Could we use the hiring freeze to end the job for life?

You Suck!

Just a thought, but as we are no longer hiring permanent PS and Civil Service staff, is there any reason that the state can't start to hire on the same basis as the private sector much like NZ did. The excerpt below highlights the changes made, and there are studies that highlight the successes of this program. Isn't it time that we move past the original 19th century design of our bureaucratic structures and embrace modern practices?

MANAGEMENT OF THE STATE - THE STATE SECTOR ACT 1988

Introduction
Having altered, through the 'corporatisation' processes, the structure and nature of the core Public Service - by extracting or abolishing the most significant commercial departments and activities - the Government's focus turned to the efficiency and effectiveness of Public Service management and performance.

Before the legislation - centralised control
Prior to introduction of the State Sector Act the Public Service was a single entity - all employees, regardless of which department they were working for, were part of 'the Public Service' and were employed by the State Services Commission. The Commission appointed the departmental 'permanent heads', and controlled the pay, conditions and promotions of all staff, as well as accommodation, organisational structures, and office systems - including computing services. The Public Service was a 'career service', with incentives to encourage and reward long service.

The appointment and promotion systems were examples of this, generally recognising seniority - as well as competence - and favouring serving officers over all but the most outstanding external applicants. There were elaborate appeal and review systems to ensure that appointments and promotions followed the letter of the law. The Public Service became accustomed to prolonged, arduous bureaucratic processes that seemed sometimes to be designed not to reward productive behaviour.

The spirit of the legislation
The State Sector Act 1988 was designed to introduce into the Public Service many of the positive features and incentives of the private sector. The key principle was that managers, if they were permitted to make all input decisions - pay, appointments, organisational structures, production systems, etc - would respond by accepting personal accountability for producing substantially higher quality outputs - the goods and services provided for the Government and other users. Specification would be critical - both suppliers and purchasers would need to be certain about the quality, quantity, timing and price of the goods and services to be traded.

The Public Service was also to be opened up to all comers - with the particular object of transplanting into departments the energy, imagination and commitment evident in much of the private sector managerial corps. All vacancies - from the heads of departments to office clerks - were to be advertised.

The Act accordingly made the heads of departments 'chief executives', employed by the State Services Commissioner under fixed term contracts. These chief executives became fully responsible for running their departments - employing the staff, determining pay and conditions (under delegation from the Commissioner and within general parameters set by the Government), determining the most appropriate structural arrangements, and determining the most efficient production systems - including numbers of employees.

The Act also set up a triangular relationship between each departmental Minister, the chief executive as head of the department, and the State Services Commissioner as the chief executive's employer. This arrangement recognised the practical need for chief executives to be responsible to their Ministers for the conduct of departments and for giving effect to the Government's programmes, but very importantly to also retain and reinforce the principles of an apolitical and professional Public Service.

Each chief executive became responsible to the appropriate Minister for:

The carrying out of the functions and duties of the Department (including those imposed by Act or by the policies of the Government); and
The tendering of advice to the appropriate Minister and other Ministers of the Crown; and
The general conduct of the Department; and
The efficient, effective, and economical management of the activities of the Department.
Each chief executive has a personal 'Performance Agreement' with the appropriate Minister as well as a 'Purchase Agreement' which specifies the outputs to be supplied by the department to the Minister. Each chief executive also has a distinct employment relationship with the State Services Commissioner, specified in an employment contract. The Commissioner is responsible for assessing the performance of the chief executive, and implicitly for guiding the chief executive in improving and enhancing personal efficiency and effectiveness.

While the focus of this chapter is on the Act as it applies to the Public Service, various parts of it apply to the wider 'State sector', which is -

"... all instruments of the Crown in respect of the Government of New Zealand, whether Departments, corporations, agencies or other instruments and includes the Education service and the Health service but does not include the Governor-General or any member of the Executive Council or any Minister of the Crown or any member of Parliament or any corporation listed in the First Schedule of the State Owned Enterprises Act or any university, polytechnic or college of education."

The Act covers human resource management and general management practice, including requiring State services employers to be 'good employers', to promote equal employment opportunities and efficiency in the organisations that make up the Service, and to ensure that employees are imbued with the spirit of service to the community.

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/decade-of-change

Godge

Do you have a link to this study?

What date was this study?

Are you aware that a number of the public sector reforms in NZ which date back 25 years have been reversed because of the adverse effects they had on the quality of the public sector?

You Suck!

Godge wrote: »

Do you have a link to this study?

I've amended the quote to include the link at the bottom.

Godge wrote: »

What date was this study?

1 March 1998

Godge wrote: »

Are you aware that a number of the public sector reforms in NZ which date back 25 years have been reversed because of the adverse effects they had on the quality of the public sector?

I'm not aware of the problem areas, but given the time elapsed there is no reason we can't use the lessons learned to our advantage. What I can say without doubt is that in my experiences with the NZ Govt, the quality and efficiency of service was of a level far superior to the Irish model which is starting to look comical in the 21st century. Why resist change? Especially when it means that the taxpayer might start recouping value from their mandatory contributions to the state? The social contract of democracy is a symbiotic relationship, when one side is sick, the other suffers.

So there is no debate now in New Zealand about the benefits of low inflation, prudent levels of public debt, and sustainable public finances. In this regard, New Zealand has gone from having one of the worst records in the OECD to one of the best, an outcome which the reformers set out to entrench by creating a new institutional framework. The central bank was given operational autonomy and an explicit mandate to deliver price stability. The Fiscal Responsibility Act requires the government to publish long-term objectives for key fiscal indicators, such as the level of public spending, taxes, and debt. Such disclosure, with the provision of regular, transparent financial statements, changed the nature of the political debate. According to Ruth Richardson, the act’s author, “The act has radically altered politicians’ budgetary behavior. Since the act has been in force, New Zealand has run eight successive budget surpluses, a significant break from decades of deficits. Fiscal responsibility is regarded as the political norm and the requirement to publish fiscal strategy over the longer term has helped to curtail the chronic short-termism that generally characterizes political decision making.”

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7409

Is this not exactly what Ireland needs?

Godge

You Suck! wrote: »

I've amended the quote to include the link at the bottom.




1 March 1998


I'm not aware of the problem areas, but given the time elapsed there is no reason we can't use the lessons learned to our advantage. What I can say without doubt is that in my experiences with the NZ Govt, the quality and efficiency of service was of a level far superior to the Irish model which is starting to look comical in the 21st century. Why resist change? Especially when it means that the taxpayer might start recouping value from their mandatory contributions to the state? The social contract of democracy is a symbiotic relationship, when one side is sick, the other suffers.

I will read it but will look for more recent material as a 15-year old study is hardly the best place to look for evidence of the best modern public service.

How long did you live in New Zealand?

You Suck!

Godge wrote: »

I will read it but will look for more recent material as a 15-year old study is hardly the best place to look for evidence of the best modern public service.

Okay, but in place of NZ's experience what could you suggest constructively that could be used as an example? Bear in mind that structural change in government can take decades, and with that in mind, the NZ reforms are relatively recent.

Godge wrote: »

How long did you live in New Zealand?

Just under three years, was a joy and were it not so far away from family and friends, it would be a no-brainer.

Gumbo

You Suck! wrote: »

Okay, but in place of NZ's experience what could you suggest constructively that could be used as an example? Bear in mind that structural change in government can take decades, and with that in mind, the NZ reforms are relatively recent.


Just under three years, was a joy and were it not so far away from family and friends, it would be a no-brainer.

We have already started with structural change in our PS. Those employed during the boom are on newer contracts, lower wages and longer working weeks with less annual leave.

The older more militant members are slowly phasing out with age, retirement and ERSI schemes and the younger members should change the face of our PS over the next decade or so. That's my opinion anyway.

I am in the PS since 2009 and my dept is already implementing practices that I learned in the private sector and we are doing things differently from within.

To try get your opinion on this, what is your experience with our PS here and what was the bad experiences that you encountered.

You Suck!

kceire wrote: »

To try get your opinion on this, what is your experience with our PS here and what was the bad experiences that you encountered.

In a previous life I was a contractor with a Government agency. I did work alongside some excellent PS staff, but it was the inability to deal with the flotsam that was the problem. Some members of staff were there for nothing else than to drag their heals, and hang everyone up on minutae of regulation where possible, what the Brit's call "Jobsworths". I was once a victim of our jobsworth insisting I work under a flickering light as only the OPW are meant to change lightbulbs apparently. :rolleyes:

But I don't even take my issues from that experience, it's just that in dealing with various government bodies here, it's paper heavy, extremely slow, and with a focus on CYA as opposed to objective completion. Add to that, terms and language are often antiquated, and sometimes manipulated rather than acknowledged i.e. SLA means Service Level Agreement the world over, but the HSE has to call it a Service Level Arrangement.

But rather than this be about my opinions, I was rather hoping this thread and the Kiwi way might be an eyeopener to what we can do to improve the Irish state. Even when I was involved with the agency mentioned, there was movement to embrace more modern practices like you mention, however I'm left feeling that this isn't pervasive or universal enough because all the good intentions in one department ain't worth a damn when other departments can just muddle on and pay lip service to change.

MysticalRain

Just my 2 cents as someone who worked in the NZ civil service during the mid 2000’s. I think the public sector in both countries are similar in many ways, but there are a few key differences.

The NZ civil service operated a lot more like the private sector when it came to their recruitment process. They made much greater use of direct entry e.g. if a department needed a someone with specialist skills, they simply placed an add for the job, and anyone who felt they had the ability, could simply apply for the job – even Johnny Foreigner like myself. Whereas the Irish civil service has a long-winded and bureaucratic recruitment process, complete with an entrance exam filled with questions which have little to do with the job, and are more useful for recruiting generic office bureaucrats. The net result is a more vibrant and diverse working environment (we had a much higher proportion of non-nationals working for us, a lot of whom had niche skills which were difficult to find).

I think that also partly explains why the Irish civil service suffers from a too-many-generalists-and-not-enough-experts problem. As a so called consultant in the private sector, I was brought in to do work which could quite easily have been done by internal staff. If we ended up over-reliant on consultants in NZ, we would just simply pitch a job offer to the consultant and bring them onboard as a permanent employee. It worked out cheaper in the long run than having a revolving door of overpaid consultants to do work that should really be done in house.

The NZ civil service also managed to get by with less. The Irish equivalent of the department I worked in had four times the number of personal as we had to do the same job. Of course we still had problems with the occasional jobsworths who were just there to collect a pay check. So in that respect, there wasn’t much difference.

Gumbo

MysticalRain wrote: »

The NZ civil service operated a lot more like the private sector when it came to their recruitment process. They made much greater use of direct entry e.g. if a department needed a someone with specialist skills, they simply placed an add for the job, and anyone who felt they had the ability, could simply apply for the job – even Johnny Foreigner like myself. Whereas the Irish civil service has a long-winded and bureaucratic recruitment process, complete with an entrance exam filled with questions which have little to do with the job, and are more useful for recruiting generic office bureaucrats. The net result is a more vibrant and diverse working environment (we had a much higher proportion of non-nationals working for us, a lot of whom had niche skills which were difficult to find)

When was the last time you applied for a public service job in Ireland?
I didn't have to do any exam. The ad was on public jobs website, I applied along with 121 others, went straight for interview and started a month or so later.

You Suck!

kceire wrote: »

When was the last time you applied for a public service job in Ireland?
I didn't have to do any exam. The ad was on public jobs website, I applied along with 121 others, went straight for interview and started a month or so later.

Certain jobs require an exam, third secretary is one I can think of the top of my head.

Also, isn't there is a distinction between civil service and public service:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055760175

In any case, experience in the PS may not be reflective of the CS and vice versa. To me, it's a little crazy that the distinction exists at all when you have the PS trying to be open about recruitment while the CS to my knowledge still carries on with little difference to it's old practices. This serves to highlight the lack of cohesive practice across Irish govt.

MysticalRain

kceire wrote: »

When was the last time you applied for a public service job in Ireland?
I didn't have to do any exam. The ad was on public jobs website, I applied along with 121 others, went straight for interview and started a month or so later.

About 3 years ago, and that was direct entry to be fair. I think I was on some panel for about a year before their got back to me. In the meantime, I had already taken a job elsewhere with an American multi-national company. Another mate of mine from NZ (with a particularly difficult-to-recruit niche skillset) also had the same experience.

Before that it was the during their big recruitment drive back in mid 2000's, which was the generic civil service exam type of entry. Some departments are much better when it comes to direct recruitment, e.g. Revenue. Their model of recruitment would be closer to the NZ way of doing things. Although I think even some of their job specs are way to bland and generic to attract specialists with niche skills.

The Clown Man

You Suck! wrote: »

Just a thought, but as we are no longer hiring permanent PS and Civil Service staff, is there any reason that the state can't start to hire on the same basis as the private sector much like NZ did. The excerpt below highlights the changes made, and there are studies that highlight the successes of this program. Isn't it time that we move past the original 19th century design of our bureaucratic structures and embrace modern practices?

I never realised that a government had actually tried this before.

This is the only way that any public body will ever work with any efficiency. It's the only way humans will work with any efficiency. If there is no incentive, there is no desire.

You couldn't give endless short term contract eventually you would have to give them permanent contracts which are in effect jobs for life provided you do the job adequately, as the need for government services for example passports, registering births, deaths and marriages, social protection and so on will always be needed.

It would aid flexibility that all, which is a good thing.


You would end up with a small powerful highly educated very well paid elite supervising a large pool of not very well paid general works with no hope of advancement. might work.

2rkehij30qtza5

There are permanent public sector staff still being hired. Not many however, but there is the odd position being filled!

Godge

Just one paper that sheds light on the reversal of the public sector reforms lauded in the OP. There are plenty more out there.

The underlying trend throughout all of the literature is that the NZ reforms lost as much as they gained.



http://www.conferenz.co.nz/whitepapers/new-public-management-new-millennium-new-zealand


"Conclusion
So, while there will no doubt be changes, it looks unlikely that the National-led government will deviate radically from the pragmatic approach initiated by their predecessors. The widely renowned ‘New Zealand model’ of NPM, implemented during the period 1986 to 1996, was fine-tuned, modified and revised by the Labour-led government of 1999 to 2008 – to the extent that the market-led mechanisms of the classic model of the 1986–96 era are no longer considered very useful. And there is little likelihood that the incoming centre-right government will swing back to that radical market-driven model. While cost-control and some changes of direction are, of course, on the agenda, the incoming government seems determined to continue with Labour’s pragmatism, as distinct from public-management reform modelled upon economic rationalism.

International commentators who have cited ‘the New Zealand model’ of NPM have generally referred to Boston et al. (1996) as the authoritative reference. A lot of water has passed under the bridge in Wellington since that text was published, however, and authors in the field need to reconsider the evolving culture of public management in New Zealand. Some of the original NPM practices have been preserved, some refined and some improved upon; but others have been quietly abandoned, or even reversed. The former influence of economic rationalism on public management reform has given way to a wider concern for public-service ethics, collaboration and social outcomes."

You Suck!

Godge wrote: »

Just one paper that sheds light on the reversal of the public sector reforms lauded in the OP. There are plenty more out there.

The underlying trend throughout all of the literature is that the NZ reforms lost as much as they gained.



http://www.conferenz.co.nz/whitepapers/new-public-management-new-millennium-new-zealand


"Conclusion
So, while there will no doubt be changes, it looks unlikely that the National-led government will deviate radically from the pragmatic approach initiated by their predecessors. The widely renowned ‘New Zealand model’ of NPM, implemented during the period 1986 to 1996, was fine-tuned, modified and revised by the Labour-led government of 1999 to 2008 – to the extent that the market-led mechanisms of the classic model of the 1986–96 era are no longer considered very useful. And there is little likelihood that the incoming centre-right government will swing back to that radical market-driven model. While cost-control and some changes of direction are, of course, on the agenda, the incoming government seems determined to continue with Labour’s pragmatism, as distinct from public-management reform modelled upon economic rationalism.

International commentators who have cited ‘the New Zealand model’ of NPM have generally referred to Boston et al. (1996) as the authoritative reference. A lot of water has passed under the bridge in Wellington since that text was published, however, and authors in the field need to reconsider the evolving culture of public management in New Zealand. Some of the original NPM practices have been preserved, some refined and some improved upon; but others have been quietly abandoned, or even reversed. The former influence of economic rationalism on public management reform has given way to a wider concern for public-service ethics, collaboration and social outcomes."

I am quoting a specific part of the reform, the least you could do is offer a specific criticism. The quote you use is exceedingly vague. Also, anything constructive to offer in the place of your criticism, or is this just an exercise in denouncing potential change to the current structure?

Jawgap

To be honest, you don't need the hiring freeze to end the 'job for life' - the politicians and senior management in the CS/PS just need to grow a pair and put in place a fair and proper redundancy and redeployment scheme.

There's no mystique to it - the real wonder is why when the HSE is so clearly unfit for purpose they haven't started there.

Uriel.

MysticalRain wrote: »

Just my 2 cents as someone who worked in the NZ civil service during the mid 2000’s. I think the public sector in both countries are similar in many ways, but there are a few key differences.

The NZ civil service operated a lot more like the private sector when it came to their recruitment process. They made much greater use of direct entry e.g. if a department needed a someone with specialist skills, they simply placed an add for the job, and anyone who felt they had the ability, could simply apply for the job – even Johnny Foreigner like myself. Whereas the Irish civil service has a long-winded and bureaucratic recruitment process, complete with an entrance exam filled with questions which have little to do with the job, and are more useful for recruiting generic office bureaucrats. The net result is a more vibrant and diverse working environment (we had a much higher proportion of non-nationals working for us, a lot of whom had niche skills which were difficult to find).

I think that also partly explains why the Irish civil service suffers from a too-many-generalists-and-not-enough-experts problem. As a so called consultant in the private sector, I was brought in to do work which could quite easily have been done by internal staff. If we ended up over-reliant on consultants in NZ, we would just simply pitch a job offer to the consultant and bring them onboard as a permanent employee. It worked out cheaper in the long run than having a revolving door of overpaid consultants to do work that should really be done in house.

The NZ civil service also managed to get by with less. The Irish equivalent of the department I worked in had four times the number of personal as we had to do the same job. Of course we still had problems with the occasional jobsworths who were just there to collect a pay check. So in that respect, there wasn’t much difference.

I find this odd.

Historically, the PS was criticized for not having highly skilled/qualified staff and also i respect on non-transparent recruitment processes.

Now to join, individuals must do so by an open transparent and competitive process including by way of exam(s) and interview(s) depending on the job. The recruitment across (most) of the PS is handled by a central Organisation, which at least should lead to consistency, cost savings, openness, expertise etc..

I just don't get it.

You Suck!

Jawgap wrote: »

To be honest, you don't need the hiring freeze to end the 'job for life' - the politicians and senior management in the CS/PS just need to grow a pair and put in place a fair and proper redundancy and redeployment scheme.

There's no mystique to it - the real wonder is why when the HSE is so clearly unfit for purpose they haven't started there.

Yep, but the freeze is an opportunity to so in a way that will appear fairer as the benefits of new employment opportunities during our current downturn will outweigh the loss of favorable conditions offered in the past. Add to that, the more flexible terms of employment will allow the govt to offer more jobs as they will not be bound to long term commitment or cost.

It's highly frustrating that the govt does not have the balls to capitalize on this opportunity when they are in a situation where there is the least reason to oppose it.

Jawgap

You Suck! wrote: »

Yep, but the freeze is an opportunity to so in a way that will appear fairer as the benefits of new employment opportunities during our current downturn will outweigh the loss of favorable conditions offered in the past. Add to that, the more flexible terms of employment will allow the govt to offer more jobs as they will not be bound to long term commitment or cost.

It's highly frustrating that the govt does not have the balls to capitalize on this opportunity when they are in a situation where there is the least reason to oppose it.

It takes far too long - you need the service to be (to use that hateful jargon) - 'citizen centred' or demand led.

That means you start off by looking at what you should be doing and work back from there. If technology, social changes etc have made certain posts redundant they should be removed from the structures and, assuming the people have the requisite skills, the employees moved to where they are needed - if people lack the skills or are unwilling / unable to move, then they should have to take a fair redundancy package.

In other words, the situation should be actively managed and change should become fairly run-of-the-mill in the PS. As it is, the corporate slogan for the entire PS/CS is "Change - we fear change"

Waiting for dead men's shoes means that it will take a generation to establish a PS that will already be obsolete

Godge

You Suck! wrote: »

I am quoting a specific part of the reform, the least you could do is offer a specific criticism. The quote you use is exceedingly vague. Also, anything constructive to offer in the place of your criticism, or is this just an exercise in denouncing potential change to the current structure?

Well, one specific criticism of the OP is that the two pay cuts, the pension levy and the 7% increase in working hours were all agreed as part of Croke Park/HRA in return for a guarantee of no compulsory redundancy.

Take away the guarantee and you lose the agreement to nearly €3 bn in savings.

You Suck!

Godge wrote: »

Take away the guarantee and you lose the agreement to nearly €3 bn in savings.

It saddens me that you think I'm attacking current agreements, I'm not. I'm simply proposing a possible hiring policy to be implemented for new hires going forward based on models that have worked well in other countries, again this is why I think that the hiring freeze represents a substantial opportunity as it represents a 5 year gap between existing and new staff. Instead of taking this as an attack, why not try and suggest something constructive that would align with improved services for both of us?

bobbysands81

There is no job for life in the Public Sector.

Gumbo

You Suck! wrote: »

It saddens me that you think I'm attacking current agreements, I'm not. I'm simply proposing a possible hiring policy to be implemented for new hires going forward based on models that have worked well in other countries, again this is why I think that the hiring freeze represents a substantial opportunity as it represents a 5 year gap between existing and new staff. Instead of taking this as an attack, why not try and suggest something constructive that would align with improved services for both of us?

There is no 5 year gap in the PS. I joined in 2009, we got a new employee this July, the PS is still hiring for critical positions.

My T&C's are different to those that joined prior to 95, and different to those that joined after 95, i moved job positions recently and because of that my T&C's have been altered again and my T&C's differ greatly from the guy beside me doing the same job.

There is already splits in the PS due to the lack lusture way the government has dealt with us over the last few years etc

Count Dooku

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2010/06/union-wins-on-jobs-for-life.html

bobbysands81 wrote: »

There is no job for life in the Public Sector.

bobbysands81

Count Dooku wrote: »

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2010/06/union-wins-on-jobs-for-life.html

That article is over 3 years old and states...

"The HSE is to outline likely job cuts..."

Count Dooku

bobbysands81 wrote: »

That article is over 3 years old and states...

"The HSE is to outline likely job cuts..."

How many from HSE permanent staff have been made redundant (early retirement doesn't count)?

MysticalRain

Uriel. wrote: »

I find this odd.

Historically, the PS was criticized for not having highly skilled/qualified staff and also i respect on non-transparent recruitment processes.

Now to join, individuals must do so by an open transparent and competitive process including by way of exam(s) and interview(s) depending on the job. The recruitment across (most) of the PS is handled by a central Organisation, which at least should lead to consistency, cost savings, openness, expertise etc..

I just don't get it.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. The centralised, entrance exam style recruitment system has it's roots in the old British colonial bureaucracy, and isn’t radically different to how people would have applied to the public sector a hundred years ago. I’m not sure either how asking someone to sit through an exam full of questions unrelated to a specific job role is either a cost effective or efficient method of recruitment. Or how adding someone to a panel and not keeping them in the loop a year or more is an open or transparent way of doing things. I don’t see how the PS here cannot simply adopt the best practices from the private sector like the PS in other countries have.

Granted of course, some branches of the PS are already doing this anyway to good effect. But these practices need to be more rigorously applied across the wider PS.

Gumbo

MysticalRain wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. The centralised, entrance exam style recruitment system has it's roots in the old British colonial bureaucracy, and isn’t radically different to how people would have applied to the public sector a hundred years ago. I’m not sure either how asking someone to sit through an exam full of questions unrelated to a specific job role is either a cost effective or efficient method of recruitment. Or how adding someone to a panel and not keeping them in the loop a year or more is an open or transparent way of doing things. I don’t see how the PS here cannot simply adopt the best practices from the private sector like the PS in other countries have.

Granted of course, some branches of the PS are already doing this anyway to good effect. But these practices need to be more rigorously applied across the wider PS.

As i said before, what entrance exam and what PS job required this?

The last time i heard about Civil Service Entrance Exams was when i done my leaving cert in 2000 and you could sit one in order to get a clerical officer post. Havent heard of them since.

MysticalRain

kceire wrote: »

As i said before, what entrance exam and what PS job required this?

The last time i heard about Civil Service Entrance Exams was when i done my leaving cert in 2000 and you could sit one in order to get a clerical officer post. Havent heard of them since.

As I told you before - mid 2000's, around 2004/5. Clerical Officer & Executive Officer were the job titles.

Gumbo

MysticalRain wrote: »

As I told you before - mid 2000's, around 2004/5. Clerical Officer & Executive Officer were the job titles.

Glad you cleared that up, you never clarified what job titles required an entrance exam, you'll be glad to know they dont anymore.

MysticalRain

kceire wrote: »

Glad you cleared that up, you never clarified what job titles required an entrance exam, you'll be glad to know they dont anymore.

I can only take your word for it given that there haven't been any large scale recruitment of CO's & EO's in the last 5 years. But good to see the PS evolving nonetheless.

Gumbo

MysticalRain wrote: »

I can only take your word for it given that there haven't been any large scale recruitment of CO's & EO's in the last 5 years. But good to see the PS evolving nonetheless.

There was no exam required in 2007 and 2008 when 2 girls i know started at CO's in a local authority in Dublin.

Sure whats wrong with an entrance exam if you get 200 apps for 10 positions, you have to cut the numbers somehow.

For instance, Dublin Fire Brigade recruited 3 months ago, and there was aptitude tests to cut the numbers down.

I also had to sit an entrance exam to get into FLS Aerospace back in 2001, so at the same time, it was common practice in the Private Sector too.

robp

MysticalRain wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. The centralised, entrance exam style recruitment system has it's roots in the old British colonial bureaucracy, and isn’t radically different to how people would have applied to the public sector a hundred years ago. I’m not sure either how asking someone to sit through an exam full of questions unrelated to a specific job role is either a cost effective or efficient method of recruitment. Or how adding someone to a panel and not keeping them in the loop a year or more is an open or transparent way of doing things. I don’t see how the PS here cannot simply adopt the best practices from the private sector like the PS in other countries have.

Granted of course, some branches of the PS are already doing this anyway to good effect. But these practices need to be more rigorously applied across the wider PS.

Unless I am wrong but isn't this exam system only in place for the civil Service which itself comprises only ~10% of public sector? I think using the term 'some branches' for what is in fact 90% of the total is unfair. And seems to be used for only some positions e.g. Third Secretary.

the entrance exam thing occurs overseas as well. Its not designed to weed out people based on vocationally criteria. Its trying to select for innate competence and talents that are essential in many different areas, matching the unpredictability of senior civil servant work.

MysticalRain

kceire wrote: »

There was no exam required in 2007 and 2008 when 2 girls i know started at CO's in a local authority in Dublin.

Sure whats wrong with an entrance exam if you get 200 apps for 10 positions, you have to cut the numbers somehow.

For instance, Dublin Fire Brigade recruited 3 months ago, and there was aptitude tests to cut the numbers down.

I also had to sit an entrance exam to get into FLS Aerospace back in 2001, so at the same time, it was common practice in the Private Sector too.

There is nothing wrong with aptitude exams. The key point is the questions asked need to be relevant to the job i.e. there no point in the PS trying to recruit people with specialist skills if they have to sit through an exam which has nothing to do with their job role. The generic, one size-fits-all approach doesn't really cut it in this day and age.

I worked for FLS Aerospace as well back in 2003 as a general operative (I don't think it's the best example to represent the private sector as back then it was really still Team Aer Lingus under private ownership). But at least I was asked some basic questions which were directly related to the job.

Rightwing

The PS/CS here revolves around not what you know/skills, but who you know.

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

The PS/CS here revolves around not what you know/skills, but who you know.

Seriously, did you see that on Damo & Ivor?

Unless of course you have some proof to back that up........
God forbid that all job advertisements are published on www.publicjobs.ie then you go for interview with 3 people, so you need to impress 3 people individually, unless you know all 3 of course and then the marks and comments for each candidate is available from HR opun request afterwards, talk about a transparent system.......... unless of course you are talking out of your back side

Godge

MysticalRain wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with aptitude exams. The key point is the questions asked need to be relevant to the job i.e. there no point in the PS trying to recruit people with specialist skills if they have to sit through an exam which has nothing to do with their job role. The generic, one size-fits-all approach doesn't really cut it in this day and age.

I worked for FLS Aerospace as well back in 2003 as a general operative (I don't think it's the best example to represent the private sector as back then it was really still Team Aer Lingus under private ownership). But at least I was asked some basic questions which were directly related to the job.

When was the last time you sat one of these exams?

They are competency-based work-focussed exams not write an essay type.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

The PS/CS here revolves around not what you know/skills, but who you know.

Rightwing wrote: »

I wonder has the job already been given away before the ad is placed?

3 people or 3 cronies,

Chuckle chuckle.

Have you anything to back this up.

MysticalRain

Godge wrote: »

When was the last time you sat one of these exams?

They are competency-based work-focussed exams not write an essay type.

As stated previously, this was the mid 2000's, and the questions had nothing to do with my own area of expertise.

Incidentally, I also did competency-based interviews with the NZ civil service and my current employer. By contrast with the Irish PS, the questions were focused on recruiting for a specific job role instead of some generic office bureaucrat.

Gumbo

MysticalRain wrote: »

As stated previously, this was the mid 2000's, and the questions had nothing to do with my own area of expertise.

Incidentally, I also did competency-based interviews with the NZ civil service and my current employer. By contrast with the Irish PS, the questions were focused on recruiting for a specific job role instead of some generic office bureaucrat.

Can you give an example if this generic office bureaucrat questions?
And considering you keep harping on about a process that took place over 10 years ago, can you not accept that it is not done anymore?

MysticalRain

kceire wrote: »

Can you give an example if this generic office bureaucrat questions?
And considering you keep harping on about a process that took place over 10 years ago, can you not accept that it is not done anymore?

It was 8-9 years ago. Let's not over egg the pudding here.

A quick check of the publicjobs.ie website turns up a few examples of these non-existent tests that supposedly don't exist anymore. I see not much has changed since I last did them.
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/advice/test/sample.htm
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/advice/test/assess.htm

I really don't understand why people working in the PS get so defensive regarding the idea of adopting the same recruitment methods that the private sector and PS in other countries use.

Rightwing

MysticalRain wrote: »

It was 8-9 years ago. Let's not over egg the pudding here.

A quick check of the publicjobs.ie website turns up a few examples of these non-existent tests that supposedly don't exist anymore. I see not much has changed since I last did them.
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/advice/test/sample.htm
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/advice/test/assess.htm

I really don't understand why people working in the PS get so defensive regarding the idea of adopting the same recruitment methods that the private sector and PS in other countries use.

I do,,,and they do too.

Gumbo

MysticalRain wrote: »

It was 8-9 years ago. Let's not over egg the pudding here.

A quick check of the publicjobs.ie website turns up a few examples of these non-existent tests that supposedly don't exist anymore. I see not much has changed since I last did them.
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/advice/test/sample.htm
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/advice/test/assess.htm

I really don't understand why people working in the PS get so defensive regarding the idea of adopting the same recruitment methods that the private sector and PS in other countries use.

So now you are giving out about tests designed for particular roles and to make sure the person applying for the job can perform in the role properly.

The format of CS entry examinations is multiple choice questionaires relating to a variety of competencies consiered relevant to the job you're going for. These would include job simulation, verbal reasoning and numerical skills.

Some people are never happy. What recruitment process would you like to see?

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

I do,,,and they do too.

You still spouting nonsense? Here's your :rolleyes: back, you seem to have dropped it in your previous session.

MysticalRain

kceire wrote: »

So now you are giving out about tests designed for particular roles and to make sure the person applying for the job can perform in the role properly.

Those are only “particular roles” if you believe that the day to day job of manager in a HR dept is the same as that of a manager in an IT dept. Those are radically different skill sets, and a generic aptitude exam which puts them both in the same category is missing the point. The logic appears to be “lets recruit someone as an Executive Officer, and then figure out what to do with them after they join”.

Some people are never happy. What recruitment process would you like to see?

Look, this is a really simple concept: if the PS wants to recruit an accountant, IT person or whatever, let them have a specific aptitude test designed to suit the role. Now granted some sections of the PS already do this (and focus less on aptitude exams, and more on interviews – as in the private sector, and NZ PS). But even then, many of the job specs I see are way too generic relative to the specs you see advertised by private sector companies. Sometimes it’s hard to tell what the hell the job is about.

And for the record, I think some of the more well known American multi-nationals have the best recruitment practices, but I wouldn't expect the Irish PS to go that far.

Scofflaw

Rightwing wrote: »

I do,,,and they do too.

Enough of the trolling. This could as easily be a ban as a red card, and will be next time.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Gumbo

MysticalRain wrote: »

Those are only “particular roles” if you believe that the day to day job of manager in a HR dept is the same as that of a manager in an IT dept. Those are radically different skill sets, and a generic aptitude exam which puts them both in the same category is missing the point. The logic appears to be “lets recruit someone as an Executive Officer, and then figure out what to do with them after they join”.

Look, this is a really simple concept: if the PS wants to recruit an accountant, IT person or whatever, let them have a specific aptitude test designed to suit the role. Now granted some sections of the PS already do this (and focus less on aptitude exams, and more on interviews – as in the private sector, and NZ PS). But even then, many of the job specs I see are way too generic relative to the specs you see advertised by private sector companies. Sometimes it’s hard to tell what the hell the job is about.

And for the record, I think some of the more well known American multi-nationals have the best recruitment practices, but I wouldn't expect the Irish PS to go that far.

Again, have you got an example of a PS advertisement that details within did not portray the work to be carried out?

My current position was advertised as such, no exams, just an interview with a 3 person panel.

I am now doing exactly what the advertisement mentioned.

MysticalRain

kceire wrote: »

Again, have you got an example of a PS advertisement that details within did not portray the work to be carried out?

IT roles advertised by the central bank a few years ago would be one example that springs to mind. The job specs were long on waffle, and very short on specific technologies required. Job ads for network engineers tend to be a lot more detailed than what you see below. The "Technical Analyst" role is even more vague.

The Technical Analyst ensures the effective application of controlled change to the IT environment in order to ensure continued effective operation of applications and systems. They ensure the effective provisioning of IT environments, users and services. They manage the change process and ensure up to date configuration records are maintained in the CMDB. They ensure the continued effective operation of systems by reviewing logs and alerts to monitor system performance and capacity and take action as appropriate. They provide advice to and support the delivery of projects, including any development and integration work that is required.

The Network Specialist is responsible for the operation and support of the physical network (Servers, Data Centre, IP Network). They have responsibility for day to day capacity and availability management. The Network Specialist carries out detailed design, plans and supervises the build, configuration and deployment of new assets to the network recording all changes in the CMDB. They carry out routine performance monitoring and proactive maintenance to ensure continued availability of the network. They also ensure the security of the Central Bank of Irelandís systems by developing and implementing network-level security mechanisms.

My current position was advertised as such, no exams, just an interview with a 3 person panel.

I am now doing exactly what the advertisement mentioned.

Like I said, some departments handle recruitment better than others. So your own anecdotal experience may not be reflective of the wider PS.

Gumbo

MysticalRain wrote: »

IT roles advertised by the central bank a few years ago would be one example that springs to mind. The job specs were long on waffle, and very short on specific technologies required. Job ads for network engineers tend to be a lot more detailed than what you see below. The "Technical Analyst" role is even more vague.

But to an IT experienced person, that job spec is probably perfect.
Would you like to see them list out every piece of software they will encounter? Every piece of hardware they encounter?

There has to be some flexibility to allow for change, ie your employed to look after a windows system, then they change to mac, you adapt and work with the new system instead of being just employed to work on a windows system.

MysticalRain

kceire wrote: »

But to an IT experienced person, that job spec is probably perfect.
Would you like to see them list out every piece of software they will encounter? Every piece of hardware they encounter?

Ah, come on now. Let's not twist my argument into something that it's not. It shouldn't be that hard for the PS to write a job advert with series of pithy bullet points giving a reasonable outline of what a job entails. If a recruiter at my current employer posted a job advert for a network engineer like that, they would have a lot of explaining to do at their next performance review.

There has to be some flexibility to allow for change, ie your employed to look after a windows system, then they change to mac, you adapt and work with the new system instead of being just employed to work on a windows system.

Let's not shift the goal posts too far here. I think it's implied that most IT folks, or anyone else for that matter, are expected to be flexible and allow for change (those are not words I hear to often associated with the PS). But it's not too much to ask that the job advert actually state what the job is about. At the very least, it avoids the situation of a candidate having to play a guessing to figure what the employer actually wants.