rather the court decision was that the state doesn't have the right to trawl through records for personal information to identify people to penalise.

Lord knows, little enough of our personal information is private any more; do you really want to breach what protection is left? Remember that any changes won't just apply to the public sector, they will apply to anyone.

I don't think it came up at the time, but there might also be difficulties in that I'm pretty sure that there is a principle enshrined somewhere in our laws that no-one can be disadvantaged for being a member of a union. The question could therefore arise as to whether that meant union membership in general, or would it protect against penalties arising out of being a member of a specific union?

Or maybe you would want to change that principle too?

While I'm inclined to agree that the unions have too much of a stranglehold these days, esp. in the PS, do you really want to go back to the days when employers could refuse to take someone on because they were a member of a union? ... where engaging in worker representation or attempting any kind of collective bargaining could get you fired? It happened in Ireland (think the Dublin Lockout as the most famous example), it still happens in other parts of the world. And times of high unemployment are exactly when employers can get away with that kind of stuff unless there is legal protection. As Rosie said above, history has much to teach us.

I guess my beef boils down to this:
Union A agree to govt proposals on redeployment for surplus staff and commit to them. Union B don't and in fact continue with low level industrial action. 2 members of staff are up for redundancy, one from each union, but there is only one position to redeploy to, so one or other person has to be made compulsorily redundant...why should the member from the cooperative union be made redundant ahead of the guy who voted with his union colleagues not to cooperate? Hardly seems fair.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Given a team of auditors and about four months, I probably could, in particular at the senior governmental advisory levels. Either that or incompetence, which is even more of a reason to remove the secure job status. Until such time you'll have to file it under "suspicion".

Nah. I'll file it under unsubstantiated claims.

Godge

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Some professions have specific protection like the Judges and the Civil Service to prevent political tampering with the legislative process, but I'm not aware of any particular permanence outside of contractual obligations and normal employment rights for most of the public sector. Its more union pressure and "tradition".

I'd be in favour of removing special protections for the civil service entirely as well to be honest, some of them are taking a lot more interest in the executive decision making processes governing the country than they have any right to.

Would you then be in favour of removing the block on political activity?

Civil servants are not allowed express a political opinion, they are not allowed ring up Joe Duffy or anyone else. They are not allowed blogs. I also understand (though I may be wrong on this point) that social media sites such as facebook and boards are also frowned upon.

If the block on political activity was removed, you might see a more balanced debate about the public service.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Nah. I'll file it under unsubstantiated claims.

There's not much unsubstantiated about the state of the country. You think the politicians managed to get it that way all by themselves? There were two reports released recently by independent economics experts which laid out basically that we went through a run-of-the-mill, bog standard property bubble, inflated to staggering proportions. Nothing special about it, nothing unusual, taken step by step from the bubble playbook.

That being the case, where were the advisors to inform the executive of this fact at the time? Where are the reports to inform the government of the consequences of the property market overheating, the consequences we are all living through today? We had people back in 2005 and earlier screaming on this forum and many others about what was going to happen, why was there no information about this being disseminated among the people who were meant to know?

Was this information passed to the executive and ignored? Who ignored it and when? Was it not passed to the executive, in which case we'd better find out exactly why not, starting with the property portfolios of everyone in the Civil Service? Was it just bald incompetence?

One or the other. Four months, and a team of auditors.

Godge wrote: »

Would you then be in favour of removing the block on political activity?

Maybe, its something that needs a closer look anyway. I'm starting to feel that the general approach of the Civil Service, to provide a "well rounded" individual, said ethos and structure being based largely off the British Civil Service as fathered by one Charles Trevelyan, also known as the man most directly responsible for the death and displacement of millions of Irish people during the great famine, is no longer sufficient to meet the needs of the Irish government in the modern era.

We don't need well rounded individuals, we need specialists and theorists in particular areas like economics, trade, language, and technology advising Ministers on the best course of action to take. How many economists did the Dept of Finance employ over the last ten years? Needless to say this would neccessitate a top down restructuring of the entire service, ending it in its current form, but the results of our existing system speak for themselves.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

There's not much unsubstantiated about the state of the country. You think the politicians managed to get it that way all by themselves? There were two reports released recently by independent economics experts which laid out basically that we went through a run-of-the-mill, bog standard property bubble, inflated to staggering proportions. Nothing special about it, nothing unusual, taken step by step from the bubble playbook.

That being the case, where were the advisors to inform the executive of this fact at the time? Where are the reports to inform the government of the consequences of the property market overheating, the consequences we are all living through today? We had people back in 2005 and earlier screaming on this forum and many others about what was going to happen, why was there no information about this being disseminated among the people who were meant to know?

Was this information passed to the executive and ignored? Who ignored it and when? Was it not passed to the executive, in which case we'd better find out exactly why not, starting with the property portfolios of everyone in the Civil Service? Was it just bald incompetence?

One or the other. Four months, and a team of auditors.

Now you are making a completely different claim -- in effect, that the civil service were not sufficiently involved. I don't see how you can reconcile that with your earlier claim that

some [civil servants] are taking a lot more interest in the executive decision making processes governing the country than they have any right to.

Your new claim is equally unsubstantiated.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Now you are making a completely different claim -- in effect, that the civil service were not sufficiently involved. I don't see how you can reconcile that with your earlier claim that

It wasn't a long post, I don't know how you missed this part:

Either that or incompetence, which is even more of a reason to remove the secure job status.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your new claim is equally unsubstantiated.

Eppur si muove; the results speak for themselves. Either the civil service was unaware and therefore unfit for the task appointed to them, were aware and were ignored and have therefore shown willing to act directly against the best interests of the Republic, or were aware and did not make the executive aware, which is malfeasance and should be rewarded with prison sentences.

Can you come up with a case whereby a major restructuring is not warranted?

mikemac

The civil service is largely permanent, some say the real government.

Having watched the West Wing, yes I know it's fiction but every time the administration changes then offices and departments were gutted of leaders and new supporters put in.

Senior appointments going to senate for approval.

I'd guess most posters here couldn't name the top civil servant in each government department, I know one and that's Dept of Agriculture and that's all I know.
Realy, T. K. Whitaker is maybe the most famous one of all in the history of the State.

Our system has a lot of flaws.
But would we like to see civil servants being let go immediately after each general election or ask to resign if they disagreed with a minister?
We have stability if nothing else

Amhran Nua

feelingstressed wrote: »

We have stability if nothing else

Does the current situation look very stable to you? At a minimum, a segregation of the civil service into specialist groupings with experts in each field is needed.

randylonghorn

murphaph wrote: »

I guess my beef boils down to this:
Union A agree to govt proposals on redeployment for surplus staff and commit to them. Union B don't and in fact continue with low level industrial action. 2 members of staff are up for redundancy, one from each union, but there is only one position to redeploy to, so one or other person has to be made compulsorily redundant...why should the member from the cooperative union be made redundant ahead of the guy who voted with his union colleagues not to cooperate? Hardly seems fair.

As you have phrased it there, I agree with you 100%.

My earlier point were that there are practical issues for the government to overcome; that I for one think overcoming them by setting aside what little personal privacy the ordinary citizen retains is too high a price; and that I have a suspicion that the current blow and bombast is primarily a strategy to haul the TUI into line.

I never actually argued with you on the points you have made above!

Amhran Nua wrote: »

That being the case, where were the advisors to inform the executive of this fact at the time?

I don't have definitive answers to your questions, but, like you, I can speculate. I note for a start that recent governments seem to be more inclined to listen to high-paid advisors they dragged in with them than to those with the statutory responsibility to advise them. I also suspect FF was far more inclined to listen to their developer chums, to the mandarins in the banks and to those economists who were high with infinite optimism than to anyone else.

I would be very surprised if there weren't experienced men and women in the department of finance and other departments urging caution. Of course, they are gagged and not allowed to tell us that, or to say "I told you so!" in public.

There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear!

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Where are the reports to inform the government of the consequences of the property market overheating, the consequences we are all living through today?

There were reports, and warnings, and dire predictions ... from economists, from journalists, and I suspect probably from at least some among the CS.

The government ignored them; nay, they more or less branded any such "nay-sayers" as national traitors. In July 2007 Bertie Ahern said of such "cribbers and moaners" that he didn't know "how people who engage in that don't commit suicide".

There are none so blind as those who do not want to see!

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Was this information passed to the executive and ignored?

I would certainly speculate that this was the heart of the problem, given that they ignored it in the public arena and castigated those who dared to offer it.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Was it not passed to the executive, in which case we'd better find out exactly why not, starting with the property portfolios of everyone in the Civil Service?

While the very top mandarins in the CS certainly earn enough to accumulate a "property portfolio", I doubt that you will find most civil servants with much of one.

It might glean a more useful insight to look carefully at the property portfolios of the politicians themselves, their developer chums and financial backers and their pals down the road running the banks.

Though a fair bit of that information has already come into the public domain in the last 18 - 24 months.

randylonghorn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... were aware and were ignored and have therefore shown willing to act directly against the best interests of the Republic ...

What?!

How do you work this out?

Amhran Nua

randylonghorn wrote: »

I would be very surprised if there weren't experienced men and women in the department of finance and other departments urging caution. Of course, they are gagged and not allowed to tell us that, or to say "I told you so!" in public.

Good, a quick audit should sort that out. Also, you might well be surprised, the Dept of Finance doesn't generally employ economists, with a few exceptions. Well rounded individuals were deemed better suited to the task.

randylonghorn wrote: »

There were reports, and warnings, and dire predictions ... from economists, from journalists, and I suspect probably from at least some among the CS.

Journalists and academics have no ability to influence government decisions. The civil service demonstrably does. In one case, a willingness to continue to enact directions from the government given the clear disaster in the offing is no less damning than the other options. "Just following orders" is no excuse.

randylonghorn wrote: »

In July 2007 Bertie Ahern said of such "cribbers and moaners" that he didn't know "how people who engage in that don't commit suicide".

And how do you know he wasn't speaking based on information provided by the civil service? These are hard questions that demand answers.

randylonghorn wrote: »

While the very top mandarins in the CS certainly earn enough to accumulate a "property portfolio", I doubt that you will find most civil servants with much of one.

The favourites of the banks were permanent public sector employees, no information exists as the the extent of investment mortgages extant among the civil service in particular, but again an audit would prove very revealing.

randylonghorn wrote: »

It might glean a more useful insight to look carefully at the property portfolios of the politicians themselves, their developer chums and financial backers and their pals down the road running the banks.

Oh yes, leave no stone unturned. It could hardly be called justice until every single person responsible for this mess reaped the full harvest of their endeavours.

Amhran Nua

randylonghorn wrote: »

What?!

How do you work this out?

A massive property bubble always causes a massive collapse in its wake. This has always been the case, and it was apparent to anyone with a modicum of awareness that we were in a massive property bubble. Therefore I fail to see any excuse for inaction on the part of those who should have been able to make a difference in the day to day operation of the government. What, were they sitting on the sidelines saying, ha, hundreds of thousands are going to be unemployed and every other form of enterprise in the state is suffering so there is no buffer, and we know it, but we're going to go along with it anyway?

I would take a dim view of such an attitude, especially since they ostensibly cannot be fired. Read that again, even with all of the above, they could not be fired, and I don't see how raising a serious alarm would involve actions which would lead to their redundancy. I would take an extremely dim view if it were demonstrated that personal investments led to this situation.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It wasn't a long post, I don't know how you missed this part:

You're changing tack. I challenged one claim you made, and you have substituted a different claim.

Eppur si muove; the results speak for themselves. Either the civil service was unaware and therefore unfit for the task appointed to them, were aware and were ignored and have therefore shown willing to act directly against the best interests of the Republic, or were aware and did not make the executive aware,

There are more possibilities than that, in particular that they did what is expected of civil servants: advised ministers on the options available and their likely implications, allowed the ministers make the decisions, and then implemented them.

which is malfeasance

Not doing something cannot be, by definition, malfeasance.

and should be rewarded with prison sentences.

Jaysus! Another one who wants to send people to jail without even finding out if they have done something wrong.

Can you come up with a case whereby a major restructuring is not warranted?

Why should I?

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You're changing tack. I challenged one claim you made, and you have substituted a different claim.

On the contrary, without invalidating the original claim, the ideas presented were expanded upon. This doesn't mean the original idea is discounted.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There are more possibilities than that, in particular that they did what is expected of civil servants: advised ministers on the options available and their likely implications, allowed the ministers make the decisions, and then implemented them.

Then I would like to find out exactly what those recommendations were, who ignored them, and when. And given the seriousness of the repercussions for the Irish state, why further action was not taken.

I thought the whole point of them being unsackable was that they couldn't be interfered with politically.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not doing something cannot be, by definition, malfeasance.

Of course it can. Malfeasance:the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used esp. of an act in violation of a public trust).

Unless you're saying that not making public representatives aware of a potential disaster is not an act in violation of the public trust...

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Jaysus! Another one who wants to send people to jail without even finding out if they have done something wrong.

There seems to be some difficulty with reading here: mention was made of auditors on more than one occasion, as well as several other options. In the case of malfeasance being shown, certainly prison should be among the considered sanctions.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why should I?

You're a retired public official and thus have more time on your hands than I do.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... In one case, a willingness to continue to enact directions from the government given the clear disaster in the offing is no less damning than the other options. "Just following orders" is no excuse.

So you believe that the Civil Service should refuse lawful directions from Ministers they are employed to serve? [As distinct from unlawful directions, which they are obliged to refuse and which, without making public fuss, they sometimes have to do.]

This is a democracy: the way to change things is through the electoral process.

And how do you know he wasn't speaking based on information provided by the civil service? These are hard questions that demand answers.

That's a preposterous suggestion. Do you really believe that any senior civil servant would advise the Taoiseach to suggest that people commit suicide?

The favourites of the banks were permanent public sector employees, no information exists as the the extent of investment mortgages extant among the civil service in particular, but again an audit would prove very revealing.

Unsubstantiated innuendo.

Oh yes, leave no stone unturned.

You seem more minded to leave no stone unthrown.

It could hardly be called justice until every single person responsible for this mess reaped the full harvest of their endeavours.

Not every person who contributed to the mess in which we find ourselves acted dishonestly or in bad faith.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

On the contrary, without invalidating the original claim, the ideas presented were expanded upon. This doesn't mean the original idea is discounted.

That is simply untrue. I challenged one claim you made, and you substituted a quite different claim, not an expansion.

Of course it can. Malfeasance:the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used esp. of an act in violation of a public trust).

Malfeasance involves doing something. You applied it to a failure to act. The definition you cite does not support your use of the term. The word you should have used is "nonfeasance", and it is generally lower down the scale of improper behaviour.

Unless you're saying that not making public representatives aware of a potential disaster is not an act in violation of the public trust...

I'm saying exactly that. Not taking an action cannot be described as taking an action.

There seems to be some difficulty with reading here: mention was made of auditors on more than one occasion, as well as several other options. In the case of malfeasance being shown, certainly prison should be among the considered sanctions.

That's bollocks. You have no case, and you are talking of sending civil servants to prison.

You're a retired public official and thus have more time on your hands than I do.

It's my time, and I am not minded to use it to satisfy your thoughtless whims.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So you believe that the Civil Service should refuse lawful directions from Ministers they are employed to serve? [As distinct from unlawful directions, which they are obliged to refuse and which, without making public fuss, they sometimes have to do.]

When the people you are working for write the laws, there may come a time when even lawful directions will clearly lead the nation as a whole into calamity. Are you saying at these times there is no onus on the civil service to take a stand of some sort? If not, there should be, which leads us right back to systemic reform.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is a democracy: the way to change things is through the electoral process.

And that electoral process in this case should lead to systemic reform in the civil service.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a preposterous suggestion. Do you really believe that any senior civil servant would advise the Taoiseach to suggest that people commit suicide?

I believe that he may have been given information to make him recklessly confident with his statements, which doesn't make the civil service responsible for that particular statement, but does explain the reckless confidence of the government over the last decade.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Unsubstantiated innuendo.

I'll be more than delighted to substantiate it one way or the other given the opportunity.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You seem more minded to leave no stone unthrown.

A glib response does not an arguent make.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not every person who contributed to the mess in which we find ourselves acted dishonestly or in bad faith.

That is a question which to my mind remains to be ascertained. Is there a difficulty with ascertaining the answer?

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is simply untrue. I challenged one claim you made, and you substituted a quite different claim, not an expansion.

Eh, no, please read the posts in question again. In at least one of the possible cases mentioned an untoward level of decision making is involved.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Malfeasance involves doing something. You applied it to a failure to act. The definition you cite does not support your use of the term.

Sure it does, its exceptionally clear. If you deliberately didn't grab a child before they stepped in front of traffic, would you bear no responsibility for that child's death?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's bollocks. You have no case, and you are talking of sending civil servants to prison.

And what sanction would you apply given the circumstances I outlined? A paid suspension pending review?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's my time, and I am not minded to use it to satisfy your thoughtless whims.

And yet here we are.

randylonghorn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Good, a quick audit should sort that out. Also, you might well be surprised, the Dept of Finance doesn't generally employ economists, with a few exceptions. Well rounded individuals were deemed better suited to the task.

Well rounded individuals often predicted more accurately than many of the economists ... my father, who left school at 15, was predicting the crash for 3 years before it happened, and very accurately in some of the details and causes too, except that he, like most of us, under-estimated the sheer scale.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Journalists and academics have no ability to influence government decisions. The civil service demonstrably does. In one case, a willingness to continue to enact directions from the government given the clear disaster in the offing is no less damning than the other options. "Just following orders" is no excuse.

"Just following orders" is no excuse when the orders are unlawful (following Nuremberg, where it was held that respondeat superior was no defence when unlawful orders had been issued and obeyed blindly).

We have yet to see evidence of unlawful orders here though, unless you wish to put forward evidence?

Foolish orders, yes, and proven so in hindsight.

In fact, deriving from the Irish constitution and law, the Civil Service is charged with two principal tasks:

... to advise the government on policy

... to carry out policy decisions once made by the government.

I suspect that one of the few things which would seen as justifying firing a civil servant, even in the eyes of their unions, would be a flat refusal to carry out lawful orders.

Though in practice, they would probably be more likely to be shunted to the post of Principal Officer in charge of inspecting the Dáil toilets, if only to spare the government the embarrassment of a public furore.

Our system works on two principles:

(a) ministerial responsibility for government departments

(b) collective responsibility for decisions taken at cabinet.

Civil servants are not given the choice of carrying out only the policies they agree with.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

A massive property bubble always causes a massive collapse in its wake. This has always been the case, and it was apparent to anyone with a modicum of awareness that we were in a massive property bubble.

I agree.

Which to my mind proves primarily that Ahern, Cowan and their ilk don't have a modicum of awareness. Neither did the €4 million a year bwankers, or their highly-paid economic advisors. Nor the pussy-footed Regulator and his staff. Nor their developer cronies.

What advice, good or bad, was given by senior civil servants we don't know, and probably won't know until the documents are released under the 30 year rule. But they are the only group in there who constitutionally and legally don't have the freedom to act independently of their political masters.

Amhran Nua

randylonghorn wrote: »

Well rounded individuals often predicted more accurately than many of the economists

There is no excuse whatsoever for not having experts in the relevant fields advising the government on those fields. A "well rounded individual" almost certainly has no clue about the convoluted and often non intuitive science of economics.

randylonghorn wrote: »

"Just following orders" is no excuse when the orders are unlawful (following Nuremberg, where it was held that respondeat superior was no defence when unlawful orders had been issued and obeyed blindly).

And what happens when your employers are the ones who write the laws?

randylonghorn wrote: »

We have yet to see evidence of unlawful orders here though, unless you wish to put forward evidence?

As has been mentioned several times, I would certainly like to be in a position to investigate and then present evidence for or against.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Civil servants are not given the choice of carrying out only the policies they agree with.

If the guy driving the bus is aiming for a cliff, you have only yourself to blame for not breaking the rules of the road and stamping on the brakes.

randylonghorn wrote: »

What advice, good or bad, was given by senior civil servants we don't know, and probably won't know until the documents are released under the 30 year rule.

That depends on the willingness of an incoming government to conduct an investigation. However you slice it I have difficulty giving credence to the idea that the civil service is a suitable mechanism to provide the support that the government needs.

Mainly what I'd like to see would be a full investigation and the strong possibility of reform based on that.

randylonghorn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

There is no excuse whatsoever for not having experts in the relevant fields advising the government on those fields. A "well rounded individual" almost certainly has no clue about the convoluted and often non intuitive science of economics.

Personally, I'm skeptical about the idea that economics qualifies as a science. And I would back my intuition and a knowledge of history over their 'science' any day, and did, and don't have negative equity or a huge albatross of a mortgage hanging around my neck now.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And what happens when your employers are the ones who write the laws?

There is a difference between illegal and unlawful. Hitler wrote the laws too; didn't protect his senior aides from being held accountable.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

As has been mentioned several times, I would certainly like to be in a position to investigate and then present evidence for or against.

That depends on the willingness of an incoming government to conduct an investigation. However you slice it I have difficulty giving credence to the idea that the civil service is a suitable mechanism to provide the support that the government needs.

Mainly what I'd like to see would be a full investigation and the strong possibility of reform based on that.

Seems to me that you're on a witch-hunt.

The funny thing is that I've spent more than my fair share of time in my life fighting with civil servants, individually and in groups. They irritate the hell out of me a lot of the time; they're obsessed with the minutiae of rules and regulations, and long reports about reports about reports, and the system is as slow as fook. But much as they may annoy me, I have found that most (not all, but most) of them are well-intentioned and work hard, that some are very capable, even a few highly capable ones that I have encountered. I do think the *system* within which they work needs radical reform and modernisation to make it more efficient, but that's quite a different slant to the one you're taking.

As far as I can see you are just determined to scapegoat them for the mistakes of their political masters. Fianna Fail must love you ...

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... A glib response does not an arguent make...

Neither does changing one's claims while denying that one is doing so, nor does the making of unsubstantiated claims, nor those the use of innuendo, nor does the misapplication of legal terminology.

Trying to hang Bertie's infamous suicide remark on the civil service is a grotesque suggestion, indicative of -- well, I can't find an apt word for it.

You have absolutely no evidence that any civil servant has behaved improperly in relation to the onset of our economic problems, not an iota. You can't even produce a convincing reason why it should be pursued as a question. Taking note of the appetite of our tabloids for sensational stories, do you think if your claims had any foundation at all, they would not already have been looked into?

Amhran Nua

randylonghorn wrote: »

Personally, I'm skeptical about the idea that economics qualifies as a science.

There are some angry men in the economics forum that would like a word.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Seems to me that you're on a witch-hunt.

Yes but then again you think that a gut feeling will trump people who've been studying a subject for a large percentage of their adult lives too. To be honest though that's not fair, given the number of dodgy economist quotes from the boom, but remember, those were being paid in their capacity as PR officers rather than economists, officially or otherwise.

randylonghorn wrote: »

I do think the *system* within which they work needs radical reform and modernisation to make it more efficient, but that's quite a different slant to the one you're taking.

I appreciate that was posted in the wee hours of the morning, but if you have a look back over the thread, radical reform was mentioned more than once. If in the process of an investigation wrongdoing was found to have taken place, you're damn right there should be sanctions.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You have absolutely no evidence that any civil servant has behaved improperly in relation to the onset of our economic problems, not an iota. You can't even produce a convincing reason why it should be pursued as a question. Taking note of the appetite of our tabloids for sensational stories, do you think if your claims had any foundation at all, they would not already have been looked into?

To be honest the entirety of your comments on the matter have either been strawmen or glib, which when combined with a faith in the apparent omniscience of the tabloids (what, you think this is the UK?) and an inability to recall those times when the press did pick up a few stray threads, doesn't give me a lot of faith in your desire to constructively engage with the issue. Which isn't really a major concern, your permission will never be a requirement.

The monolithic block of self governing Civil Service employees is wedged into the system at many vital points, and all we have as an assurance that they aren't at least partially responsible for some of the damage is their word for it. Looking around me at the state of the country, I'm afraid to say thats just not good enough.

Even if every one of them can be held entirely blameless (and not taking action in certain cases does NOT absolve one of blame), the structure of the Civil Service needs to be rethought from the ground up.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... To be honest the entirety of your comments on the matter have either been strawmen or glib ...

The core of my argument is that you have made unsubstantiated claims, and you still have not substantiated them. You cannot reasonably allege with no proof that people did wrong, and then demand proof that they did not.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You cannot reasonably allege with no proof that people did wrong, and then demand proof that they did not.

I can however show that the existing situation raises some very serious questions over the role of the Civil Service in creating the problems the country faces today, and I have explained in as many words how that might be the case.

I can also say that I'd like to see an inquiry to establish when and if those responsible pointed out to the public representatives the carved-in-stone certainty that the country was being steered towards a disaster, and which public representatives discarded these reports, or if the whole group was just singing from the same hymn sheet while watching investment property values skyrocket. Or alternately, that the expertise to accurately predict such patently clear problems was simply absent.

Thats not neccessarily to say that most of the people involved in the present shambles are themselves corrupt individuals. It is to say that the actions of those involved are exactly what can be expected from those who are making decisions within a corrupt system.

In all cases reform of one sort or another is undoubtedly required.

P. Breathnach

randylonghorn wrote: »

...
The funny thing is that I've spent more than my fair share of time in my life fighting with civil servants, individually and in groups. They irritate the hell out of me a lot of the time; they're obsessed with the minutiae of rules and regulations, and long reports about reports about reports, and the system is as slow as fook. But much as they may annoy me, I have found that most (not all, but most) of them are well-intentioned and work hard, that some are very capable, even a few highly capable ones that I have encountered. I do think the *system* within which they work needs radical reform and modernisation to make it more efficient ...

I think that is very fair comment.

The problem is that when you ask why arrangements are elaborate and cumbersome, there are often very good (and sometimes convincing) explanations.

For example, if somebody is spending public money, it must be demonstrable that best value has been obtained. This can lead to apparent absurdities like incurring in-house costs of the order of €100+ in relation buying an item at a price of, say, €500. But if somebody comes along later and says that he could have supplied that item for €490, it can be a problem -- not so much about the €10 difference, but the fact that a potential supplier has not had an opportunity to quote for the business. In the private sector, there is no express or implied requirement to treat every potential supplier equally.

I am not advancing this as a case against reform, but to indicate that even if reformed, the public service probably needs to operate in different ways from the private sector.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I can however show that the existing situation raises some very serious questions over the role of the Civil Service in creating the problems the country faces today....

Then do it.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Then do it.

...and I have explained in as many words how that might be the case.

If or when you can manage a bit more involvement than quoting half a sentence, there might be some chance of taking what you're saying seriously.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If or when you can manage a bit more involvement than quoting half a sentence, there might be some chance of taking what you're saying seriously.

Just because you say you have made your case does not mean that you have done so. I have seen no evidence in support of any of your claims about the civil service.