To all the right wingers on here

Privatisation of government services is suppose to lead to better and cheaper services.

I was talking to someone who works in the management of a services that was formally provided in house by the HSE and is now privatised, anyway it turns out the cost of the services is not any cheaper, its just that the money is now going to the profit of the private services provider instead of on wages of the workers formally employed by the HSE. How can that be good for the economy the services is not any cheaper to provide its just that the money is going to a private company.

sarumite

I don't consider myself a 'right winger' however my opinion is that competition should lead to cheaper or better services (and preferably both). I would need a lot more information about your friends before I could comment on that particular situation.

grizzly

Competition is great in theory. Unfortunately in Ireland it's like an egg and spoon race where the egg is glued to the spoon, the course is very short and all the other competitors have yet to be told about the race.

I think part of the problem is that if a large or large(ish) services is to be privatised there are only a relatively small amount of companies that can tender for the services and the tendering company still has to comply with all sort of legislation, rules, regulations and so on. In a way its not true competition and it really is just transferring the money to a private companies profit.

I have noting against privatisation as such provided its not a race to the bottom, its just that privatization is always presented as the solution to getting a cheaper better services and that's only true in some situation's.

Scofflaw

mariaalice wrote: »

I think part of the problem is that if a large or large(ish) services is to be privatised there are only a relatively small amount of companies that can tender for the services and the tendering company still has to comply with all sort of legislation, rules, regulations and so on. In a way its not true competition and it really is just transferring the money to a private companies profit.

I have noting against privatisation as such provided its not a race to the bottom, its just that privatization is always presented as the solution to getting a cheaper better services and that's only true in some situation's.

Sure - in a small market, and with heavily regulated services, the idea that competition can produce a better outcome ignores market realities.

Mind you, I prefer grizzly's pithy summary!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Flex

mariaalice wrote: »

Privatisation of government services is suppose to lead to better and cheaper services.

I was talking to someone who works in the management of a services that was formally provided in house by the HSE and is now privatised, anyway it turns out the cost of the services is not any cheaper, its just that the money is now going to the profit of the private services provider instead of on wages of the workers formally employed by the HSE. How can that be good for the economy the services is not any cheaper to provide its just that the money is going to a private company.

Could it be that the service in question was actually making a great loss while public but the deficit was just being made up by the government (meaning it did actually cost you, just indirectly via taxation)?

If it costs X to provide a services and you privatize it and it still costs X what exactly has been achieved.

As I said I am not against privatization at all, my point is the belief that it is always cheaper and better is not always true.

Most if not all public provided services are heavy regulated even relatively simple services such as catering have to operate under a huge amount or legislation every thing from the min wage to food hygiene to health and safety and so on.

everdead.ie

mariaalice wrote: »

If it costs X to provide a services and you privatize it and it still costs X what exactly has been achieved.

As I said I am not against privatization at all, my point is the belief that it is always cheaper and better is not always true.

Most if not all public provided services are heavy regulated even relatively simple services such as catering have to operate under a huge amount or legislation every thing from the min wage to food hygiene to health and safety and so on.

I think what Flex was asking was if it cost X but was making a loss, but now it costs X and is making a profit then you do get a benefit as the government isn't making up the loss and wages and costs associated with it are off the books.

But without any information on it no one can tell if there is any value being gained by anyone.

everdead.ie

everdead.ie wrote: »

I think what Flex was asking was if it cost X but was making a loss, but now it costs X and is making a profit then you do get a benefit as the government isn't making up the loss and wages and costs associated with it are off the books.

But without any information on it no one can tell if there is any value being gained by anyone.

publicly provided services such as health care are not really for profit businesses, so it is not about profit or loss as such it is about cost and services provision.

sarumite

Some would argue that companies are freer to make changes and are more responsive to changing environments as they are less bound by political motivations when making decisions. A minister for health is still a politician who must look after his/her own patch and will try and balance conflicts of interest such as whether the right decision for healthcare is the wrong decision politically. I think labour for example has had to make some tough decisions and although some people will think those decision might have been right for the country, they are getting punished at the polls and I suspect this will be reflected in the next GE.

everdead.ie

mariaalice wrote: »

publicly provided services such as health care are not really for profit businesses, so it is not about profit or loss as such it is about cost and services provision.

That is true that services like the HSE are not profit making enterprises but if someone was able to provide the same service at the same cost to consumer and it removed the big black hole it leaves in public finances I think we would all be better of.

creedp

everdead.ie wrote: »

That is true that services like the HSE are not profit making enterprises but if someone was able to provide the same service at the same cost to consumer and it removed the big black hole it leaves in public finances I think we would all be better of.

If a private organisation can provide the service at the same cost as the HSE then the taxpayer should be indifferent as to how the service is provided as the taxpayer is either funding it through taxation or charges paid to the public or private body. Privitisation simply means that a private provider provides the same service to the same people as was previously provided by the public sector. Its only if the private provider can provide the service at a reduced price (i.e. a price that covers both cost and profit) will the taxpayer will be better off.

Jawgap

I don't consider myself a 'right winger' - a right whinger, but not a right winger......I work in the PS

The HSE is not fit for purpose. If a private enterprise is supplying a service (as opposed to a good) into the HSE then they are probably bound by all the bureaucracy and inefficiencies associated with that organisation. Coupled to that will be a resentment that they (the company) are supplying the service and that only adds to the inertia they are no doubt trying to work against - delivering the service at the same cost is a good start; I wouldn't be surprised if it had cost them more.

How does your friend know the service is not cheaper? Maybe the HSE are spending the same amount of money to buy in the service but are getting either a better quality and more flexible provision, or greater 'quantity' (service available for longer hours, serving a wider area or handling greater numbers).

Btw- is the service now being provided by a private company, or a 'not-for-profit' charity-type organisation?

There's a lot of stuff in public ownership in Ireland that could and should be privatised and a lot of services that should be put out to tender or mutualised.

My point is that often these things are driven by ideology and politics, when in reality ideology ( of any sort ) and politics should have nothing to do with the provision of services.

Also making private providers very accountable for how they spend public money means that the services procurement organisation for example a health care setting has to employ a new layer of bureaucracy to make sure the private provider is accountable, of course you could tender for another private provider to keep an eye on the first private provider.

Jawgap

mariaalice wrote: »

My point is that often these things are driven by ideology and politics, when in reality ideology ( of any sort ) and politics should have nothing to do with the provision of services.

Also making private providers very accountable for how they spend public money means that the services procurement organisation for example a health care setting has to employ a new layer of bureaucracy to make sure the private provider is accountable, of course you could tender for another private provider to keep an eye on the first private provider.

And the unions representing existing workers in the HSE are ideologically neutral?

If the contract is competently, effectively and properly written, there should be no problem - especially if adequate provision for audit, performance indicators and penalties is made. You only need a small client unit and an audit team and you can manage a great swathe of contracts.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

And the unions representing existing workers in the HSE are ideologically neutral?

If the contract is competently, effectively and properly written, there should be no problem - especially if adequate provision for audit, performance indicators and penalties is made. You only need a small client unit and an audit team and you can manage a great swathe of contracts.

Of course the unions are not ideologically neutral as I said I am not against privatisation as such, except for the fact that is often not a more economical way of providing a services as for the audit team and client unit, you still got to have them and it is another a layer of bureaucracy.

everdead.ie

creedp wrote: »

If a private organisation can provide the service at the same cost as the HSE then the taxpayer should be indifferent as to how the service is provided as the taxpayer is either funding it through taxation or charges paid to the public or private body. Privitisation simply means that a private provider provides the same service to the same people as was previously provided by the public sector. Its only if the private provider can provide the service at a reduced price (i.e. a price that covers both cost and profit) will the taxpayer will be better off.

That is the scenario I am giving I'm not sure it is being understood properly.

I'm saying if a loss making service was costing the public and also making a loss then if it costs the same for the private sector to do without the Government having to plug a deficit then it makes sense to make the service private.

The issue is that we have no information on this service to be able to make any kind of call on whether it is or is not worth it to make this particular service private.

Jawgap

mariaalice wrote: »

Of course the unions are not ideologically neutral as I said I am not against privatisation as such, except for the fact that is often not a more economical way of providing a services as for the audit team and client unit, you still got to have them and it is another a layer of bureaucracy.

Sorry, but it's not - you're not adding a layer of anything. You are varying the service delivery model and if anything you are removing layers of bureaucracy, while, usually, increasing the level of accountability.

One of the greatest deficiencies in the HSE (and in the wider the PS) is the almost total lack of accountability - a properly written contract immediately gives you very high levels of both accountability and scrutiny, which are desperately lacking when services are provided in-house.

everdead.ie

everdead.ie wrote: »

That is the scenario I am giving I'm not sure it is being understood properly.

I'm saying if a loss making service was costing the public and also making a loss then if it costs the same for the private sector to do without the Government having to plug a deficit then it makes sense to make the service private.

The issue is that we have no information on this service to be able to make any kind of call on whether it is or is not worth it to make this particular service private.

I don't know the full financial background and again my point is the thoughtless often thrown away comment that privatisation is a panacea for ever in ill in the provision of public services and that privatisation will lead to less bureaucracy, when in fact it often leads to more! In some situation privatisation is cheaper and more efficient BUT not in all.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, but it's not - you're not adding a layer of anything. You are varying the service delivery model and if anything you are removing layers of bureaucracy, while, usually, increasing the level of accountability.

One of the greatest deficiencies in the HSE (and in the wider the PS) is the almost total lack of accountability - a properly written contract immediately gives you very high levels of both accountability and scrutiny, which are desperately lacking when services are provided in-house.

Maybe you are correct, but who wrote the tender, who administers the tendering process and who scrutinises the services provider and who makes sure the services provider is accountable.

Frank Black

mariaalice wrote: »

Privatisation of government services is suppose to lead to better and cheaper services.

I was talking to someone who works in the management of a services that was formally provided in house by the HSE and is now privatised, anyway it turns out the cost of the services is not any cheaper, its just that the money is now going to the profit of the private services provider instead of on wages of the workers formally employed by the HSE. How can that be good for the economy the services is not any cheaper to provide its just that the money is going to a private company.

OK, you've convinced me with evidence that strong.
Privatisation is bad.
Case closed.

Icepick

Yes, socialism anf corporatism are very similar in their outcomes.

Count Dooku

mariaalice wrote: »

Privatisation of government services is suppose to lead to better and cheaper services.

Not necessary, sometimes main purpose of privatisation could be to take away power from trade unions in order to have better services, independent from mood of militant union leaders

irishgrover

mariaalice wrote: »

Privatisation of government services is suppose to lead to better and cheaper services.

I was talking to someone who works in the management of a services that was formally provided in house by the HSE and is now privatised, anyway it turns out the cost of the services is not any cheaper, its just that the money is now going to the profit of the private services provider instead of on wages of the workers formally employed by the HSE. How can that be good for the economy the services is not any cheaper to provide its just that the money is going to a private company.

So in my own personal experience here is what I have observed...
The private sector is engaged to work with the public sector, in some capacity or another. The vast majority of private sector people will, by and large, do the work to the best of their ability (primarily motivated by the fact that they know their livelihood or career progression depends on it). A significant minority of the public sector workers will not engage in the same way, because there is no material benefit to it. By and large, remuneration is in no way related to effort.

When the private and public sector intersect, especially in situations where progress is dependent on the public sector employee actually making a decision, inevitably that decision is delayed, fudged, compromised or just never made. The Public Sector worker is either unwilling to or unable to actually make a decision. More often than not the primary reason for not making a decision is that there is minimal gain to be made from actually making a decision. Often there is nothing but pain to be gained from making a decision because it often involves negative confrontations etc with other Public Sector workers or representatives. This bottleneck normally removes any efficiency that was possible in the first place by the introduction of the private sector.

In addition the private sector workers (or more often their management) play alone with this because the longer they stay on the job the more money they make.
This is not to suggest that one side is better than that other. But I do believe that for the most part the private sector is driven to make decisions and act on them, whereas in the public sector there is no driver for decision making and execution, instead there are significant barriers to it.

Mahogany

Left Wing = Good

Right Wing = Bad

Good loser

Public v Private.

Throughout the country waste collection services have been privatised over the last 10/15 years. I haven't heard of any reverting back to date?

Sheldons Brain

The Public Sector worker is either unwilling to or unable to actually make a decision. More often than not the primary reason for not making a decision is that there is minimal gain to be made from actually making a decision. Often there is nothing but pain to be gained from making a decision because it often involves negative confrontations etc with other Public Sector workers or representatives.

More stereotypes. People in E&R make life and death decisions all the time, if the bomb squad couldn't make decisions they'd be dead, universities teach decision making techniques far beyond those used in most organisations. Some parts of the bureaucracy may have the characteristics you describe, but shotgun nature of these comments makes them worse than useless.

touts

Because a socialist style health system run by the state, administered by left leaning managers, and dominated by entrenched unions has worked out so well for us.

Right Wing = Bad
Left Wing = Bad

The only difference between Left and Right is the snouts in the trough. We need a new way. What that is god only knows but I'm convinced that the solution to Ireland's problems are not found in any of the current political parties, alliances, independents, or unions.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with the right wing title, I would be pretty much middle of the road in my politics with maybe a slight lean to the left.
I think the current left or right are dead as choice.

Tony Blair ideas of he third way is the answer in my opinion, the third way is a mixture of the best thinking of the left and right.Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different than traditional conception of socialism, and referred to it as "social-ism" that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity.[4] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.[5] Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a "new capitalism".[6]

It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this.[7] It emphasizes commitment to: balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, protection of social capital, and protection of the environment.[8]

The Third Way has been criticized by some conservatives and libertarians who advocate laissez-faire capitalism.[9] It has also been heavily criticized by many social democrats, democratic socialists and communists in particular as a betrayal of left-wing values.[10][11][12] Specific definitions of Third Way policies may differ between Europe and America.

That from the wiki on the subject.

MilanPan!c

The truth is always more gray than black and white.

Competition works as long as it's fair. The biggest impediment to fair competition is not government, but the competitors themselves. Unless government can ensure that competition is fair the basic assumption that competition makes things better is - at best - not a given.

Of course, governments also have a history of not delivering the best value for money, but the one thing that makes that slightly more tolerable in a democracy is the small control that the masses have over politicians.

irishgrover

irishgrover wrote: »

So in my own personal experience here is what I have observed...
The private sector is engaged to work with the public sector, in some capacity or another. The vast majority of private sector people will, by and large, do the work to the best of their ability (primarily motivated by the fact that they know their livelihood or career progression depends on it). A significant minority of the public sector workers will not engage in the same way, because there is no material benefit to it. By and large, remuneration is in no way related to effort.

When the private and public sector intersect, especially in situations where progress is dependent on the public sector employee actually making a decision, inevitably that decision is delayed, fudged, compromised or just never made. The Public Sector worker is either unwilling to or unable to actually make a decision. More often than not the primary reason for not making a decision is that there is minimal gain to be made from actually making a decision. Often there is nothing but pain to be gained from making a decision because it often involves negative confrontations etc with other Public Sector workers or representatives. This bottleneck normally removes any efficiency that was possible in the first place by the introduction of the private sector.

In addition the private sector workers (or more often their management) play alone with this because the longer they stay on the job the more money they make.
This is not to suggest that one side is better than that other. But I do believe that for the most part the private sector is driven to make decisions and act on them, whereas in the public sector there is no driver for decision making and execution, instead there are significant barriers to it.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

More stereotypes. People in E&R make life and death decisions all the time, if the bomb squad couldn't make decisions they'd be dead, universities teach decision making techniques far beyond those used in most organisations. Some parts of the bureaucracy may have the characteristics you describe, but shotgun nature of these comments makes them worse than useless.

This is purely my opinion, based on multiple and prolonged interactions with numerous state and semi state engagements. I'm not suggesting that people in the public sector ore devoid of the ability to make decisions. From a task driven point of view, be it sweeping a road, changing a light bulb in a street lamp, defusing a bomb, performing brain surgery etc
I am strongly suggesting that when they interface with private sector workers or need to make strategic decisions that impact significantly the structure or operational effectiveness on a large scale, that there are significant barriers to change.

Jawgap

irishgrover wrote: »

This is purely my opinion, based on multiple and prolonged interactions with numerous state and semi state engagements. I'm not suggesting that people in the public sector ore devoid of the ability to make decisions. From a task driven point of view, be it sweeping a road, changing a light bulb in a street lamp, defusing a bomb, performing brain surgery etc
I am strongly suggesting that when they interface with private sector workers or need to make strategic decisions that impact significantly the structure or operational effectiveness on a large scale, that there are significant barriers to change.

my own experience at being involved both here and in the UK with both managing services contracted in, and delivering services as a contractor is that the main 'barriers to change' are at the top - politically / ideologically there is no appetite for this type of shift because of the loss of control it will imply, which prevents the dispensation of largesse from the local politicians.

Also (in Ireland) in my own experience I've lost count of the number of times proposals have been advanced from inhouse and rejected only for the highly paid consultants to be brought in, make the same proposals (in a glossier fashion) and for them to be accepted!

Is it possible to have any system of public services provision that is both economical, efficient, fair to all, free of politics and ideology, and is not a race to the bottom.

Jawgap

mariaalice wrote: »

Is it possible to have any system of public services provision that is both economical, efficient, fair to all, free of politics and ideology, and is not a race to the bottom.

It's not because it will never be free of politics or ideology.

Every politician wants a better service provision delivered at a better economic cost as long as the hospital / garda station / post office / fire brigade station / army barracks / ag research station / local authority / school / etc in their constituency isn't closed.

You have to have political scrutiny and oversight - but in Ireland we've replaced that with meddling and interference.

Sheldons Brain

One of the greatest deficiencies in the HSE (and in the wider the PS) is the almost total lack of accountability - a properly written contract immediately gives you very high levels of both accountability and scrutiny, which are desperately lacking when services are provided in-house.

Clarity of expectation is key whether private or public.
The recent outsourcing of driving licences has been a debacle, because the contracts they were provided with did not require them to have wheelchair access, or did not require them to provide service in a finite time period or to have a service level of any sort. So despite the wonders of privatisation people are queuing for hours in centres in obscure locations and then waiting 6 weeks for their licence.

Every politician wants a better service provision delivered at a better economic cost as long as the hospital / garda station / post office / fire brigade station / army barracks / ag research station / local authority / school / etc in their constituency isn't closed.

Politicians like to meddle, which is why there ensure that there are no criteria for things. If you have a response time criteria for your fire service then you have a basis for deciding where the fire stations should be, but then the local politico can't meddle.

antoobrien

mariaalice wrote: »

How can that be good for the economy the services is not any cheaper to provide its just that the money is going to a private company.

The various taxes being paid by the company that the public sector would have (possibly) been exempt from e.g. VAT & CT. If the private companies are actually making a profit, then it proves that the HSE are wasting public money to the tune of the profits made by the private sector.

Hypothetical example: a service that cost the HSE €100m to provide has been outsourced to ABCD Healthcare Ltd for the same cost. ABCD Ltd make a €10m profit.

It's actually cost ABCD €90m to do the job it cost HSE €100m to do. They pay CT at 12.5% - so the government get €1.25m that they wouldn't have gotten from the HSE.

Even if the HSE are paying the full previous cost to the private company to provide the services, the government are coming out of it up - because of the profits that you seem to have a problem with.

Jawgap

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Clarity of expectation is key whether private or public.
The recent outsourcing of driving licences has been a debacle, because the contracts they were provided with did not require them to have wheelchair access, or did not require them to provide service in a finite time period or to have a service level of any sort. So despite the wonders of privatisation people are queuing for hours in centres in obscure locations and then waiting 6 weeks for their licence.



Politicians like to meddle, which is why there ensure that there are no criteria for things. If you have a response time criteria for your fire service then you have a basis for deciding where the fire stations should be, but then the local politico can't meddle.

that's hardly the contractors fault - they provided the service contracted for and it goes back to my original point that contracts need to properly written and comprehensive........and based on my experience I'd suggest that any contractor is treated as if they are sneakiest of the sneaky and will try to wriggle out of every obligation - that's why you need properly qualified people to write and supervise contracts - unfortunately we have DPER!

On the second point, they'll just make sure the criteria are structured in such a way to protect their local facility. You really need to interpose a structure between the policy and operational side - most countries use an inspectorate of some description to oversee service delivery of emergency services.

enricoh

my missus runs a group of approximately 20 staff in the hse n 5-10 agency. she was brought in to try to shake the place up as it was underpeforming for years.

half the staff do nothing, the other half cover there arses. they know they cant be sacked n just bitch to the inspectors. even if she could sack one or two of the worst the rest might do a bit. but no chance of that.
in the real world they'd be long gone

by the way i thank god almost every day for her salary n that its a permanent, pensionable number!

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

that's hardly the contractors fault - they provided the service contracted for and it goes back to my original point that contracts need to properly written and comprehensive........and based on my experience I'd suggest that any contractor is treated as if they are sneakiest of the sneaky and will try to wriggle out of every obligation - that's why you need properly qualified people to write and supervise contracts - unfortunately we have DPER!

On the second point, they'll just make sure the criteria are structured in such a way to protect their local facility. You really need to interpose a structure between the policy and operational side - most countries use an inspectorate of some description to oversee service delivery of emergency services.

Those are very good points, is the inspectorate not just another layer of bureaucracy?

enricoh

enricoh wrote: »

my missus runs a group of approximately 20 staff in the hse n 5-10 agency. she was brought in to try to shake the place up as it was underpeforming for years.

half the staff do nothing, the other half cover there arses. they know they cant be sacked n just bitch to the inspectors. even if she could sack one or two of the worst the rest might do a bit. but no chance of that.
in the real world they'd be long gone

by the way i thank god almost every day for her salary n that its a permanent, pensionable number!

That does happen and should not have been allowed to develop, however how come your wife cant discipline them for example I know of someone who was disciplined in the HSE for abuse of the sick leave policy, how come your wife cant manage them in to doing their job correctly.

Jawgap

mariaalice wrote: »

Those are very good points, is the inspectorate not just another layer of bureaucracy?

What's with the obsession with bureaucracy?

And it doesn't - the inspectorate sits outside the service provider. You want a fire brigade, you still ring 999 or 112 - they have no role with that.

If anything, they would drive improvements in the total system leading to the adoption of better / more efficient practices which lead to reduced bureaucracy.

In the Scottish case they went from 8 fire & rescue services to one..

Incidentally, Northern Ireland also has a single service and Wales has 3 - we have 37 'Fire Authorities' and 30 fire brigades!

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

What's with the obsession with bureaucracy?

And it doesn't - the inspectorate sits outside the service provider. You want a fire brigade, you still ring 999 or 112 - they have no role with that.

If anything, they would drive improvements in the total system leading to the adoption of better / more efficient practices which lead to reduced bureaucracy.

In the Scottish case they went from 8 fire & rescue services to one..

Incidentally, Northern Ireland also has a single service and Wales has 3 - we have 37 'Fire Authorities' and 30 fire brigades!

Then point is that to effect any meaningful change in the provision of public services we would have to go back to the beginning and start again. The system as it is will not change?

Sleepy

mariaalice wrote: »

Privatisation of government services is suppose to lead to better and cheaper services.

I was talking to someone who works in the management of a services that was formally provided in house by the HSE and is now privatised, anyway it turns out the cost of the services is not any cheaper, its just that the money is now going to the profit of the private services provider instead of on wages of the workers formally employed by the HSE. How can that be good for the economy the services is not any cheaper to provide its just that the money is going to a private company.

Do their costings of the in-house figures include provisions for the pension entitlements of the staff were they public? AFAIK, pensions are simply paid out of current expenditure in most public bodies so, even were the costs of running a unit identical in the year of estimation, the fact that one set of staff would be accruing pension rights whilst the other wouldn't would make a major difference.

One would also have to question whether the current staff providing the services are entitled to automatic pay raises as that will increase the cost of the public service option more in the future whilst the HSE are free to negotiate with a private sector provider to ensure the price stays the same or less than it would have cost had they had to meet staff increments etc.

And that's before discussing any efficiency gains from having staff that are liable to normal private sector repercussions of poor performance, excessive absenteeism etc. which should lead to higher quality of service than provided by a unionised public sector workforce.

Count Dooku

mariaalice wrote: »

Is it possible to have any system of public services provision that is both economical, efficient, fair to all, free of politics and ideology, and is not a race to the bottom.

Simple
Just remove jobs for life from public sector

daithi1970

The French Blood Transfusion Service was priviatised in the 1980s only to be re-nationalised in 1993 due to a scandal involving HIV-contaminated blood products. Be careful what you wish for....

daithi

Count Dooku

Count Dooku wrote: »

Simple
Just remove jobs for life from public sector

This is not exactly another public services thread, but I am curious how would you remove jobs for life for anyone, as we will always need public services and I am wondering how this would make public services provision economical, efficient, fair to all, ideologically and political free and would not be a race to the bottom?

Once you are a permanent employee of any company and as long as you do your job and the company dose not close down you could be there for you whole life, for example I know someone who has worked in Tesco and Quinsworth and has been there 30 years.

Count Dooku

mariaalice wrote: »

This is not exactly another public services thread, but I am curious how would you remove jobs for life for anyone, as we will always need public services and I am wondering how this would make public services provision economical, efficient, fair to all, ideologically and political free and would not be a race to the bottom?

Simple, if you will remove "jobs for life" entitlement, then managers will have more power to keep only best of best and will be able to clear public service from deadwood. As result public services can be smaller, but more efficient and will be capable to deliver the same level of services with less staff, which can be even paid more than now

Good loser

No rates are payable on offices occupied by the State.

Sheldons Brain

Count Dooku wrote: »

Simple, if you will remove "jobs for life" entitlement, then managers will have more power to keep only best of best and will be able to clear public service from deadwood. As result public services can be smaller, but more efficient and will be capable to deliver the same level of services with less staff, which can be even paid more than now

If someone if not doing their job, they can be removed at present. They may not be, but that is just bad management.

antoobrien

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If someone if not doing their job, they can be removed at present. They may not be, but that is just bad management.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. These guys got over 10k each for getting fired:

THREE carpet factory workers have been awarded five-figure compensation sums for unfair dismissal, despite admitting they slept on the job.

An Employment Appeals Tribunal heard workers at Waterford Carpets were clocked in and paid while still at home. At work, they sometimes played cards or "snoozed" in a warehouse.

The general manager said he was "shocked" by the level of absenteeism revealed by a CCTV monitoring investigation launched in February 2006 because he was concerned that production was not increasing despite the amount of overtime being claimed.

The investigation revealed that one worker was clocked in but absent from work on four occasions over a period of up 16 days

walt_white

mariaalice wrote: »

publicly provided services such as health care are not really for profit businesses, so it is not about profit or loss as such it is about cost and services provision.

whether their is a profit motive or not is irrelevant to me , as long as the service being provided is up to standard and is no more expensive , i have little interest in the idealogy behind things

something funny about those on the left is they often seem to believe that greed is only possible from the private sector , never the state