Good economic news thread

ardmacha

Villa05 wrote: »

So there will be no issue with junior cert program changes then? Or are you arguing a different point?

Do you really see any similarity in these two things, or are you clutching at straws?

Villa05

ardmacha wrote:

Do you really see any similarity in these two things, or are you clutching at straws?

Saving the country from economic catastrophe is not worthy of a strike from competent people in the Department of finance/Regulators office

Mongfinder General

Villa05 wrote: »

Saving the country from economic catastrophe is not worthy of a strike from competent people in the Department of finance/Regulators office

Strike? For what?

jank

ardmacha wrote: »

The government wanted light touch regulation and these people provided the government policy. Do you think they should opposed the elected government?

The notable thing about this crisis is that people seemed to have learned nothing, they are content to rant about stereotypes without any real interest in what really happened.

You stated that the public sector had nothing to do with the financial collapse of the country. I merely stated how wrong that assertion is by pointing out a Dept, run by em... public servants that was supposed to keep the financial state of the country in check. It is widely known that the dept. of finance for example was found to be wholly incompetent with much of the top level guys shipped off to retirement (i.e. sacked) once the new government came in.

We haven't even mentioned the Central bank and of course the pay bill for wages and pensions that ultimately drove the country to bankruptcy. So yes, you are wrong that the public sector had NOTHING to do with the crash.

ardmacha

jank wrote: »

You stated that the public sector had nothing to do with the financial collapse of the country. I merely stated how wrong that assertion is by pointing out a Dept, run by em... public servants that was supposed to keep the financial state of the country in check. It is widely known that the dept. of finance for example was found to be wholly incompetent with much of the top level guys shipped off to retirement (i.e. sacked) once the new government came in.

I'm not claiming that the Dept were hotshots, but any lack of trained people reflected government policy on the matter as the politicians did not want knowledgeable people arguing with them.

We haven't even mentioned the Central bank and of course the pay bill for wages and pensions that ultimately drove the country to bankruptcy.

The financial problems were essentially caused by the decline in tax revenue from failed private businesses, the payment of social welfare to those who used to work in these places, and the payment of funds to bail out privately owned banks. The public sector had little to do with this.

So yes, you are wrong that the public sector had NOTHING to do with the crash.

I actually used the phrase feck all, which is little, but more than nothing. The public service were citizens and voters and so have the same blame as everyone else. However, although their blame was much the same as rest of the economy they took the bigger reduction in living standards.

But telling the average citizen or poster here that they were the people who banjaxed up the country, only elicits their usual response is



so I expect the usual deflection about the public service causing the bust will continue.

antoobrien

ardmacha wrote: »

I'm not claiming that the Dept were hotshots, but any lack of trained people reflected government policy on the matter as the politicians did not want knowledgeable people arguing with them.

Bullsh*t.

The vast majority of civil & public servants are not hired by politicians, but by other civil & public servants.

So what this should really read is:

ardmacha wrote: »

I'm not claiming that the Dept were hotshots, but any lack of trained people reflected civil & public service policy on the matter as the civil & public servants did not want knowledgeable underlings around them to undermine them.

Rightwing

ardmacha wrote: »

The government is not the public sector, it is appointed by you, the citizen.

So Bertie Ahern & Co. aren't public sector employees ?

barneystinson

antoobrien wrote: »

Bullsh*t.

The vast majority of civil & public servants are not hired by politicians, but by other civil & public servants.

So what this should really read is:

So you reckon public sector recruitment policy is to deliberately not hire / promote the best person for the job? Seriously?

If we were out having a pint and you suggested that in my presence I'd be inviting you to step outside. That is incredibly insulting to people who have successfully come through public sector recruitment competitions, and to people who have the unenviable job of sitting on interview panels in those competitions.

BTW I'm not saying it's perfect, but no recruitment process is, and it's at least as good as any other model they could use.

Dave!

This doesn't sound like good economic news, guys

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

So Bertie Ahern & Co. aren't public sector employees ?

Who are "& Co"?

And if you're talking about elected politicians then no, they're not public sector employees, they're office holders.

antoobrien

barneystinson wrote: »

So you reckon public sector recruitment policy is to deliberately not hire / promote the best person for the job? Seriously?

Is it consciously deliberate - probably not - but you can not deny that many jobs have gone (and still do) not to the best person for the job, but the person with the "most experience" (read seniority) or the right personality (read has the right friends).

Besides, it's not a uniquely public sector trait for managers to not having having somebody smarter than them in working for them, as they fear the other person is after their job.

So the sooner that we face up to the reality of the situation - that most (if not all) of the shortcomings in staff in the civil & public services are down to the procedures & people in the services, the better of we'll be as a country.

barneystinson wrote: »

If we were out having a pint and you suggested that in my presence I'd be inviting you to step outside.

And you'd be invited to grow up.

Valetta

Dave! wrote: »

This doesn't sound like good economic news, guys

Good news from our closest trading partners.

Can only have a positive impact here.


http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2015/0417/694740-uk-jobless-figures/

barneystinson

antoobrien wrote: »

Is it consciously deliberate - probably not - but you can not deny that many jobs have gone (and still do) not to the best person for the job, but the person with the "most experience" (read seniority) or the right personality (read has the right friends)..

So are you exclusively talking about high level positions, or how far down the hierarchy does this corruption of the stated criteria pervade? There are competitions for CO's, EO's, AO's, HEO's, AP's, PO's and Assistant Secretaries in train at the moment... in which of them do you think the people on the panel won't be genuinely applying the merit based criteria?

antoobrien wrote: »

Besides, it's not a uniquely public sector trait for managers to not having having somebody smarter than them in working for them, as they fear the other person is after their job.

So what's your point, people are the same everywhere? And where is this policy?

antoobrien wrote: »

So the sooner that we face up to the reality of the situation - that most (if not all) of the shortcomings in staff in the civil & public services are down to the procedures & people in the services, the better of we'll be as a country.

And again, I don't think you'll find anyone disagree with that, but that's not what you said that I took umbrage with, and you've tried to just skirt around it... so to be clear, I'd like to know where this policy of not hiring the best person for the job is in place?

Villa05

Dave! wrote:

This doesn't sound like good economic news, guys

To keep the good news coming we need to examine and learn from the mistakes of the past and be very alert to attempts to repeat those same mistakes

Rightwing

barneystinson wrote: »

Who are "& Co"?

And if you're talking about elected politicians then no, they're not public sector employees, they're office holders.

Well they most certainly are not private sector office holders, because I don't know too many private sector office holders who benefitted from benchmarking and got the pensions etc.

When people say the public sector was responsible, it's not nurses they are referring to, even though indirectly the massive increase in wages did cause trouble.

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

Well they most certainly are not private sector office holders, because I don't know too many private sector office holders who benefitted from benchmarking and got the pensions etc.

When people say the public sector was responsible, it's not nurses they are referring to.

Hint: an office holder is not an employee. Semantics maybe, but there you go.

Rightwing

barneystinson wrote: »

Hint: an office holder is not an employee. Semantics maybe, but there you go.

Well as far as I'm concerned politicians fall into the PS category, and they will always look after themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. Be it through benchmarking, expenses etc. That's why every private sector worker should always be extremely suspicious of increases in the PS. No one should buy this 'productivity' bull.

antoobrien

barneystinson wrote: »

So are you exclusively talking about high level positions, or how far down the hierarchy does this corruption of the stated criteria pervade?

Have you ever heard of rigging a survey through the questions asked?

Or are you really telling us that you've never seen somebody come out of these "merit based competitions" and wonder how the hell they have a job?

barneystinson

antoobrien wrote: »

Have you ever heard of rigging a survey through the questions asked?

Or are you really telling us that you've never seen somebody come out of these "merit based competitions" and wonder how the hell they have a job?

Still dodging anto. Who are you accusing of this rigging, is it all 3 people on an interview board? (And bearing in mind for lots of competitions there'll be more than 1 interview board.)

The more you say the more you veer into conspiracy theory territory.

And you still haven't answered my simple question, at what level(s) are you saying this rigging, to ensure substandard people get hired, occurs?

As for your last question, yes, yes, absolutely sometimes you'll see someone placed highly on a panel - but generally the observation of their peers (or what might filter back down through someone who knows someone who sat on the board) will be that they always were a good spoofer, and it turns out they put together an impressive form and backed it up with a good performance on the day... not unlike a swashbuckling performance by a small club in the Third Round of the FA cup to beat a big club...

Like any recruitment process it has its flaws, but in my experience in the area of the service I work in the integrity and fairness of the process is very much respected, even by the people who don't get the promotion.

So I reiterate I find it pretty disgusting that you can so glibly come on and start from a point of assuming the whole thing is rotten to the core.

ezra_pound

antoobrien wrote: »

Bullsh*t.

The vast majority of civil & public servants are not hired by politicians, but by other civil & public servants.

So what this should really read is:

Actually if you read tk Whitaker's autobiography he makes quite clear that the min finance starting with haughey and then with other ff finance ministers broke the system of advice and council creating a culture whereby a minister's plans were not to be challenged.

antoobrien

barneystinson wrote: »

Still dodging anto. Who are you accusing of this rigging, is it all 3 people on an interview board? (And bearing in mind for lots of competitions there'll be more than 1 interview board.)

I'm not dodging, I'm stating it's naive to think that it's entirely above board.

barneystinson wrote: »

The more you say the more you veer into conspiracy theory territory.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they not out to get you.

barneystinson wrote: »

And you still haven't answered my simple question, at what level(s) are you saying this rigging, to ensure substandard people get hired, occurs?

Ah now I get it, you think it's to get substandard people on board, that's not what I said, what I said was that it's to get the desired candidate regardless of capability or quality.

And it still does happen at any level where somebody identifies a candidate that they want, but may not be the actual best choice.

Just to put it straight, I'm crediting any staffing shortcomings of the civil and public service - including their perceived failings - to the people that hire them, which is mostly other C/PS staff members.

barneystinson wrote: »

As for your last question, yes, yes, absolutely sometimes you'll see someone placed highly on a panel - but generally the observation of their peers (or what might filter back down through someone who knows someone who sat on the board) will be that they always were a good spoofer

A good spoofer. Oh dear god. And you actually believe this.

barneystinson wrote: »

So I reiterate I find it pretty disgusting that you can so glibly come on and start from a point of assuming the whole thing is rotten to the core.

Healthy cynicism is not disgusting, blind faith of the kind that you have professed, in a process that you suspect/know to be flawed is.

ezra_pound wrote: »

Actually if you read tk Whitaker's autobiography he makes quite clear that the min finance starting with haughey and then with other ff finance ministers broke the system of advice and council creating a culture whereby a minister's plans were not to be challenged.

And that actually neatly brings us back to the original point I was trying to make. The fault of the hiring to fit the culture is to be laid at the feet of the people doing the hiring - which is mostly an internal function. They have a mandate to do a specific job, whether the minister likes it or not. There are ways of giving advice without crossing the boss.

We're gone way o.t., so that will be my last post on the matter.

barneystinson

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm not dodging, I'm stating it's naive to think that it's entirely above board.



Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they not out to get you.

Yet again, can you explain to me who would want to rig a competition to select a panel of a few hundred people for CO / EO level positions across the civil service, and why would they want to rig it?

antoobrien wrote: »

Ah now I get it, you think it's to get substandard people on board, that's not what I said, what I said was that it's to get the desired candidate regardless of capability or quality.

And it still does happen at any level where somebody identifies a candidate that they want, but may not be the actual best choice.

OK we're getting closer, but you seem to be oversimplifying the process - in the civil service, only very senior positions tend to be advertised individually, otherwise vacancies get filled from a panel. But you still have to explain who the somebody is, and how you believe they influence the process, which may be an application form, an aptitude test (provided by a third party these days), an interview board of people from across 2 departments (or TLAC), and in some cases a second round of interviews, with a different interview board.
That's a lot of strings that need to be pulled, a lot of feathers potentially ruffled, a lot of carrots to be dangled or sticks to be waved, just so that "somebody" can ensure that the person they want gets onto a panel.

antoobrien wrote: »

Just to put it straight, I'm crediting any staffing shortcomings of the civil and public service - including their perceived failings - to the people that hire them, which is mostly other C/PS staff members.

That's simply common sense, up to a point. Inability to attract and retain the best staff may be a problem that is outside of the control of the C/PS if the pay, terms and conditions (including opportunities for further advancement on merit!) don't match what the private sector can offer...

antoobrien wrote: »

A good spoofer. Oh dear god. And you actually believe this.

Yeah, someone who can go into an interview and sell themselves and what they've got on their application form to demonstrate the competencies. Horses for courses; there are plenty of fantastic civil servants who do great work and would be excellent performers at the next grade up, but who will never be promoted because the process doesn't suit them - either they aren't good enough at the aptitude tests or they don't possess the "spoof" ability to go in and project themselves well in the interview. My experience is that these people's AP's / PO's will try their best to instill the confidence or whatever else is missing from a competing-for-promotion point of view to get these people better equipped, because contrary to your perception of it most people at that level would prefer to see other capable people do well.

antoobrien wrote: »

Healthy cynicism is not disgusting, blind faith of the kind that you have professed, in a process that you suspect/know to be flawed is.

Have you tried to get a job in the civil service recently Anto - I suggest you actually try your hand at applying, just for the craic, and come back and tell us how you found the process after you've had some recent direct experience of it. Or head over to the work & jobs forum where there is a multitude of threads about the various recruitment competitions over the last 12 months, and see what the people there who have gone through it thought of the process.
And where is my blind faith, I've acknowledged that there is no such thing as a perfect selection methodology - but the one that is in place is in my experience rigorous, scientific, and carried out with integrity. You on the other hand seem to have a conspiracy theory going on in your head, but are unable or unwilling to explain how it plays out, other than by making broad general statements.

glacial_pace71

I can see it's straying a bit from good economic news, but on the issue of public service some of the posters might like to consider that the Minister's powers traditionally stem from the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924. The powers of the Secretary General of a Government Department stem from the Public Service Management Act 1997.
Although a Minister can throw a tantrum and threaten all sort of dire consequences, the SecGen decides whether the officer's decision is to be backed up. Obviously, with the Official Secrets Act 1963 it's not as simple being able to articulate much in the public domain, let alone saying 'strike', as the issues aren't industrial relations ones anyway.
If it's any consolation for those who wish to see more Ministerial interference in the management of the civil service, the recent years have seen over half the management committee (the 'MAC') of the Department of Finance been appointed from the outside. Many career civil servants feared that cronyism and yes-men would be the consequence, but it hasn't worked out like that: some useful appointments resulted. (Then again several of those chaps have since fled after experiencing the reality of attempting to stand up for your country and its long term interests against a Government of the day that can't see beyond the electoral cycle).
Every other country - bar Somalia or Libya - makes a passable attempt at ensuring that there's a long term public service structure in place that can defend that country, and that not everything can be handed out as political goodies by the Government of the day. It's not particularly good economic news that the Government does seek to interfere so much in day to day management but ultimately the public service administration will survive, e.g. the Bertie years of kleptocratic economic management gave us so much wasteful expenditure that would even make Tom Parlon and the building industry blush occasionally, e.g. tunnels in Limerick for which the taxpayer is paying penalties etc. Some of the worst value in public spending in the 2002-2011 era was on big-ticket projects, whether as PPPs or plain vanilla shedloads of taxpayers' money to the building industry. Even the current administration's small scale vandalism here and there cannot be put on the same level, though it does gall public servants to hear talk of a 'reform dividend' of a few million here or there when there are several multiples of that amount going on marginal constituencies.

ardmacha

This thread has drifted off course, as they all do, as in this forum someone inevitably posts an anti-PS rant (here in post #682), and others point out that it is nonsense, the nonsense merchants then row in with further nonsense and so on, thread derailed.

I think the previous post would make a good thread in its own right, the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 is a real issue. Perhaps the previous post would start such a thread and delete his post here, or the mods would do so, and leave this thread to the increasing flow of good news.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

Have you ever heard of rigging a survey through the questions asked?

Or are you really telling us that you've never seen somebody come out of these "merit based competitions" and wonder how the hell they have a job?

Seeing as you are such an expert on this issue, maybe you could explain to me how it is possible to easily and regularly circumvent the codes of practice and regulations set by the CPSA. Here is a link to their website in case you have mislaid your own:

http://www.cpsa.ie/en/

http://www.cpsa.ie/CPSA/en/About-Us/Frequently-Asked-Questions/

Geniass

Fellow Boardies, lets take a moment to reflect on the demise of this thread.

It showed great promise and struggled through many dark and dreary years, but like all good things it was not destined to last forever.

It has done the forum some service, they know it, no more of that.

So raise a glass of chateau pape du neuf and remember her fondly.


OR

ye can cop the feck on and keep the shÍte to the numerous other threads.

barneystinson

Geniass wrote: »

Fellow Boardies, lets take a moment to reflect on the demise of this thread.

It showed great promise and struggled through many dark and dreary years, but like all good things it was not destined to last forever.

It has done the forum some service, they know it, no more of that.

So raise a glass of chateau pape du neuf and remember her fondly.


OR

ye can cop the feck on and keep the shÍte to the numerous other threads.

Says the fella who's been on Boards for a month...

The good economic news from this diversion we've taken is that, if you subscribe to Anto's view some very average people are getting good secure employment in the PS/CS. Or if you aren't wearing a tin foil hat, the fact that the CS is recruiting again is good news for employment, and for society as the calibre of candidates has never been higher, so we're hiring very good people for relatively small money.

Geniass

barneystinson wrote: »

Says the fella who's been on Boards for a month...

*cough* long time lurker

Rightwing

The thread hasn't really gone off topic. Everyone agrees things are improving, but the onus is on the Government to keep the train on the tracks. This is where the last Government failed so miserably.

So whilst it may look that the thread has gone off on a tangent, it hasn't. For instance, it would be great news if the Government didn't yield to unions demands for pay, or the welfare crowd claiming poverty and looking for bonuses.

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

The thread hasn't really gone off topic. Everyone agrees things are improving, but the onus is on the Government to keep the train on the tracks. This is where the last Government failed so miserably.

So whilst it may look that the thread has gone off on a tangent, it hasn't. For instance, it would be great news if the Government didn't yield to unions demands for pay, or the welfare crowd claiming poverty and looking for bonuses.

Yeah, it would be terrible if they honoured their commitment to the hundreds of thousands of PS workers... :rolleyes: