FAS giving pay hikes without assessing staff work

n97 mini

Not news to me as my pay rises were never subject to a PMDS performance review by my PS boss either. But considering all the bad press with FAS you would think someone would be trying to get it to function the way it should.

FAS staff are getting pay increases without being assessed to see if they are meeting performance targets.

The training agency has failed to introduce a formal system to tackle underperforming staff, although payment of the salary scale increases is supposed to be linked to how they rate.

Some state agencies have set up the system -- known as PMDS (Performance Management and Development System) to punish slack workers by refusing them pay increments or promotion.

But a new report on public-service reform reveals the system has not been implemented at the training agency.

The Croke Park deal committed all state agencies to bring in "robust performance management schemes" where they are not already in place, and gave Fas as an example.

Under the system, managers are responsible for rating staff performance on a scale of one to five in annual reviews. Low scores mean they can be refused pay increments or promotion.

The PMDS was introduced in the civil service 11 years ago, but is still not fully rolled out.

It has come under intense scrutiny due to commitments in the Croke Park agreement, the €85bn bailout deal and the Programme for Government to improve public services and value for taxpayers' money.

A report on progress under the Croke Park agreement in the six months to the end of September says agencies including Teagasc have made progress on PMDS, but it has "yet to be introduced" at Fas.

Significant steps in enforcing it were also reported in sections of the civil service in a separate progress report.

It says the Attorney General's office is 100pc compliant with the system, while uptake at the Department of Defence is 97pc.

The Department of Environment, Community and Local Government is 82pc compliant, while the rate at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade stands at 78pc.

The report says workshops on dealing with underperformance have begun at the Office of Public Works.

Fas said a new performance management system would be developed when the agency was rebranded as SOLAS by mid-2012. "Fas has an existing internal staff development system," said a spokeswoman.

Admitted

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has admitted there are "serious deficiencies" in the PMDS system.

It has promised to improve this after revealing that 31pc of departmental staff did not participate in the system last year.

This was because managers did not bother to evaluate their employees. A spokesperson for the department said a series of reviews and surveys last year and early this year revealed many shortcomings.

As well as the failure of a large section of the civil service to participate, the ratings given to staff were shown to be too high, which meant most civil servants qualified for pay increments.

Just 9pc of 17,728 civil servants who were assessed got the lowest score of one, classified as "unacceptable".

In addition, public service unions have raised concerns that those at the top of the pay scale were not being rated.

woodoo

Is that from the damn indo.

They are called increments. They no it well. God they are a piss poor excuse for a paper.

n97 mini

A pay increase is a pay increase, regardless of what it's called.

woodoo

n97 mini wrote: »

A pay increase is a pay increase, regardless of what it's called.

Its word play by a paper that knows well what it is doing. Why not just have a headline:

FAS still paying increments.

Its not new its not news. Its them filling the paper with the usual old ****e.

sharper

woodoo wrote: »

Its word play

The only people engaging in "word play" are those that want to pretend a "pay increase" is different to a "pay increment".

nesf

sharper wrote: »

The only people engaging in "word play" are those that want to pretend a "pay increase" is different to a "pay increment".

It's a cultural problem, increments are genuinely not seen as pay increases by most PS workers I've known.

RichardAnd

sharper wrote: »

The only people engaging in "word play" are those that want to pretend a "pay increase" is different to a "pay increment".

If "pay increase" and "increment" are synonymous, then why not title the article with increment instead? The answer is that pay increase is more irksome and the media do so love to stir up acrimony.

sharper

RichardAnd wrote: »

If "pay increase" and "increment" are synonymous, then why not title the article with increment instead?

Nobody anywhere except the public sector use the term "pay increment". Look up any dictionary for the number of synonyms that can be used for any word, typically the commonly understood one is what's used.

The answer is that pay increase is more irksome and the media do so love to stir up acrimony.

The answer is that the public sector and those that defend it are terrified of the general public understanding how it operates. You want the concept of a pay increase obfuscated so a people who haven't seen a pay increase in years won't complain when their taxes increase to fund those that do get them.

sharper

nesf wrote: »

It's a cultural problem, increments are genuinely not seen as pay increases by most PS workers I've known.

Absolutely but the situation is pretty serious when they think publications in general circulation are "deceptive" if they don't comply with their cultural norms.

nesf

sharper wrote: »

Absolutely but the situation is pretty serious when they think publications in general circulation are "deceptive" if they don't comply with their cultural norms.

The Indo is the Indo unfortunately.

sharper

Incidentally, I note that we have two posters and two others issuing "thanks" over attacks on the usage of the common term pay increase and not a single solitary defence either of FAS's performance evaluation procedure nor any attempt to explain why its failure to implement it is indicative of anything but rank incompetence.

sharper

nesf wrote: »

The Indo is the Indo unfortunately.

The Independent is not a publication aimed at the public sector, it's a publication aimed at the general population where when your pay goes up it's a "pay increase".

Nijmegen

Increments are supposed to be paid after performance reviews, in theory. Great theory.

As to the old chestnut of increments not being pay increases, well, the government claims it won't increase income tax in the budget yet you'll see the amount of euros you get net decrease, because they'll lower the credits.

I presume public servants will be in here in their droves to tell us that it's not a tax increase?

RichardAnd

sharper wrote: »

Nobody anywhere except the public sector use the term "pay increment". Look up any dictionary for the number of synonyms that can be used for any word, typically the commonly understood one is what's used.



The answer is that the public sector and those that defend it are terrified of the general public understanding how it operates. You want the concept of a pay increase obfuscated so a people who haven't seen a pay increase in years won't complain when their taxes increase to fund those that do get them.

I don't know what you mean by "you" as I don't work for the public service.

gerryo777

woodoo wrote: »

Its word play by a paper that knows well what it is doing. Why not just have a headline:

FAS still paying increments.

Its not new its not news. Its them filling the paper with the usual old ****e.

Why not have a headline 'FAS still giving pay rises' ?

sharper

RichardAnd wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "you" as I don't work for the public service.

"You" are attacking the term "pay increase" in preference to "pay increment". The claim applies to that. not where you work.

woodoo

Noonan's take on increments fyi: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/05/18/00064.asp

There is already a thread discussing increments,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056445083

sharper

Nijmegen wrote: »

I presume public servants will be in here in their droves to tell us that it's not a tax increase?

These are the same public servants that claim the pension contribution is a pay cut and factor it into "our pay was cut by X%" claims.

Funny how that works eh.

woodoo

sharper wrote: »

These are the same public servants that claim the pension contribution is a pay cut and factor it into "our pay was cut by X%" claims.

Funny how that works eh.

Lenihan the architect of the pension levy called it a paycut. Maybe you know better though.

sharper

woodoo wrote: »

There is already a thread discussing increments,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056445083

Then why did you make this one about increments instead of about FAS?

woodoo wrote: »

Lenihan the architect of the pension levy called it a paycut. Maybe you know better though.

So if we can find someone in government referring to pay increments as a pay rise it'll be ok with you to call them pay rises from then on?

Nijmegen

It isn't about increments, folks - it's about the fact that FAS and a bunch of other organisations aren't doing the performance checks that are supposed to come with increments.

The big old laugh is that people getting an increment are supposed to show they deserve it by improving their performance over time, or meeting certain targets.

That has, as public sector managers have said on here in the past, been a giant fiction. There's too much paperwork and too many appeals to not give even the most malignant employee an increment.

That's the story here.

gerryo777

sharper wrote: »

These are the same public servants that claim the pension contribution is a pay cut and factor it into "our pay was cut by X%" claims.

Funny how that works eh.

I was just thinking that myself after listening to some PS trade union muppett on the radio this morning going on about how his members have taken a 15% pay cut in the last 3 years. Not a mention of 'increments', gold plated pensions, being pretty much 'unsackable' etc etc..... FOOLS!

RichardAnd

sharper wrote: »

"You" are attacking the term "pay increase" in preference to "pay increment". The claim applies to that. not where you work.

I just made a remark on the usage of words and journalism techniques.

woodoo

sharper wrote: »

Then why did you make this one about increments instead of about FAS?



So if we can find someone in government referring to pay increments as a pay rise it'll be ok with you to call them pay rises from then on?

Find me Noonan calling it that? Not just any old back bencher.

woodoo

All i'll say about increments is that if anyone thinks they will just be stopped, gone, a thing of the past is living in cloud cuckoo land. They may be changed for new entrants but existing staff have them written into their contracts. The government are not going to leave 1/2 the staff in the PS working forever more on lower wages than their co workers.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

All i'll say about increments is that if anyone thinks they will just be stopped, gone, a thing of the past is living in cloud cuckoo land. They may be changed for new entrants but existing staff have them written into their contracts. The government are not going to leave 1/2 the staff in the PS working forever more on lower wages than their co workers.

Would you support a system whereby increment remain but were modified to ensure that a person really needed to show a genuine improvement in their performance or an increase in their resposibilites (not just more experience because I have come into work for the last year)? While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept increments (or pay rises as they are commonly known as), the current manner in which they are implemented is clearly flawed as exemplified by the shenanigans in FAS.

Welease

I personally don't have an issue with increments once the overall bill for PS pay and pensions comes into line with what the country can afford..

If PS staff want to continue to spread it amongst everyone so that the poor performers get paid the same as the high performers then so be it.. But they shouldn't expect any sympathy when they complain about across the board pays cuts, non replacement of staff and levy's to faciliate this.

n97 mini

People are getting pay-rises in FAS on the back of no performance review whatsoever.

What has that got to do with the quality of the paper that reports it?

n97 mini

I was told on my induction day into the PS that the PMDS system was universally despised. By the unions as it shows up bad employees, and by the management as it shows up bad managers.

For this reason there was a sort of informal agreement between management and unions to resist PMDS.

I would imagine the same is going on in FAS.

amacachi

nesf wrote: »

It's a cultural problem, increments are genuinely not seen as pay increases by most PS workers I've known.

Aye, mate of mine in the CS was told by his union he was 12% worse off than when he started a few years ago. He pointed out he was actually 0.5% worse off. :pac:

SlimCi

The reason, in my opinion that the performance management system hasn't been implemented and acted upon properly is that management are only paying lip service to the powers that be.

The will is not, nor ever has been within FAS Management to tackle the difficult issue head on. They are also afraid of the Unions.

A lot of local management come from within the ranks and haven't been trained or had past experience with any form of conflict management or dealing with under performance. Also they don't have the support or back up of senior management.

By the way the system has been implemented in some areas. The whole pay structure needs to be rethought in order to deal with the underperforming individuals. How do you deal with an underperforming individual who has been at the top of their scale for years and years and has no chance of ever again gaining incremental awards unless they are promoted to a higher grade? And how also do you reward someone who is performing at a higher capacity who is also at the top of their scale if there are no promotions available? Food for thought.......

Kristopherus

sharper wrote: »

These are the same public servants that claim the pension contribution is a pay cut and factor it into "our pay was cut by X%" claims.

Funny how that works eh.

The so-called Pension Contribution went straight into that hole called Anglo Irish Bank. It is of no benefit to a PS. A pay cut dressed up. But then that was FF's way of describing it:(

woodoo

sarumite wrote: »

Would you support a system whereby increment remain but were modified to ensure that a person really needed to show a genuine improvement in their performance or an increase in their resposibilites (not just more experience because I have come into work for the last year)? While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept increments (or pay rises as they are commonly known as), the current manner in which they are implemented is clearly flawed as exemplified by the shenanigans in FAS.

I would certainly agree that slackers should not be getting increments just for being there another year.

Tea drinker

Almost unbelievable, but then again - wholly believable. Ireland is being ran for a cabal of unions who are 100% focussed on raping the rest of us to enrich themselves. They don't get or don't care about the magnitude of the problem facing Ireland, and crucially, how they are making it FAR worse. I don't care that they are stuck in a 1980's mentality. They should be sacked without pay (let the unions take care of them) and another young person brought in to replace them.

Look at the swathing cuts of the budget in order to finance this thievery.
FG are going to HAVE to take on this group regardless of consequence. We must support the action against people who are acting against us, our recovery and the stability of our nation. These people have declared war on us.

Welease

woodoo wrote: »

I would certainly agree that slackers should not be getting increments just for being there another year.

Well they are.. And a % of the pension levies, pay freezes, non replacement of staff etc. are in place to continue to facilitate this.

woodoo

Tea drinker wrote: »

Look at the swathing cuts of the budget in order to finance this thievery. .

Thats just hysterical rubbish. Increments have been in place for decades. Where were you 5 or 10 years ago with your thievery allegations?

Tea drinker

woodoo wrote: »

Thats just hysterical rubbish. Increments have been in place for decades. Where were you 5 or 10 years ago with your thievery allegations?

Why is it hysterical, let me guess - your giving me your well versed opinion? And to address your ad hominem question 5 years ago I didn't have my pension robbed nor a loan taken out in my name to finance this balderdash.

And increments have been in place for decades? Who gives a toss? It's not the 70's anymore, and now they will be taken away as there is no money to pay for non existent performance increases.
CPA said their would be assessments and reviews, there is none so => thievery upon the thievery already visited me.

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

Thats just hysterical rubbish. Increments have been in place for decades. Where were you 5 or 10 years ago with your thievery allegations?

But isnt this the problem 5 or 10 years ago we were not borrowing 18 billion to pay the bills...we were not up to our necks in debt...If the money was there we would not be complaning ...but the money is simple not there and when you see more dole cuts coming how is it fair that ps pay will rise...

BostonB

n97 mini wrote: »

Not news to me as my pay rises were never subject to a PMDS performance review by my PS boss either. But considering all the bad press with FAS you would think someone would be trying to get it to function the way it should.

Where is this article from. Wheres the link to who wrote it.

sarumite

BostonB wrote: »

Where is this article from. Wheres the link to who wrote it.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fas-giving-pay-hikes-without-assessing-staff-work-2939751.html

Dodge

Tea drinker wrote: »

Why is it hysterical

Because its nots thievery. The people receiving these raises without a performance review are doing nothing wrong

Whatver about the merits of performance/experience based raises/increments, there can be no justification for any worker receiving one without a review.

I also think that some of the posters saying its only an issue now because they weren't effected by it 5 years ago are missing the point sligtly

Jaysoose

So the managers cant manager and the wasters dont have to justify their existence?

Sounds about normal to me, glad to see the Croke park agreement is delivering on all the promises made at the time.

doncarlos

sharper wrote: »

These are the same public servants that claim the pension contribution is a pay cut and factor it into "our pay was cut by X%" claims.

Funny how that works eh.

Anyone that thinks the pension levy isn't a pay cut is an idiot.
Anybody who doesn't think that incriminates are a pay rise is a bigger idiot.

BostonB

n97 mini wrote: »

People are getting pay-rises in FAS on the back of no performance review whatsoever.

What has that got to do with the quality of the paper that reports it?

Because the paper is infamous for woeful reporting IMO. Look what it says.

FAS giving pay hikes without assessing staff work.....The training agency has failed to introduce a formal system to tackle underperforming staff

but it also says.

Fas has an existing internal staff development system

So the papers article contradicts its own heading. The solution implied is to implement the PDMS system, But its also says about that...

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has admitted there are "serious deficiencies" in the PMDS system....As well as the failure of a large section of the civil service to participate, the ratings given to staff were shown to be too high, which meant most civil servants qualified for pay increments

So the indo wants them to introduce a system that they report doesn't work. You couldn't make it up. Neither could the indo, they just copied a report...

n97 mini

BostonB wrote: »

Because the paper is infamous for woeful reporting IMO. Look what it says.



but it also says.

I understand that to mean they have the PMDS (which they do), but they're not using it (which they're not).

BostonB wrote: »

So the papers article contradicts its own heading. The solution implied is to implement the PDMS system, But its also says about that...

So the indo wants them to introduce a system that they report doesn't work. You couldn't make it up. Neither could the indo, they just copied a report...

Because the PMDS system is abused/misused by staff/management is not a reason to not use it. The abuse/misuse has to stop.

Have you an inside track in FAS? Is the claim that pay increases are being paid without any performance review untrue?

anymore

Pay hike = pay increase= pay rise = Bulls*it

BostonB

n97 mini wrote: »

I understand that to mean they have the PMDS (which they do), but they're not using it (which they're not).

Because the PMDS system is abused/misused by staff/management is not a reason to not use it. The abuse/misuse has to stop.

Have you an inside track in FAS? Is the claim that pay increases are being paid without any performance review untrue?

You don't need an inside track. The article already says they do. Thats what a staff development system is. Hence (Performance Management and Development System). The article and heading suggests they don't use any. Not that they have one, and haven't switched over to the one in used in the CS yet. Which doesn't work anyway. What would be the point of all that effort when its being disbanded and staff transferred into CS/PS anyway.

This is classic indo though, write a story badly to create a tabloid heading to sell papers. What specific report are they ripping off paraphrasing anyway. Why is the PMDS system a paper exercise in the CS? The unions I expect.

n97 mini

If you have a problem with the Indo you should probably start a separate thread on it.

In this case the story they reported is true. If it's badly written that's another matter.

BostonB

They say its not true in their own article. At least the part about not having a system.

sarumite

BostonB wrote: »

You don't need an inside track. The article already says they do. Thats what a staff development system is. Hence (Performance Management and Development System). The article and heading suggests they don't use any. Not that they have one, and haven't switched over to the one in used in the CS yet. Which doesn't work anyway. What would be the point of all that effort when its being disbanded and staff transferred into CS/PS anyway.

From the article

A report on progress under the Croke Park agreement in the six months to the end of September says agencies including Teagasc have made progress on PMDS, but it has "yet to be introduced" at Fas.

This is classic indo though, write a story badly to create a tabloid heading to sell papers. What specific report are they ripping off paraphrasing anyway. Why is the PMDS system a paper exercise in the CS? The unions I expect.

I do find it strange that there has been a bigger attempt to shoot down the messanger rather than the message. Either FAS staff are getting pay rises without proper evaluation or they are not. Saying that the indo is a **** newspaper, therefore we can ignore them isn't very productive in a debate

BostonB

My point isn't that the indo is a bad paper, but that the article is missing the point entirely.

The point that the entire CS/PS get their CS/PS get pay rises without proper evaluation. So why would you want to spend more money rolling out that same system in a place that's being disbanded. That makes no sense. I find it strange you think it makes sense.

Will they not all come under the PMDS unbrella then anyway. (which doesn't work).

I thought all increments, pay rises, and recruitment was frozen. Why isn't it.