PS workers to get year long placements in private sector companies?

Mr Cumulonimbus

Included in an article in todays Irish Independent titled "Sack threat to bad public servants part of new Croke Park", were the following bits as part of Brendan Howlin's reform plans:

Exchange of staff between the public and private sector.

Mr Howlin said public servants would be getting year-long placements in private companies as part of his public sector reform plans.

What the chance of such a proposal actually becoming reality? Sounds ok, but can people see many PS workers liking this? Or is it just a piece of kite flying ahead of Croke Park 2 talks? Plus it's in the Indo, so is it realistic in the first place?!

Full article here.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Sleepy wrote: »

They fly kites like this and wonder why the electorate think they're all utter fvcking morons?

Even *IF* this was to ever see the light of day, we'd see office workers from the PS moving out into organisation behemoths that used to be publicly owned or giant multinationals rather than the SME sector where some lessons could be learned...

Hmm, yes. I know in the OP I said it sounded ok, but how in practice would it work or be implemented? Would it apply to the whole PS or some sectors? Voluntary or compulsory? How would you match the skillsets of a PS worker to their supposed equivalent in the private sector? I can't honestly see for example, a secondary school teacher that works for roughly 170 (correct number?) days a year and likes their job, wanting to do this any time soon!!

ezra_pound

Those of us who read real newspapers have known of this scheme for months.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0726/1224320829148.html

ezra_pound

Anyone else shocked by minister responsible for public sector not knowing difference between public sphere and public sector?

thebman

An exchange programme will be put in place to facilitate the movement of middle-management civil servants to private sector bodies, the department said. Private sector staff will be placed in departments and public sector offices for up to a year.

Who would want this middle manager? Most software companies for example are moving to agile ways of working with fewer managers.

I don't think the uptake will be as high as the minister seems to think it will be.

maninasia

There is some logic to it, but there is a lot more logic in firing workers who don't perform and hiring people in instead of the current stop on hiring.

This would be instead of saying, see you back in a couple of years, even if you are crap at your job and learned absolutely nothing.

There is also the chance for cronyism to develop, i.e. I'll give you a cushy job in our company for a couple of years and later you will sort me out. Otherwise what is the incentive for private companies to hire people who are not sticking around very long and don't have much motivation to perform?

The Clown Man

maninasia wrote: »

There is some logic to it, but there is a lot more logic in firing workers who don't perform and hiring people in instead of the current stop on hiring.

This would be instead of saying, see you back in a couple of years, even if you are crap at your job and learned absolutely nothing.

There is also the chance for cronyism to develop, i.e. I'll give you a cushy job in our company for a couple of years and later you will sort me out. Otherwise what is the incentive for private companies to hire people who are not sticking around very long and don't have much motivation to perform?

QFT.

Why not just fire blatant non-performers first? The problem is simple so why do we have to create a complex solution? Are they trying to confuse the unions into agreeing?

And yes, the potential for cronyism is pretty stark.

K-9

Posts deleted so we can start again as it's a topic worth discussing. If all you've to add is one liner responses don't bother wasting your time.

sunshinediver

The Clown Man wrote: »

QFT.

Why not just fire blatant non-performers first? The problem is simple so why do we have to create a complex solution? Are they trying to confuse the unions into agreeing?

And yes, the potential for cronyism is pretty stark.

A simple problem? You clearly have no idea of the process involved in "firing" a permanent worker in either the public service or a private company.

RacoonQueen

I don't really get how 'hard' it is to sack someone, to be honest. Where I worked people turned up late, left early(without permisson so were being paid to sit at home) and sat in ward kitchens drinking tea or stood in corners yapping. Talking hospital supplies (cleaning items, food items, bed sheets etc). To name but a few things they could get warnings over.

Some support staff would be sitting in Croke Park at a match while someone else was carrying their bleep for them. Madness.

One, two, three strikes. You're out.

RobbieTheRobber

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I don't really get how 'hard' it is to sack someone, to be honest. Where I worked people turned up late, left early(without permisson so were being paid to sit at home) and sat in ward kitchens drinking tea or stood in corners yapping. Talking hospital supplies (cleaning items, food items, bed sheets etc). To name but a few things they could get warnings over.

Some support staff would be sitting in Croke Park at a match while someone else was carrying their bleep for them. Madness.

One, two, three strikes. You're out.

So I am assuming you reported all of these facts to the relevant people at the time?

The Clown Man

sunshinediver wrote: »

A simple problem? You clearly have no idea of the process involved in "firing" a permanent worker in either the public service or a private company.

I'm very familiar, yes. Poor performance or any other infractions like being late leading to verbal warning, two written warnings and termination. If the PS actually let managers manage then I don't see how this universally adopted and nationally legislated system cannot work in the PS as it does everywhere else.

Please, enlighten me as to how difficult it is to sack someone for poor performance anywhere but the PS.

RacoonQueen

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So I am assuming you reported all of these facts to the relevant people at the time?

The management saw it happen, they'd stroll in late and walk past management. They'd walk out of a department with senior (just below management level) members of staff in it and not hide that they were going home. They'd sit down and have a cup of tea and chat in a communal area while other staff were busy doing paper work. Depending on what area I was working in at the time, I would have been responsible for ordering some supplies, management were aware supplies went 'missing'.

The people that went to matches or went to the put to watch matches weren't in my department. What they told me as a 'friend' was not really something to report. I had no proof anyway, I didn't work weekends, could have been waffle for all I know.

Anyway, this sort of thing was commonplace where I was. It was mostly support staff, who, in general came from a certain background. They got away with murder.

The fact that more senior members of staff were afraid of some support staff said a lot about the their attitude and behaviour.

sunshinediver

The Clown Man wrote: »

I'm very familiar, yes. Poor performance or any other infractions like being late leading to verbal warning, two written warnings and termination. If the PS actually let managers manage then I don't see how this universally adopted and nationally legislated system cannot work in the PS as it does everywhere else.

Please, enlighten me as to how difficult it is to sack someone for poor performance anywhere but the PS.

Obviously it's quite clear cut if someone is consistently arriving late, stealing at work etc. However judging performance is a completely different ball game. You seem to be under the illusion that anyone in the private sector that doesn't perform 100% in a job is fired... I can tell you that this is not the case.

In reality a good manager simply moves them to another division or assigns them a duty that's better suited to their ability as they know that firing an already permanent staff member based on inefficiency at work is essentially a legal mine field. A quick search of cases before the labour relations commission will prove this.

In the case of contract or probationary workers again it's more clear cut, contracts aren't renewed or workers aren't offered a permanent position. This is already the case in the public sector.

[Jackass]

Unless the Government agree to pay the PS workers wages in full during the placement scheme, then there is no way in hell that private sector would want any public sector workers unless they're highly skilled, and if they're highly skilled, they would presumably be indespensible to the public sector, unless they're crap, so why would private sector want to take on only the poor staff who are made available for placement?

All I can see is basically an even coushier number for public sector workers, who will be paid €35,000 a year by the Government to be a tea boy and data entry temp in a private sector company (that would normally cost private sector company €10.50 an hour) and away from their real boss, where they'll probably do even less than normal and the private sector company wont care as it's free labor, so will give them good reviews to keep someone around the office who can do sandwich and coffee runs...

Daft idea.

How about just fire the useless staff and structure the public sector efficiently with managers responsible for performance, and put pressure on management to get rid of dead wood in order to meet targets on budget or else the manager is the one who's head is on the chopping block, basically the same way the private sector is run.

Good to see the acknowledgement from Government though that there is a serious problem with staffing numbers and also the quality of those employees. Not that they have come up with any solution to it, as it's political suicide to sort out the public sector by bringing in a massive cull and restructuring.

The Clown Man

sunshinediver wrote: »

Obviously it's quite clear cut if someone is consistently arriving late, stealing at work etc. However judging performance is a completely different ball game. You seem to be under the illusion that anyone in the private sector that doesn't perform 100% in a job is fired... I can tell you that this is not the case.

In reality a good manager simply moves them to another division or assigns them a duty that's better suited to their ability as they know that firing an already permanent staff member based on inefficiency at work is essentially a legal mine field. A quick search of cases before the labour relations commission will prove this.

In the case of contract or probationary workers again it's more clear cut, contracts aren't renewed or workers aren't offered a permanent position. This is already the case in the public sector.

You and I clearly have different targets in mind.

I'm not talking about people who show up on time every day and may be limited in capacity.

I'm talking about the people who openly abuse the system simply because there is no method of recourse. See posts above. Every PS office has at least one in my own experience. Some have many, unfortunately. And it all makes for a torrid work environment for the poor soles who actually want to do their jobs.

sunshinediver

The Clown Man wrote: »

You and I clearly have different targets in mind.

I'm not talking about people who show up on time every day and may be limited in capacity.

I'm talking about the people who openly abuse the system simply because there is no method of recourse. See posts above. Every PS office has at least one in my own experience. Some have many, unfortunately. And it all makes for a torrid work environment for the poor soles who actually want to do their jobs.

Yet it's the poor souls that do a good job that get hit with the brunt of the PS criticism.

As regards work culture in the PS a lot has changed in the past couple of years, more so than people realize. While people like those you mention above no doubt do still exist, I don't think lazy workers openly abusing the system are as common in the public service as you seem to think, The same way I don't think said workers are as sparse in the private sector as you seem to think.

The Clown Man

sunshinediver wrote: »

Yet it's the poor souls that do a good job that get hit with the brunt of the PS criticism.

As regards work culture in the PS a lot has changed in the past couple of years, more so than people realize. While people like those you mention above no doubt do still exist, I don't think lazy workers openly abusing the system are as common in the public service as you seem to think, The same way I don't think said workers are as sparse in the private sector as you seem to think.

Not from me.

And the fact that is there at all is not acceptable. Saying it's not that bad is to compound the problem. Any such behaviour I have ever seen in my own experience in the private sector has resulted in either a swift turnaround in attitude or termination. And I'm talking jobs of 40k+ where the wage absolutely demands a certain level of competence. Lower wage jobs follow a different set of rules.

sunshinediver

The Clown Man wrote: »

Not from me.

And the fact that is there at all is not acceptable. Saying it's not that bad is to compound the problem. Any such behaviour I have ever seen in my own experience in the private sector has resulted in either a swift turnaround in attitude or termination. And I'm talking jobs of 40k+ where the wage absolutely demands a certain level of competence. Lower wage jobs follow a different set of rules.

I am not excusing the problem by suggesting it's "not that bad". I am simply pointing out that improvements have been made and are continuing to be made and this needs to be recognized. Things don't change from good to bad overnight as some people seem to expect.

I don't work in the PS however I do believe that it's necessary to analyse the reality of a situation when dealing with a problem. The PS unions are incredibly strong with large membership (that's a reality) To adopt an across the board "swift termination" approach that you and other posters on here advocate will more than likely result in rampant strikes throughout the entire PS, education, support services and administrative services will all be hit. Then as most unions are closely related strike action will eventually be widespread and front line services will be effected. I'm talking about nurses, guards and firemen here, not just Mary in the passport office. The overall cost of this fiasco to the government and the tax payer would be enormous.

Effectively due to the power of the unions it's cheaper (for the government, you and me) to keep these people in work and nudge them in the right direction (I believe the call it "managing change") or to offer them redundancy packages than to terminate employment. It's not fair but it's the reality of our situation. I often find the the "sack them all" approach is more due to an emotional argument than a factual one.

The Clown Man

You are right, sacking en masse is not an option. However, that is not what I think should be the solution. I think that the introduction of a recourse system that aligns with what is already legislated for, where penalties up to termination are at least available to managers is very hard to argue against. How could any union argue that it is to the detriment of the hardworking PS employee? If anything it is to the benefit of the hardworking PS employee in that opportunities to advance your career become more regular.

This is not rocket science, it's the absolute norm, make that the requirement, in running an efficient organisation anywhere on the planet. Any potential striking would be met with a highly negative sentiment from the broader public which is not what the unions or what their members want.

While I agree that redundancies could work in some cases, they need to be targeted. Voluntary redundancies only appeal to those who know they can get work elsewhere due to their youth, education and attitude. Ironically, those are the people that the PS needs to keep. Those who know how to work the system and get paid for minimal effort are going nowhere. So I disagree that it is cheaper to offer the existing system of voluntary redundancies. In the long run it will be far more expensive to maintain the remnants of an ageing, inefficient PS. The current approach will take the PS back to the standards of the 80s, which is exactly what they have been trying to evolve from ever since then.

It's this avoid a fuss, short-term, patchwork solution orientated, typically Irish approach to problem solving that is the root cause of everything in this country. That's not an attack on you personally SSD, it's an attack on the prevalent attitudes in the country, and sadly, the government.

sunshinediver

The Clown Man wrote: »

It's this avoid a fuss, short-term, patchwork solution orientated, typically Irish approach to problem solving that is the root cause of everything in this country. That's not an attack on you personally SSD, it's an attack on the prevalent attitudes in the country, and sadly, the government.

I agree with all of your points, As regards the redundancies I think in some sectors they are certainly being targeted to some extent, i.e. older staff with a specific amount of years service.

As regards your comment above I think the type of change you seek would require a complete overhaul of the type of politics and government we have in this country, PS problems are just one reflection of this problem. There's not many politicians willing to bet their re-election chances on taking hard decisions. Kicking the can down the road is an easier option, short term solutions prevail. In Ireland at least we simply don't appear to have evolved politically as much as other northern European countries.

In summary if my arguements in this case appear to patch up the problem rather than than curing it, It's simply due to a realization that I don't see the real underlying problems in this country changing anytime soon. That's not to say I don't live in hope!

deise blue

There seems to be some confusion as to how targeted redundancies operate.

You can certainly target the area but you cannot target any individual , the redundancy option remains purely voluntary , no matter how much management would like particular individuals to avail of any redundancy offer the fact is that the decision to stay or go remains with those individuals.

RobbieTheRobber

The Clown Man wrote: »

Not from me.

And the fact that is there at all is not acceptable. Saying it's not that bad is to compound the problem. Any such behaviour I have ever seen in my own experience in the private sector has resulted in either a swift turnaround in attitude or termination. And I'm talking jobs of 40k+ where the wage absolutely demands a certain level of competence. Lower wage jobs follow a different set of rules.

In my experience your talking Bollocks!

Plenty of slackers and people who coast along in private sector organisations!

The Clown Man

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Bollocks!

Plenty of slackers and people who coast along in private sector organisations!

If there are they are the extremely limited exception. Are you going to argue that the same kind of "clocker" in the PS is just as extensive, or even a fraction as extensive as is for workers on over 40k in the private sector?

In a budget defined environment, where a manager is accountable for their budget and liable to lose their job if mismanaged, this is simply not sustainable. I'm sure there are areas where management is poor and some small businesses themselves coast along but it never lasts long. It simply cannot.

sunshinediver wrote: »

As regards your comment above I think the type of change you seek would require a complete overhaul of the type of politics and government we have in this country, PS problems are just one reflection of this problem. There's not many politicians willing to bet their re-election chances on taking hard decisions. Kicking the can down the road is an easier option, short term solutions prevail. In Ireland at least we simply don't appear to have evolved politically as much as other northern European countries.

Totally agree with that. There is a much deeper problem there. But low hanging fruit and all that; hire and fire is absolutely something that could be negotiated right now if the government just got their act together. It's a relatively easy sell to both public and private voters. It would induce a slow but gradual change.

Maybe I'm the dreamer and you are the pragmatist. Ah well.

RobbieTheRobber

The Clown Man wrote: »

If there are they are the extremely limited exception. Are you going to argue that the same kind of "clocker" in the PS is just as extensive, or even a fraction as extensive as is for workers on over 40k in the private sector?

The thing is though you dont know how many or how extensive they are in either the private or public sectors.
You are just pulling fictional ideas from your hole about how many there are.
Which is why I say In my experience your talking bollocks.

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Bollocks!

Plenty of slackers and people who coast along in private sector organisations!

He is talking about his own experiences within private sector organisations...who are you to say he is talking bollox you dont have any information to refute his statement.

Can you provide some statistics to back up your assertions?

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

He is talking about his own experiences within private sector organisations...who are you to say he is talking bollox you dont have any information to refute his statement.

Can you provide some statistics to back up your assertions?

You want me to provide statistics to back up my claims that there are no stats available? :eek:

He is also not talking from his own experience when he talks about the public sector, so I presume you will call upon him to back up his claims re that area?

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You want me to provide statistics to back up my claims that there are no stats available? :eek:

He is also not talking from his own experience when he talks about the public sector, so I presume you will call upon him to back up his claims re that area?

I never mentioned the public sector Robert so calm down, your saying his statement about his experiences in the pirvate sector are "bollox" but you cant prove him wrong.

Dont try to change the context to suit yourself, if you cant refute his statement then you cant definitively say he is talking "bollox".

Public sector posters on here are always screaming for stats to back up arguments so maybe its the taste of your own medicine you dont like.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

I never mentioned the public sector Robert so calm down, your saying his statement about his experiences in the pirvate sector are "bollox" but you cant prove him wrong.

Dont try to change the context to suit yourself, if you cant refute his statement then you cant definitively say he is talking "bollox".

Public sector posters on here are always screaming for stats to back up arguments so maybe its the taste of your own medicine you dont like.

I can refute his claims because, in my experience he is talking bollocks.

http://blog.greenkeyllc.com/2012/11/slackers-cost-managers-a-day-a-week-but-some-slack-may-be-good/

It turns out that 17% of a manager’s time — almost a full day a week — is spent coaching and supervising the worst performing of their employees.

That’s the average of the responses given by 1,400 CFOs to a survey about the effect of poor hires on a company and other workers. Making a bad hire, said 35% of the CFOs “greatly” affects the morale of other workers; 65% said it “somewhat” affects morale.

Edit: Problem resolved Jaysoose, its all in my experience now. So no stats needed right?

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I can refute his claims because, in my experience he is talking bollocks.

http://blog.greenkeyllc.com/2012/11/slackers-cost-managers-a-day-a-week-but-some-slack-may-be-good/

So you cant refute his claims then can you, your simply making statements of opinion with nothing to back yourself up.

If your going to throwing around definitive statments around you need eveidence.

Unlucky.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

So you cant refute his claims then can you, your simply making statements of opinion with nothing to back yourself up.

If your going to throwing around definitive statments around you need eveidence.

Unlucky.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Please define definitive evidence?


For all posters who subsequently claim the Ps is full of slackers, Im assuming we will then both seek to apply this definition to their claims to see if they stand up!