How's about the government stops

Engine No.9

So how's about they stop giving out contracts to catering companies and cleaners and such like and force the companies into laying off those people that already work in the hospitals, schools, government buildings etc... (controversial, but bare with me).

With all these people on the live register looks like things are falling apart in Ireland again, but wait, they all have skills which are practical and usable and their skills are needed because the contractors are no longer working for the government. These people are immediately hired back but with public service contracts and not commercial ones. They are employees of the state and what's more, for argument sake, the cost to the government is about €400 per employee per week not the (conservative estimate) €1000 that the government was being charged by the contracting company in the first place.

Sure, the VAT being paid by these companies is no longer going into the exchequer but surely it makes more sense to have these people working directly for the state than for a private entity and it simultaneously improves the public purse, no!!!???

Asporadic

How about the government cops on a bit and stops with these blackcurrant sandwiches... strawberries where its at lads.

Dravokivich

How about you don't try to drum up a witch hunt with hypothetical pricing? Everything is a great idea if I can make up the numbers to skew the perception to my favour.

Engine No.9

Dravokivich wrote: »

How about you don't try to drum up a witch hunt with hypothetical pricing? Everything is a great idea if I can make up the numbers to skew the perception to my favour.

I assume you have the numbers yourself then.

I know from experience that contractors have a mark up of 150% when it comes to negotiating contracts. My uncle owns a security company which currently holds a government contract. He pays his staff c. €10 per hour and his charge per man, to the government department for which he provides a service, is in and around €25. He doesn't charge them for the managers he employs as they manage other projects and sites also, so he factors this into his pricing. This is a very small firm and to my knowledge he undercut the main players to get the contract.

I'm assuming that this is indicative of the conditions in the market and that all contractors are working off of the same model, or at least something similar. Calling my numbers hypothetical pricing (and I do admit that it is very vague) is a very skewed view of it when I do have some actual figures to back it up.

ArmaniJeanss

More people directly employeed by the public service (not forgetting an extra few for the increased admin).
Sounds a perfect solution to all our problems.

CruelCoin

pajopearl wrote: »

Sure, the VAT being paid by these companies is no longer going into the exchequer but surely it makes more sense to have these people working directly for the state than for a private entity and it simultaneously improves the public purse, no!!!???

Aside from revenue (debatable) there is not one efficiently run government department and any savings you find will be gobbled up by the inefficiencies that will creep in.

chris85

pajopearl wrote: »

I assume you have the numbers yourself then.

I know from experience that contractors have a mark up of 150% when it comes to negotiating contracts. My uncle owns a security company which currently holds a government contract. He pays his staff c. €10 per hour and his charge per man, to the government department for which he provides a service, is in and around €25. He doesn't charge them for the managers he employs as they manage other projects and sites also, so he factors this into his pricing. This is a very small firm and to my knowledge he undercut the main players to get the contract.

I'm assuming that this is indicative of the conditions in the market and that all contractors are working off of the same model, or at least something similar. Calling my numbers hypothetical pricing (and I do admit that it is very vague) is a very skewed view of it when I do have some actual figures to back it up.

The issue here is you are the one putting forward the argument and thus you need to back up your hypothesis with actual data. Telling someone they need figures to disprove your argument is ridiculus when you have no numbers yourself. Your uncles company is not a representation of all companies across all industries.

Also to pay someone €10ph, the company also pays management, PRSI, insurance, benefits, and pension, overheads, training, hiring costs, holiday pay, sick pay (if there is), clothing/uniform, etc. Figures should show a representation of the argument so one companies rough figures cannot be extrapolated to an entire country wide scenario.

So essentially you believe our public service should be entirely self sustaining, impossible. Every company outsources some work, all the biggest most efficient companies use contracters as they know the contracter can bring expertise in an area which they are not experts in or do not desire to be experts in.

Einhard

Becauuse hiring private sector workers through third parties is far less expensive than directly hiring public sector workers, and they are far more flexible in terms of their working arrangements and conditions- ie they can be hired and fired on a whim.

Engine No.9

CruelCoin wrote: »

Aside from revenue (debatable) there is not one efficiently run government department and any savings you find will be gobbled up by the inefficiencies that will creep in.

chris85 wrote: »

So essentially you believe our public service should be entirely self sustaining, impossible. Every company outsources some work, all the biggest most efficient companies use contracters as they know the contracter can bring expertise in an area which they are not experts in or do not desire to be experts in.

Where are the inefficiencies going to come in from? The people that are running the companies and doing the work currently are the ones that will be hired back and do the same job in the same way as they always did. Only that its gonna be cheaper to do it. Proper consultation with the managers should certainly weed out the inefficiencies and contribute to effective work systems. I'm not saying that the government needs to be the expert here but if they bring back the most relevant people, shouldn't the foreseen problems be eradicated before they become a problem?

Zebra3

pajopearl wrote: »

So how's about they stop giving out contracts to catering companies and cleaners and such like and force the companies into laying off those people that already work in the hospitals, schools, government buildings etc... (controversial, but bare with me).

With all these people on the live register looks like things are falling apart in Ireland again, but wait, they all have skills which are practical and usable and their skills are needed because the contractors are no longer working for the government. These people are immediately hired back but with public service contracts and not commercial ones. They are employees of the state and what's more, for argument sake, the cost to the government is about €400 per employee per week not the (conservative estimate) €1000 that the government was being charged by the contracting company in the first place.

Sure, the VAT being paid by these companies is no longer going into the exchequer but surely it makes more sense to have these people working directly for the state than for a private entity and it simultaneously improves the public purse, no!!!???

If the state directly employs them, politicians can't give the contracts to their mates.

chris85

pajopearl wrote: »

Where are the inefficiencies going to come in from? The people that are running the companies and doing the work currently are the ones that will be hired back and do the same job in the same way as they always did. Only that its gonna be cheaper to do it. Proper consultation with the managers should certainly weed out the inefficiencies and contribute to effective work systems. I'm not saying that the government needs to be the expert here but if they bring back the most relevant people, shouldn't the foreseen problems be eradicated before they become a problem?

It may not be cheaper. They may hire the same people but there are other costs associated with hiring someone directly which I outlined in previous post.

You will not be able to just hire the same people back in. Do you really think they will just jump at opportunity to work for our public service? Many wont leave and thats that, especially management. Not everyone wants a public sector job. I would not want one.

And the public sector must be an expert in an area to run a department. They cannot setup a security department without being experts as then it will poorly run and inefficient and cost a lot more.

oppenheimer1

pajopearl wrote: »

Where are the inefficiencies going to come in from? The people that are running the companies and doing the work currently are the ones that will be hired back and do the same job in the same way as they always did. Only that its gonna be cheaper to do it. Proper consultation with the managers should certainly weed out the inefficiencies and contribute to effective work systems. I'm not saying that the government needs to be the expert here but if they bring back the most relevant people, shouldn't the foreseen problems be eradicated before they become a problem?

And what about a cleaner that is incompetent. If they are PS they cannot be fired, merely promoted out of the way. Contracting is more cost effective because the staff in those companies are on short term contracts.

Additionally if staff were full PS workers then the government has to provide a pension, which is a significant extra cost.

The reason that contractors are used in the PS, is because they are more flexible and/or cheaper than hiring directly.

donutheadhomer

pajopearl wrote: »

So how's about they stop giving out contracts to catering companies and cleaners and such like and force the companies into laying off those people that already work in the hospitals, schools, government buildings etc... (controversial, but bare with me).

With all these people on the live register looks like things are falling apart in Ireland again, but wait, they all have skills which are practical and usable and their skills are needed because the contractors are no longer working for the government. These people are immediately hired back but with public service contracts and not commercial ones. They are employees of the state and what's more, for argument sake, the cost to the government is about €400 per employee per week not the (conservative estimate) €1000 that the government was being charged by the contracting company in the first place.

Sure, the VAT being paid by these companies is no longer going into the exchequer but surely it makes more sense to have these people working directly for the state than for a private entity and it simultaneously improves the public purse, no!!!???

but then 50% of them will head off and get pregnant and claim sickpay for the rest of their lives from civil service - and think how much their pensions will cost

chris85

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And what about a cleaner that is incompetent. If they are PS they cannot be fired, merely promoted out of the way. Contracting is more cost effective because the staff in those companies are on short term contracts.

Additionally if staff were full PS workers then the government has to provide a pension, which is a significant extra cost.

The reason that contractors are used in the PS, is because they are more flexible and/or cheaper than hiring directly.

They are also hired as the public service dont want to have to manage another area.

For instance most major multinationals here contract out their cleaners to outside companies. Why? Because the company dont want to waste their time dealing with these things when they have their key business area to focus on. They give the contracter deliverables to meet and if they dont meet them they can get someone else to do it.

Engine No.9

Alright so I accept the points made and maybe I was wrong but I'm still not convinced totally. One thing that does bug me though is the use of agency nurses. The government has a full health department yet insists on contracting work out. I understand that the majority of these positions may or may not be long term, but where is the sense in it???

donutheadhomer

pajopearl wrote: »

Alright so I accept the points made and maybe I was wrong but I'm still not convinced totally. One thing that does bug me though is the use of agency nurses. The government has a full health department yet insists on contracting work out. I understand that the majority of these positions may or may not be long term, but where is the sense in it???

because the existing pool of dept nurses is old and liable to be off sick more/pregnant (most are women) hence the need for agency. HSE need some positive descrimination and hire equal share of young male nurses

CruelCoin

pajopearl wrote: »

Where are the inefficiencies going to come in from? The people that are running the companies and doing the work currently are the ones that will be hired back and do the same job in the same way as they always did. Only that its gonna be cheaper to do it. Proper consultation with the managers should certainly weed out the inefficiencies and contribute to effective work systems. I'm not saying that the government needs to be the expert here but if they bring back the most relevant people, shouldn't the foreseen problems be eradicated before they become a problem?

State would have to provide a pension.

As per every other public service, all the staff would join the union movement, followed by strikes/work-to-rule, etc until they get included on the gravy train.

Public jobs pay significantly better than private jobs, and your 400 wouldn't stay that way for long.

Public sector staff are nigh on impossible to sack, no matter how incompetent. This is where a good chunk of the inefficiencies come in, as you can't fire crap staff. Public sectors are blighted with the "I need 10 staff but will have to hire 15 to get my good 10" problem.

Its a nice idea, but in a modern bureaucracy, it's just not feasible.