Harney aims to cut 5000 staff from HSE??

sollar

How likely is it that out of the 28000 staff offered this vol redundancy/early retirement 5000 will take up this offer. Thats about 18% of staff.

Do people think this is likely, i'd say they'd be lucky to get 500??

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1101/hse.html

MagicSean

I'd say they'll jump at it. Many of them will know their jobs are at risk in some way. The prospect of a nice lump sum to keep you going until after the recession will be hard to look past.

mrgaa1

I'd hope they'd start the process with middle managers and such likes and leave the real workers alone.
I can see a nurse doing a managers job but the other way round???

MagicSean

mrgaa1 wrote: »

I'd hope they'd start the process with middle managers and such likes and leave the real workers alone.
I can see a nurse doing a managers job but the other way round???

Yeah they need to get rid of the middle management paper pushers. This is true to so many public services other than the HSE.

kelle

I know a few who are not far from retirement that are likely to take up this offer, and that's just in one small hospital. They all have around 30 years service done.

Riskymove

mrgaa1 wrote: »

I'd hope they'd start the process with middle managers and such likes and leave the real workers alone.

its aimed at admin, clerical and support not medical staff

dissed doc

Riskymove wrote: »

its aimed at admin, clerical and support not medical staff

Apart from full contract consultants, all medical staff work on a temporary basis and as such don't ever have such a thing as redundancy. They are short-term contracts with a specific end date only.

johnboy_123

This is fcuking disgraceful..I do not understand why the government cannot go in and fire people who are no longer needed, instead of offering redundancy a further cost...

Gumbo

johnboy_123 wrote: »

This is fcuking disgraceful..I do not understand why the government cannot go in and fire people who are no longer needed, instead of offering redundancy a further cost...

i would of thought that the employment laws are there to protect a worker no?
same reason why a private company cannot just walk in and fire some of its own staff.

Dirk Gently

k_mac wrote: »

I'd say they'll jump at it. Many of them will know their jobs are at risk in some way. The prospect of a nice lump sum to keep you going until after the recession will be hard to look past.

Not necessarily. It's aimed at 50 - 60 year olds and capped at 2 years wages?
The chances of being re-employed at that age are slim in the current climate and you're only going to get older while waiting for something to turn up.

If I was 50 I wouldn't be too keen to take 2 years pay knowing its unlikely I'll be earning wages again.

johnboy_123

kceire wrote: »

i would of thought that the employment laws are there to protect a worker no?
same reason why a private company cannot just walk in and fire some of its own staff.

employment law needs to be changed then. In the private sector if there is no work you are let go. If you are working and your scratching your hole your let go without redundancy

Saadyst

johnboy_123 wrote: »

employment law needs to be changed then. In the private sector if there is no work you are let go. If you are working and your scratching your hole your let go without redundancy

Eh? If you're hired as a permanent employee you're there until you're fired for being in breach of your contract, or you leave voluntarily, or you are made redundant.

Redundancy is what happens when there is no work to be done - hence the actual term, "redundant".

dan_d

Seems like a good idea in principle..but in practice?

Maybe for those very close to retirement age, but I'd be surprised if there were many people in there who would take the voluntary redundancy, unless they really loathe their job. Whatever about doctors and nurses (I get the impression the offer is not really open to them??), I can't imagine there are too many "middle management" workers who will leave voluntarily.

danbohan

kceire wrote: »

i would of thought that the employment laws are there to protect a worker no?
same reason why a private company cannot just walk in and fire some of its own staff.

what laws are their in place to protect the general population from been robbed blind by over paid and inefficient public servants ? . this is tinkering at the edges which seems to be all this government is capable of , what we need is 50000 public service redundancy's and 30% wage cuts across the board .by doing something along those lines the bond markets might take us serious, getting rid of 5000 geriatrics and not reducing the wages of the highest paid public service in the most bankrupt country in Europe will hardly have much impact , i am sure the IMF wont be so timid

sollar

dan_d wrote: »

Maybe for those very close to retirement age, but I'd be surprised if there were many people in there who would take the voluntary redundancy, unless they really loathe their job. Whatever about doctors and nurses (I get the impression the offer is not really open to them??), I can't imagine there are too many "middle management" workers who will leave voluntarily.

I think the same i can't see to many rushing to take it.

It would be good if they got the full 5000 rather than coming back in a year or so and forcing 5000 to go.

sollar

danbohan wrote: »

what laws are their in place to protect the general population from been robbed blind by over paid and inefficient public servants ? . this is tinkering at the edges which seems to be all this government is capable of , what we need is 50000 public service redundancy's and 30% wage cuts across the board .by doing something along those lines the bond markets might take us serious, getting rid of 5000 geriatrics and not reducing the wages of the highest paid public service in the most bankrupt country in Europe will hardly have much impact , i am sure the IMF wont be so timid

It looks like they are just starting with the HSE it will most likely be rolled out then to other areas.

johnboy_123

Saadyst wrote: »

Eh? If you're hired as a permanent employee you're there until you're fired for being in breach of your contract, or you leave voluntarily, or you are made redundant.

Redundancy is what happens when there is no work to be done - hence the actual term, "redundant".

The problem is that in the real world if a private company wants to get rid of you they can and there is little you can do about it. In the public sector you can do little or no work. Take as many sick days as you want...and as long as your in the union you wont be touched...The gov should send a proposal to all P.S/C.S workers and their respective bosses with a daily work requirement. For example - The dole office..A worker there should be able to process say 5 claims an hour. Say they work 7 hours. That way they must have 35 claims processed at the end of the day. If not they get a verbal warning....After 2 verbals its a writen and then its the sack no redundancies....Introduce this with simular measures and it will do 2 things it will route out the lazy fecks and sacke them without paying redundancy and it will also incentivise people to work...Too long have P.S workers worked on the basis of the Carrot. Its now time for the stick.

GSF

Is €80k a head enough to tempt these guys out of their nice little earners? Of course €80k is just the pay off. they still will get full pensions.

MagicSean

johnboy_123 wrote: »

The problem is that in the real world if a private company wants to get rid of you they can and there is little you can do about it. In the public sector you can do little or no work. Take as many sick days as you want...and as long as your in the union you wont be touched...The gov should send a proposal to all P.S/C.S workers and their respective bosses with a daily work requirement. For example - The dole office..A worker there should be able to process say 5 claims an hour. Say they work 7 hours. That way they must have 35 claims processed at the end of the day. If not they get a verbal warning....After 2 verbals its a writen and then its the sack no redundancies....Introduce this with simular measures and it will do 2 things it will route out the lazy fecks and sacke them without paying redundancy and it will also incentivise people to work...Too long have P.S workers worked on the basis of the Carrot. Its now time for the stick.

You can't quantify work like that though. What happens when you get a complicated application? You get fired for not doing a half assed job on it instead of keeping up your quota.

Saadyst

johnboy_123 wrote: »

The problem is that in the real world if a private company wants to get rid of you they can and there is little you can do about it. In the public sector you can do little or no work. Take as many sick days as you want...and as long as your in the union you wont be touched...The gov should send a proposal to all P.S/C.S workers and their respective bosses with a daily work requirement. For example - The dole office..A worker there should be able to process say 5 claims an hour. Say they work 7 hours. That way they must have 35 claims processed at the end of the day. If not they get a verbal warning....After 2 verbals its a writen and then its the sack no redundancies....Introduce this with simular measures and it will do 2 things it will route out the lazy fecks and sacke them without paying redundancy and it will also incentivise people to work...Too long have P.S workers worked on the basis of the Carrot. Its now time for the stick.

I'm not defending the PS or anything: I'm just saying that there are rules that protect private sector employees also.

I agree that once a company wants you out, you are in for a tough time - but if you are a permanent employee, you DO have rights. You can't just be told - sorry we don't need you anymore, here's your notice.

You get redundancy.

If you breach your contract, they can fire you. Companies usually have a disciplinary process in place however for this.

In that sense, I think there's probably a bunch of public sector employees that could be done for breach of contract (excessive sick days, not meeting targets etc) but it all has to follow process. The difference is, it seems that in the public sector it's a lot more difficult to begin this process (I would guess due to the unions being as they are). Whilst in the private sector... the process usually begins a lot quicker.

johnboy_123

k_mac wrote: »

You can't quantify work like that though. What happens when you get a complicated application? You get fired for not doing a half assed job on it instead of keeping up your quota.

So course you can quantify work like that...You can always measure performance against some yardstick. The problem is that there has never been such a measure introduced in the public sector....I am not saying it will be easy to implement. But for the majority it should be....I mean the example I gave...if say you had 10 workers in the dole office and 7/8 where processing say 30+ claims a day and the other 2/3 where processing less then 15 I would say they should be given a warning.

johnboy_123

Saadyst wrote: »

I'm not defending the PS or anything: I'm just saying that there are rules that protect private sector employees also.

I agree that once a company wants you out, you are in for a tough time - but if you are a permanent employee, you DO have rights. You can't just be told - sorry we don't need you anymore, here's your notice.

You get redundancy.

If you breach your contract, they can fire you. Companies usually have a disciplinary process in place however for this.

In that sense, I think there's probably a bunch of public sector employees that could be done for breach of contract (excessive sick days, not meeting targets etc) but it all has to follow process. The difference is, it seems that in the public sector it's a lot more difficult to begin this process (I would guess due to the unions being as they are). Whilst in the private sector... the process usually begins a lot quicker.

And what I am saying is that in the private sector what happens is that you get 3 strikes and your out no redundancies... I mean we are trying to save money after all...

No one in the public sector can complain. Under croker aggrement they have aggreed to become more productive...Well this is the way to go about it IMO

Saadyst

johnboy_123 wrote: »

And what I am saying is that in the private sector what happens is that you get 3 strikes and your out no redundancies... I mean we are trying to save money after all...

No one in the public sector can complain. Under croker aggrement they have aggreed to become more productive...Well this is the way to go about it IMO

I think we are actually both agreed in principle Personally I don't see why the public service was ever insulated from the "real world" type consequences in the first place.

MagicSean

johnboy_123 wrote: »

So course you can quantify work like that...You can always measure performance against some yardstick. The problem is that there has never been such a measure introduced in the public sector....I am not saying it will be easy to implement. But for the majority it should be....I mean the example I gave...if say you had 10 workers in the dole office and 7/8 where processing say 30+ claims a day and the other 2/3 where processing less then 15 I would say they should be given a warning.

So what about the complicated claims? They will be passed on from one to the other or sent away because noone wants to get stuck with one that causes them to fall behind. That kind of quantitative yard stick reduces quality.

RichardAnd

johnboy_123 wrote: »

So course you can quantify work like that...You can always measure performance against some yardstick. The problem is that there has never been such a measure introduced in the public sector....I am not saying it will be easy to implement. But for the majority it should be....I mean the example I gave...if say you had 10 workers in the dole office and 7/8 where processing say 30+ claims a day and the other 2/3 where processing less then 15 I would say they should be given a warning.

there has been attempts to measure performance implemented in the PS. It's called PMDS and it doesn't work.

The earlier suggestion that one must get 35 cases settled in a day or be sacked is adding more red tape to an organisation already crammed with it. It also makes little sense in reality as, just as was pointed out above, not every case will take the same amount of time.

To give a personal example of this. I used to work in a private archive and at one point, I was asked to catalogue letters from the 1800s. On the first two days of this task, I got through six folders, three each day. On the third day, I only got one folder complete. Why? Not be cause I was slacking but because the letters in question were badly damaged and not all in English thus I was greatly slowed down by these problems.

Human beings aren't machines constantly processing the same data file.

markpb

RichardAnd wrote: »

The earlier suggestion that one must get 35 cases settled in a day or be sacked is adding more red tape to an organisation already crammed with it. It also makes little sense in reality as, just as was pointed out above, not every case will take the same amount of time.

There is where good management comes in. It's not necessarily to say people who fail to achieve 35 files per day will be fired, just that people who fail to reach reasonable standards or who is consistently slower than their colleagues (though this is open to abuse too). If a manager is aware that someone is dealing with a problem case, they will know not to take it into account.

unit 1

johnboy_123 wrote: »

This is fcuking disgraceful..I do not understand why the government cannot go in and fire people who are no longer needed, instead of offering redundancy a further cost...

You really don't like ps workers do you.
There is nothing unusual about this deal even in the private sector. For example a few short years ago a mnc beside me gave voluntary to about 50 people @ 7 weeks per years service and guess what?, yup most of them are working for them again although in a different guise.
In fact another mnc beside (a different one) me also announced voluntary redundancies recently and some of their staff are expecting a similar deal to one previously which also offered about 7 weeks per years service.
Redundancy deals like this (some in fact better) do happen in the private sector you'll just have to get over it.

dan_d

Of course deals like this happen.The bit that annoys me right now is that I hear the unions saying 2 weeks isn't enough time to consider this deal and apply for it....yes it is.That's what I got, working for a private sector company. A company that trreated me very well, and offered a similar package to this.This is the real world....we got 2 weeks to consider it (and it was extended when lots of people were interested, by a week), and then the application was approved and we arranged a finishing date.
The unions are beginning to show their hands now....they are relatively powerless in the face of a government who are being pushed into making these decisions, so they are quibbling over things like this.To be honest, this is the real world.....that's how it works for so many people out here other people out here. Reality has to start coming into the PS, we can't afford to kepep running it the way we hhave been.

HollyB

dan_d wrote: »

Of course deals like this happen.The bit that annoys me right now is that I hear the unions saying 2 weeks isn't enough time to consider this deal and apply for it....yes it is.That's what I got, working for a private sector company. A company that trreated me very well, and offered a similar package to this.This is the real world....we got 2 weeks to consider it (and it was extended when lots of people were interested, by a week), and then the application was approved and we arranged a finishing date.

It's a big decision. Anybody who decides to go for it will be aware of the possibility that they may not get another job for a long time so it's not something they're going to jump into. Those with spouses will want to discuss it with them, do the math to find out if they should go for it, some might want to look into their employment options outside the HSE if they accept the deal, etc.

If somebody isn't sure, then I would imagine that putting them under pressure to decide within a couple of weeks would make them less likely to accept.

Surely it's better for the government to give people time to consider and, hopefully, for them to get the number of applicants they want, than to have people feeling scared and deciding against it, when they might have gone for it if they had more time to weigh their options.

ART6

Instead of all the media hysteria perhaps we should think about this (and I am a director of an SME in the private sector with no PS contracts).

Let's suppose I am a 30 year old who joined the public sector when I got my leaving cert. It seemed like a job at the time. Since then I have risen through the ranks, and I now work in the admin department of a major hospital. I have a wife and children, and a vastly inflated mortgage. I have a secure pension fund, but I am too young to see the value of that. Now I am threatened with redundancy. Who out there is going to want to hire a thirty year old hospital administrator? My pension fund will not provide a living wage in thirty years time.

Let's now suppose I am a fifty year old. I have worked in the PS for thirty years in the HSE. Yes, I knew that in the last few years there has been far too much duplication of effort, too many people doing the same job to achieved obscure government targets etc. That was not as a result of my management although I accept that my union has a case to answer. But if I accept redundancy, where do I go next? The private sector health industry is not exactly screaming for fifty year old PS administrators is it?

In either case I look towards the head of my organisation for leadership, and I find Minister Harney, and I find that the whole business is not her responsibility. No-one tells me whose responsibility it actually is, so I am expected to make a decision on my future and that of my family with no useful information at all.

I joined the HSE because it was an attractive job and I had sufficient leaving certs to qualify. Of course the terms were attractive -- who applies for a job where they aren't? The pension system was a good deal if I stayed long enough, and the pay was better than I would get (eventually) in the accounts department of a company. Isn't that why anyone applies for a job?

Now, suddenly, the country is in deep s**t and it's my fault for accepting a salary that my private sector colleagues could not command -- but I didn't set those salary levels. I just took advantage of them as an employee. Who doesn't?

So where do we look to "save Ireland?" Who is to blame and who is to lead the recovery while we are all distracted in beating the s**T out of the public sector?

Let's face it for once. It isn't going to be Cowen and Lenihan or Harney or Gormley, or any of the posturing members of what is laughingly called the "opposition". I am not a politician, but I do understand basic economics which state that if one continues to spend more than one earns one will go bust eventually. I do understand that any employee spending more than he earns can't simply expect his employer to pay up the difference, although that is what the government seems to expect. Instead, the employee must cut his costs to meet his income.

The greedy, incompetent and blustering idiots in the Dail won't do that. They will go to their employers and take the money from them whether they like it or not, even if many of the employers simply can't afford it. They will do that because they haven't the guts to abolish all the wasteful quangos, or absorb the disastrous HSE into the Department of Health where it should be. They will not suffer the loss of their limousines and their chauffeurs, or their government jet, their bloated expenses and their excessive salaries. They will not demand that ministers actually start doing the jobs they are paid for. Instead they will reduce or eliminate the already poor services that the people rely upon. They will rob the poor, the sick, and the elderly. They will hit the families already struggling to pay their way without jobs and with little future. They will do that because that is all they can comprehend.

I think there is a solution, but whether it will happen or not is open to question. Step one is that the government loses the vote on the budget in December, and a new government is formed. That will almost certainly be another coalition just as misguided as the current one, and the nation's finances will continue down the black hole they have dug with such enthusiasm. Eventually in the face of public outrage and national bankruptcy that government will also fail. Then, hopefully, a few competent TDs from across the parties (surely there must be some?) will form a new party and enter government with, finally, a resolve to ruthlessly attack government waste and properly regulate the financial industry. Perhaps even a government where ministers actually know their jobs and, for once, do them without needing rafts of agencies and advisers.

*End of rant*

bamboozle

Ivan Yeats on Newstalk gave the example of a HSE Manager earning 100k PA, his redundancy payment would be twice their salary plus 150k plus a pension of 38k PA. that amounts to 350k (which i presume is tax free) plus a pension of 38k PA for the rest of their life..

if these figures are correct we'll have no problem filling 5000 redundancies.

Some HR guy from HSE saying there would be no disturbance to services..then also couldnt justify what these 5000 roles are currently doing.

Apparently there are over 2000 people working in HR alone in the HSE..incredible

Mister men

bamboozle wrote: »

Ivan Yeats on Newstalk gave the example of a HSE Manager earning 100k PA, his redundancy payment would be twice their salary plus 150k plus a pension of 38k PA. that amounts to 350k (which i presume is tax free) plus a pension of 38k PA for the rest of their life..

if these figures are correct we'll have no problem filling 5000 redundancies.

Some HR guy from HSE saying there would be no disturbance to services..then also couldnt justify what these 5000 roles are currently doing.

Apparently there are over 2000 people working in HR alone in the HSE..incredible

Shocking

deise blue

Mister men wrote: »

Shocking

Not only shocking but totally incorrect !

You can either avail of the redundancy package of in terms of the example quoted a total of€200,000 or a pro rata pension in terms of years of service plus a similar pro rata lump sum but not both as suggested by Mr. Yates.

His comments may have been misunderstood or his research is faulty.

Riskymove

bamboozle wrote: »

if these figures are correct we'll have no problem filling 5000 redundancies.

its always easy to pick the person who would recieve the most as an example

somehow I dont think the 5,000 people will be on €100k

Some HR guy from HSE saying there would be no disturbance to services..then also couldnt justify what these 5000 roles are currently doing.

Apparently there are over 2000 people working in HR alone in the HSE..incredible

it goes back again to the Great Bertie....forming the HSE without a single redundancy...everyoine could see there was duplication of layers

Mountjoy Mugger

bamboozle wrote: »

Ivan Yeats on Newstalk gave the example of a HSE Manager earning 100k PA, his redundancy payment would be twice their salary plus 150k plus a pension of 38k PA. that amounts to 350k (which i presume is tax free) plus a pension of 38k PA for the rest of their life..

if these figures are correct we'll have no problem filling 5000 redundancies.

Some HR guy from HSE saying there would be no disturbance to services..then also couldnt justify what these 5000 roles are currently doing.

Apparently there are over 2000 people working in HR alone in the HSE..incredible

Nothing like hearing what you want to hear, eh?

Are each of these earning €100k p.a.?

For an actual breakdown of what these people are entitled to for early retirement, the HSE have info here (Class D) and here for Class A PRSI.

Redundancy ready reckoners are found here.

You only get one or the other, by the way. And as for tax, if you are liable for tax, you'll pay it. Not like some in the private sector.

bamboozle

deise blue wrote: »

Not only shocking but totally incorrect !

You can either avail of the redundancy package of in terms of the example quoted a total of€200,000 or a pro rata pension in terms of years of service plus a similar pro rata lump sum but not both as suggested by Mr. Yates.

His comments may have been misunderstood or his research is faulty.

thanks for clarifying that, there'd have been no-one left in the HSE if Newtalk's figures were correct.

dan_d

HollyB wrote: »

It's a big decision. Anybody who decides to go for it will be aware of the possibility that they may not get another job for a long time so it's not something they're going to jump into. Those with spouses will want to discuss it with them, do the math to find out if they should go for it, some might want to look into their employment options outside the HSE if they accept the deal, etc.

If somebody isn't sure, then I would imagine that putting them under pressure to decide within a couple of weeks would make them less likely to accept.

Surely it's better for the government to give people time to consider and, hopefully, for them to get the number of applicants they want, than to have people feeling scared and deciding against it, when they might have gone for it if they had more time to weigh their options.

While I understand your point, I should have explained that my background is construction (on the management side). Therefore, I took the option while knowing that I haven't a hope in hell of getting another job in my field. I have a mortgage, and I had a number of other things (financial) that had to be seriously taken into account when making this decision.

The company I worked for were very clear that you could approach senior management, ask them any questions about it, and they accommodated everyone in whatever ways they could. 2 weeks or 6 weeks doesn't make much of a difference in these things - you have to stop, sit down and thing about it, and whether you do that in the middle of week one, or the middle of week six probably won't change your decision.

I suppose my point is that the unions shouldn't really have anything to say in this - it's a reasonable offer. Their only input should be to offer people whatever advice they can regarding tax/social welfare etc (which my company actually went off and compiled, to send out to people, after the same questions kept coming up), instead of coming onto the radio and saying that people will have to go and contact all these places themselves.

I also have to agree with Art6. And based on what he's written, I'm not sure that they will achieve 5000 "redundancies" this way. As I said earlier in this thread, I can't imagine there are too many people at clerical and admin level in the HSE, particularly of an older age, that will be willing to give up their positions this easily. And as for those in their 30's who went straight in after school - without trying to offend anybody, if they leave, they will find it incredibly difficult to find a job. Asides from the lack of college qualifications (which is important to the majority of employers these days), the transition from public to private would be very difficult for a lot of them.

I'll reserve judgement on the whole thing until I see some results. As I said before, I think in theory it's an okay idea, but in practice, I'm not sure it will have much effect. But then, I could be proven wrong....

ednwireland

ART6 wrote: »

The greedy, incompetent and blustering idiots in the Dail won't do that. They will go to their employers and take the money from them whether they like it or not, even if many of the employers simply can't afford it. They will do that because they haven't the guts to abolish all the wasteful quangos, or absorb the disastrous HSE into the Department of Health where it should be. They will not suffer the loss of their limousines and their chauffeurs, or their government jet, their bloated expenses and their excessive salaries. They will not demand that ministers actually start doing the jobs they are paid for. Instead they will reduce or eliminate the already poor services that the people rely upon. They will rob the poor, the sick, and the elderly. They will hit the families already struggling to pay their way without jobs and with little future. They will do that because that is all they can comprehend.
*End of rant*

couldnt agree more

as to the redundancies, not before time, the only thing i can say about them is why werent they done in 2005 when the HSE was formed.

the only thing i can think of is that mary harney couldnt be bothered (she has been minister for health since 2004 after all

Nody

danbohan wrote: »

what laws are their in place to protect the general population from been robbed blind by over paid and inefficient public servants ?

In general terms the law is known as "voting".

SeaFields

/conspiracy hat on

Would there be any reason to think that there is a tax coming in the budget on redundancy payments* if they are trying to push this through in such a short time frame? That they may want it sorted before any tax announced in the budget could affect the amount of staff willing to take it up?

*I believe these are tax free at the mo?

Nody

SeaFields wrote: »

*I believe these are tax free at the mo?

Only up to a certain amount and any one taking the deal would exceed it (short of someone doing a redundancy after a year or similar).

johnboy_123

k_mac wrote: »

So what about the complicated claims? They will be passed on from one to the other or sent away because noone wants to get stuck with one that causes them to fall behind. That kind of quantitative yard stick reduces quality.

Well the basic fact is that every employee of the public service should be responsible for some work. What ever that is..Weather its a guard on the street with his speed gun...or a paper pusher..Guards can be measured on teh amount of people they have arrested, given tickets to..The speed they arrive for a call.

paper pushers can be measured against the amount of paper they have pushed...Its not that complicated...There are more managers in the P.S who if given the directive of you must yardstick and measure those who report into you..or you will be fired. It will trickle down to everyone..It needs to start from the top do?

johnboy_123

RichardAnd wrote: »

there has been attempts to measure performance implemented in the PS. It's called PMDS and it doesn't work.

The earlier suggestion that one must get 35 cases settled in a day or be sacked is adding more red tape to an organisation already crammed with it. It also makes little sense in reality as, just as was pointed out above, not every case will take the same amount of time.

To give a personal example of this. I used to work in a private archive and at one point, I was asked to catalogue letters from the 1800s. On the first two days of this task, I got through six folders, three each day. On the third day, I only got one folder complete. Why? Not be cause I was slacking but because the letters in question were badly damaged and not all in English thus I was greatly slowed down by these problems.

Human beings aren't machines constantly processing the same data file.

Well can I ask you were you even quizzed as to why there was a differential in your work..The point being if you were you had a valid excuse so no verbal warning for you??? Its this hard nosed short sighted no we dont want to be measured for our work is the reason why the P.S is hated at the moment. The unions have said they will try and be more productive. How can they claim this when they cannot measure productivity and the employees themself do not want to be measured?

djpbarry

mrgaa1 wrote: »

I'd hope they'd start the process with middle managers and such likes and leave the real workers alone.
I can see a nurse doing a managers job but the other way round???

So every nurse is brilliant at their job and needs to be retained, while every manager is surplus to requirements? Seems a little unlikely, don’t you think?

johnboy_123

unit 1 wrote: »

You really don't like ps workers do you.
There is nothing unusual about this deal even in the private sector. For example a few short years ago a mnc beside me gave voluntary to about 50 people @ 7 weeks per years service and guess what?, yup most of them are working for them again although in a different guise.
In fact another mnc beside (a different one) me also announced voluntary redundancies recently and some of their staff are expecting a similar deal to one previously which also offered about 7 weeks per years service.
Redundancy deals like this (some in fact better) do happen in the private sector you'll just have to get over it.

I wouldnt say that..I have lots of friends and a brother who are all P.S workers....My problem is that even without the banking crisis we were borrowing just as much over the last 5 years to pay the wages? It cannot be sustained. I think there are lots of people in the P.S doing a good job and I feel for them that they are lumped in with the lazy sh1ts doing nothing...But we cannot afford the wage...we are pigeon holed in with the CP aggreement and now I am asking why cant productivity be measured as stated all work no matter what it is can be measured...The 3 strike rule would as stated do 2 things it would worm out the inefficient lazy workers or incentivise them to work.

Your fact about an MNC has no bearing that didnt cost me or any other tax payer any money?

Floppybits

Lets face it this should have been done when the HSE was formed, if it had been done then, I would have said there would be no problem getting people to take the redundancy, as at that time there was a good jobs market out there and many of those who would have took redundancy would have found jobs fairly quickly. However doing it now, while it is necessary, I dont think they will get the numbers, especially with the jobs market the way it is. I can see a lot of young people maybe taking this up especially if they are planning on emigrating. It would be a nice little lump sum for someone looking to leave the country.

On the 3 weeks for every year that seems a bit small to me. When I was made redundant I was on 6 weeks for every year worked.

As for just going in firing people, that is not possible, the only way you can be fired is if you are breaching contract. It doesn't happen in the private sector, if there is no work you are made redundant and given a package, so why should it be different for the staff of the HSE, they weren't the ones that made the decision not to make anyone redundant when it was formed and as I have said above I would say a lot of people would have jumped at the chance of redundancy when the HSE was formed.

johnboy_123

Floppybits wrote: »

Lets face it this should have been done when the HSE was formed, if it had been done then, I would have said there would be no problem getting people to take the redundancy, as at that time there was a good jobs market out there and many of those who would have took redundancy would have found jobs fairly quickly. However doing it now, while it is necessary, I dont think they will get the numbers, especially with the jobs market the way it is. I can see a lot of young people maybe taking this up especially if they are planning on emigrating. It would be a nice little lump sum for someone looking to leave the country.

On the 3 weeks for every year that seems a bit small to me. When I was made redundant I was on 6 weeks for every year worked.

As for just going in firing people, that is not possible, the only way you can be fired is if you are breaching contract. It doesn't happen in the private sector, if there is no work you are made redundant and given a package, so why should it be different for the staff of the HSE, they weren't the ones that made the decision not to make anyone redundant when it was formed and as I have said above I would say a lot of people would have jumped at the chance of redundancy when the HSE was formed.

it does happen in the private sector...Most private sector companies have a 3 strike rule 2 verbal warnings then a written and then you out

doolox

I think that the public versus private debate was started by the Journalists in certain newspapers to divide the Irish nation in order to conquer it.
A tactic typical of Julius Caesar and other despots.

I worked in private sector all my life, no unions and very little power over my pay and conditions, sometimes good when labour was scarce and sometimes bad when jobs were scarce.

My wife worked in public sector all her life and does some work in the private sector, certain things about which shock her. She recently received notices about pay-cuts in her private sector employment and the speed of the cuts and lack of preliminary discussions shocked her.
In my employments there would be at least a few weeks preliminary discussions and "roll-outs" and meetings to test the general mood but the decisions would be made with little debate or chance of refusal from the shop-floor.
Each side have their good points and bad points. Each side is trying to make a living and raise a family decently against the odds. Each side needs to pull together in order to rise above the negativity and sectoral bickering that passes for political comment in Ireland.
I will be surprised if the govt secure the 5,000 redundancies needed, unless there are 5,000 over 60's in the HSE

Floppybits

johnboy_123 wrote: »

it does happen in the private sector...Most private sector companies have a 3 strike rule 2 verbal warnings then a written and then you out

Johnboy, the 3 strike rule only comes in in the private sector when their are problems with an employee such as behaviour unbecoming or performance problems or inability to do the job, in the case of the HSE there is no performance measure and each person was guaranteed their job when the HSE was formed and therefore sacking each person is not the right way to go about this. As I said earlier this redundancy should have happened when the HSE was formed, similar to what happens when 2 companies come together, they have redundancies.

sollar

doolox wrote: »

I will be surprised if the govt secure the 5,000 redundancies needed, unless there are 5,000 over 60's in the HSE

Yeah i would be surprised if they get any more than between 500 and 1000.

It just wouldn't be attractive at all to the lower grades. And they need to factor in that many won't want to retire anyway some people enjoy their jobs and don't want the life of leisure.

Nody

Floppybits wrote: »

On the 3 weeks for every year that seems a bit small to me. When I was made redundant I was on 6 weeks for every year worked.

Two weeks is statutory minimum...

As for just going in firing people, that is not possible, the only way you can be fired is if you are breaching contract. It doesn't happen in the private sector, if there is no work you are made redundant and given a package, so why should it be different for the staff of the HSE, they weren't the ones that made the decision not to make anyone redundant when it was formed and as I have said above I would say a lot of people would have jumped at the chance of redundancy when the HSE was formed.

Simple offer; 3 weeks per year if they resign, statutory minimum if they don't and their positions are made redundant.