HSE fails to meet redundancy target

RichardAnd

I'm unsure if people have taken notice of this but it's worth mentioning. For those with not the time to ready the article, the cusp of the matter is that the actual voluntary redundancies in the HSE fell 50% short of that was expected/required.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1220/hse.html

My own opinion on this matter:

I'm not at all surprised the number of redundancies fell short, given the way things are. Further, the staff vacating many of the posts within the HSE would find it very difficult to secure a new job and in fact, I would wager that five years in the HSE as an administrator is more a hindrance to finding work than useful experience.

Unlike many a petulant, spiteful and bitter poster (of which there are many on these boards), I have no desire to see PS workers put out of a job. I find it impossible to fathom how anyone with any humanity could actually be pleased to public servants being forced into unemployment but, sadly that seems to be a darker shade of human nature. Better to go to the gallows with some company perhaps?

However, as a man of the world, I know all too well that the HSE is a quagmire of waste. Croke Park deal or not, I am almost certain that compulsory redundancies will take place in the HSE. And also, despite my misgivings on the matter, I am very much of the opinion that compulsory redundancies are very necessary in the HSE. I would take little joy in seeing it happen however.

bamboozle

on the plus side this would equate to savings of about 100m a year if it was 200m a year they were expecting to save if fully subscribed.

Sleepy

This could be a good thing.

A: Given that voluntary redundancies are almost always offered at more generous terms than compulsory ones it might cost the state less to remove some of the unnecessary staff

B: Compulsory redundancies can be used far more effectively to target the dead weight and or unnecessary positions, helping us keep the most productive staff.

To be honest, I don't agree with Croke Park in the first place. I see no more reason for Public Sector workers to be re-deployed (or even kept on indefinitely) when their positions are made redundant than I do for it in the Private Sector.

If there's an equivalent post which attracts a smiliar salary available in another part of the organisation, that's fantastic but I don't see any benefit to trying to force square, or even oblong, pegs into round holes. Particularly when round pegs can be obtained more cheaply.

The notion of a job-for-life is all but gone in the Private Sector. It's time that this was made the case in the Public Sector too. It would be nice to see a standard agreed rate of redundancy to be applied in both sectors too. Statutory as it is when the organisation in question is ceasing to exist and something higher where the organisation will continue to opearate and the redundancies are "merely" strategic. Anything after that to be entirely at the discretion of the employer and not applicable to the public sector (given that the goodwill being bought in paying higher than this is simply a government minister using taxpayers money to attempt to placate voters - for a commercial organisation any payments above statutory are done as an attempt to maintain the goodwill of it's customer base and thus a valid marketing exercise rather than a sop to a union.).

Cookie_Monster

just like every other HSE target

dan_d

The thing is, the HSE were never going to meet this target.Ever.

Realistically, if you were a clerical worker/management/admin in the HSE, would you give up your job in this climate? The likelihood is that a large proportion of those people entered straight from school and have done little or no further training since.So they have an LC, and a background in the public sector admin - given the state of the jobs market today, it's very,very unlikely they have a hope in hell of getting another job, particularly in the private sector.

So you're down to those who are heading for retirement age, and possibly those who have come in from abroad (Philippines, etc) and who could take a lump sum like that and go home with it.And most of them are medical staff - I don't think the offer was open to them.

Do you see where I'm going with this? No way were they ever going to meet that target.I agree with you in that I don't want to see people without a job either, but we seriously have to do something, because we just cannot afford (literally) to continue like this.About the only way we could would be to start cutting salaries to consultants and high level managers, so the money is still available to give to these people. And that's one battle the Gov won't fight.


So realistically, we're back to square one. I've no idea where they go from here. I know what I'd do, but it's definitely not what the Gov would do!

deise blue

I don't envy the people charged with formulating the HSE early retirement/voluntary redundancy scheme ( or any comparable scheme ) , the difficulty is finding a happy medium between cost savings and providing a scheme favourable to sufficient applicants to meet job loss targets.

The Government and the HSE in terms of the low take up of the current scheme have clearly failed to hit that happy medium.

Given the fact that this scheme is likely to be the template for the further voluntary redundancy schemes coming down the line it appears a major rethink is warranted - perhaps an improvements in terms ?

Welease

deise blue wrote: »

perhaps an improvements in terms ?

Or mandatory redundancies.

deise blue

Welease wrote: »

Or mandatory redundancies.

Not allowed under the Croke Park Agreement , which agreement sems to have IMF approval and of course the Labour party and FG have said they will honour same.

Welease

deise blue wrote: »

Not allowed under the Croke Park Agreement , which agreement sems to have IMF approval and of course the Labour party and FG have said they will honour same.

As long as targets are met...

sollar

Welease wrote: »

Or mandatory redundancies.

This would be possible if the croke park agreement is scrapped. They would most likely attack pay at the same time.

At the min thousands of ps staff are taking on work left behind by retiring staff this would all cease if croke park is torn up and a fairly substantial campaign of industrial action would take place.

Maybe the next government might welcome that though.

Welease

sollar wrote: »

This would be possible if the croke park agreement is scrapped. They would most likely attack pay at the same time.

At the min thousands of ps staff are taking on work left behind by retiring staff this would all cease if croke park is torn up and a fairly substantial campaign of industrial action would take place.

Maybe the next government might welcome that though.

/shrug .. thats what happens if you have an agreement that protects swathes of unnecessary staff and waste in organisations like the HSE.. everyone else in that org must share the burden, fair or not.

If the HSE had made modernisations and rationalisations promised and required (for a well run organisation) years ago the requirement for cuts now would be minimal.

deise blue

Welease wrote: »

As long as targets are met...

Let's hope so because the last thing we want to see is PS salaries reduced with the consequent Private Sector job losses due to further reduced spending - am I right ?

RichardAnd

deise blue wrote: »

Let's hope so because the last thing we want to see is PS salaries reduced with the consequent Private Sector job losses due to further reduced spending - am I right ?

Most people on these boards don't have that manner of foresight. As I said in my original post, few wish to walk to the gallows alone.

Welease

deise blue wrote: »

Let's hope so because the last thing we want to see is PS salaries reduced with the consequent Private Sector job losses due to further reduced spending - am I right ?

You seem to want to provoke another pointless PS vs PrS arguement.... Forgive me if I don't oblige..

Anyone losing their job is bad for the economy, but continuing to borrow heavily to fund overstaffed areas is not an answer either. If the HSE can hit the targets set by the government etc. then they should be applauded. If not, then by all accounts the pressure will be ratcheted up.

sollar

I'm disappointed that more didn't take up the offer.

deise blue

Welease wrote: »

You seem to want to provoke another pointless PS vs PrS arguement.... Forgive me if I don't oblige..

Anyone losing their job is bad for the economy, but continuing to borrow heavily to fund overstaffed areas is not an answer either. If the HSE can hit the targets set by the government etc. then they should be applauded. If not, then by all accounts the pressure will be ratcheted up.

I think you are being slightly paranoid.

It certainly was not my intention to provoke an inter sectoral row.

As a private sector worker for all my working life I'm merely pointing out that I would prefer to see savings made by other methods than pay cuts in the Public Sector.

Equally I think that any future Government will have to rethink the terms of future redundancy schemes to achieve job loss targets.

RGS

The target was never going to be met. The time frame to make such a life changing decision was too short.

The HSE deal was drawn up in haste and not properly thought out--a bit like decentralisation.

Welease

deise blue wrote: »

I think you are being slightly paranoid.

It certainly was not my intention to provoke an inter sectoral row.

Not paranoid, just bored of the general level of discussion in here.. I (wrongly) assumed that by specifically calling out private sector jobs in your post you were going down that (well trodden) route

deise blue wrote: »

As a private sector worker for all my working life I'm merely pointing out that I would prefer to see savings made by other methods than pay cuts in the Public Sector.

I think most sensible people would have rather seen that.. Since I started posting here I am have been making the same point that the cuts could have been drastically minimised by embracing and forcing change through the system, but as it has taken so long and various avenues were closed (by the CP agreement) the end result is that large amount of cost saving would have to come from pay cuts, as that was always going to be one of the few options left.. Subsequently we now seem to be left with the removal of large amounts of contracted front line staff and services while the Admin sections remain overloaded.. A poor solution by any standards.

deise blue wrote: »

Equally I think that any future Government will have to rethink the terms of future redundancy schemes to achieve job loss targets.

And that is where we probably disagree on options I think the time has come to start looking at options such as mandatory redundancy (and all the turmoil that that would entail), and hiring in necessary areas. The funds/time is simply not their to keep going for low impact solutions to problems.

deise blue

I think that " turmoil " is too gentle a word for what may possibly occur if further pay cuts are imposed on the Public Sector - anarchy might possibly prove to be more accurate given the level of pain imposed across every sector by the most recent budget.

Even the IMF seem to be cognisant of this fact and hopefully with a new Government featuring a significant Labour voice all othe avenues other than pay cuts will be explored.

mistermouse

Doubt there are any nurses, frontline staff that disagree with a total shaving of the HSE.

If the HSE were a company it would have been bankrupt and closed years ago.

The state should look at changing legistation, fire everyone and rehire under new contracts without hiring the waste management and putting an empahsis on frontline essential services.

Thats what happens when a receiver comes into a company. Everyones gone and rehired within hours where necessary with some then hired sub contracting under serious conditions. Its happening in every receivership in Ireland yet the PS are protected

The country is bankrupt, therefore so are all its institutions. Time it was faced up to and dealt with

femur61

deise blue wrote: »

Not allowed under the Croke Park Agreement , which agreement sems to have IMF approval and of course the Labour party and FG have said they will honour same.

The IMF/EU has given them 9 months to meet their agreed targets under the CPA. If not met one of the conditions of funding the country is the targets are reached.

Nightwish

I've been working on the scheme over the past 6 weeks. The level of interest, initially was quite high and people were genuinely looking to leave. The budget seemed to have scared a lot of people and then the very short time frame in which people had to change their minds was a huge factor. Redundancy was really only an option where someone had a spouse/partner in employment, as the severance payment generally didnt even equate to a years salary (despite what the meeja had people believe).

Idbatterim

Let's hope so because the last thing we want to see is PS salaries reduced with the consequent Private Sector job losses due to further reduced spending - am I right ?

Is this sarcasm?

keithcan

mistermouse wrote: »

fire everyone and rehire under new contracts without hiring the waste management and putting an empahsis on frontline essential services.

The above is a recurring theme in posts and, with all due respect, it just doesn't stack up. Can it really always be so simple that being a manager or administrator in the HSE = a waster and, in contrast, being "frontline" = working hard??

Anyone seen a lazy nurse? I defo have. Is it possible that some (non-frontline) managers are hard-working and committed and fully earning their wage? Surely by the laws of averages it must be.

I'd suggest a different focus, one that to me as a public servant (not in HSE) is the key challenge that often appears to get missed by those hostile to the PS and, I have to say, gets ducked by a lot of public servants: all public service managers have to grow a pair and manage properly. We need to right to sack people. These two linked issues are absolutely essential if we are to improve/reform the PS. The standard of management is the PS that I have seen is dreadful. My belief on the HSE is that it grew so rapidly in the last 10 years that people without the competencies got (too) rapidly promoted - frontline and back office - and are not able for it and are wrecking the place.

deise blue

Idbatterim wrote: »

Let's hope so because the last thing we want to see is PS salaries reduced with the consequent Private Sector job losses due to further reduced spending - am I right ?

Is this sarcasm?

Certainly not , as I pointed out in a later post my entire working life has been spent in the Private Sector.

Like all parties to the Croke Park Agreement I would like to see savings made by efficiencies , voluntary parting and natural wastage rather than by pay cuts.

Such non pay related savings would have far less impact on Private Sector jobs purely from a consumer spend point of view.

johnnyskeleton

deise blue wrote: »

Let's hope so because the last thing we want to see is PS salaries reduced with the consequent Private Sector job losses due to further reduced spending - am I right ?

In absolute terms, yes it will lead to less spending.

However, in relative terms I'm not so sure. AFAIK, tax increases usually have a greater negative impact on spending than pay cuts, so it is better for the overall economy to cut ps pay levels than to increase taxes (which is a de facto pay cut for the ps anyway).

In any event, I accept that both cuts in expenditure and increases in taxes are necessary.