Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Civil Service Redundancies

  • 22-10-2010 7:15pm
    #1
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭


    I wonder is the stomach there to actually do this?

    Clearly at the lower levels its vastly overmanned.


Comments

  • #2
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,934 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Compulsory redundancies are something I just can't see happening directly, rather the PS will be reduced by "natural wastage", by non renewal of contracts, voluntary redundancy and other such means. It won't be pretty, it won't be efficient and it certainly won't be cheap but this is Ireland and that's how things tend to be.


  • #3
    mrsbouquet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 173 ✭✭mrsbouquet


    I would think overmanned at the higher levels .


  • #4
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    seemly Dublin City Council lost 1000 staff from retirement, non replacement and termination of contracts since the beginning of 2009. 6500 staff down to 5500 ive been told and they expect to lose at least 500 more next year.


  • #5
    chelseavera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 590 ✭✭✭chelseavera


    mrsbouquet wrote: »
    I would think overmanned at the higher levels .
    + 1 ... YOU SAID IT!!!


  • #6
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    I would disagree, most of the higher levels would have joined in the 70's, and will be retiring shortly, the boomtime recrutiment flooded it with clerical staff.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,226 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    mrsbouquet wrote: »
    I would think overmanned at the higher levels .

    I would have said it is overmanned at the middle management level. The unions negotiated deals whereby there was a minimum number of promotions very year it the civil service. This meant that people got token promotions, basically their job title and pay grade changed but their duties and responsibilities did not. There is a disproportionally high number of people with "management" or similar titles even though they do nothing of the sort. The number of managers went up despite the fact that there was no increase in the number of people to be managed. It appears to me that the hardest working in the civil service are those in front line services and lower level positions, yet they get the lowest pay. If they are going to force redundancies then they should purge the middle management level to get it back to acceptable levels and they should introduce limits to prevent this from happening again, ie 1 manager per x number of staff.


Advertisement