Administrative Officer 2020 in the Civil Service

ktvaljean

Do you guys reckon if we start in the next few months it’ll be remotely ? Also do you expect them to start people in January

The_Conductor

ktvaljean wrote: »

Do you guys reckon if we start in the next few months it’ll be remotely ? Also do you expect them to start people in January

I'd guess that there will be very limited staff intakes until such time as covid vaccinations are freely available. Most Departments are staffed from HQ and regional offices, however, they are skeleton crewed with the vast bulk of staff working from home. The situation where the majority of your future colleagues are working remotely, is not conducive to bringing new people in- and I strongly suspect that recruitment, such as it occurs, will be towards next summer.

From talking to a Forsa union rep, the interdepartmental HEO competition is going to be taking precedence over the AO panel for now- given how many AOs who came in in 2018 and 2019 have extensive staff responsibilities and have lodged complaints with the official side, labeling themselves as 'yellow-pack' HEOs (aka HEOs in everything but name, but not paid HEO salaries). It is anticipated that this situation will have to be rectified, and the pre-existing AOs placed in actual AO roles- before sanction will be granted to recruit further AOs.

Re: the HEO competition- closing date is 12th Jan.

MrsBean

ktvaljean wrote: »

Do you guys reckon if we start in the next few months it’ll be remotely ? Also do you expect them to start people in January

Yeah I reckon if you start in the next few months you will be working remotely or possibly remotely plus a couple of days in the office if it's essential.
I started as an AO during the pandemic and I was working remotely. I'm starting as an AP in January and will also be working remotely.

I do think they will start moving through the panel in January, but its hard to know at what speed they will work through it. Best to just check in with PAS after a couple of weeks to see where they are on the panel.

John Hutton

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'd guess that there will be very limited staff intakes until such time as covid vaccinations are freely available. Most Departments are staffed from HQ and regional offices, however, they are skeleton crewed with the vast bulk of staff working from home. The situation where the majority of your future colleagues are working remotely, is not conducive to bringing new people in- and I strongly suspect that recruitment, such as it occurs, will be towards next summer.

From talking to a Forsa union rep, the interdepartmental HEO competition is going to be taking precedence over the AO panel for now- given how many AOs who came in in 2018 and 2019 have extensive staff responsibilities and have lodged complaints with the official side, labeling themselves as 'yellow-pack' HEOs (aka HEOs in everything but name, but not paid HEO salaries). It is anticipated that this situation will have to be rectified, and the pre-existing AOs placed in actual AO roles- before sanction will be granted to recruit further AOs.

Re: the HEO competition- closing date is 12th Jan.

Really interesting as most AOs in my dept are yellow pack. Do you have any more to add on this, this just your dept or something more widespread?

yop_mayo

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'd guess that there will be very limited staff intakes until such time as covid vaccinations are freely available. Most Departments are staffed from HQ and regional offices, however, they are skeleton crewed with the vast bulk of staff working from home. The situation where the majority of your future colleagues are working remotely, is not conducive to bringing new people in- and I strongly suspect that recruitment, such as it occurs, will be towards next summer.

From talking to a Forsa union rep, the interdepartmental HEO competition is going to be taking precedence over the AO panel for now- given how many AOs who came in in 2018 and 2019 have extensive staff responsibilities and have lodged complaints with the official side, labeling themselves as 'yellow-pack' HEOs (aka HEOs in everything but name, but not paid HEO salaries). It is anticipated that this situation will have to be rectified, and the pre-existing AOs placed in actual AO roles- before sanction will be granted to recruit further AOs.

Re: the HEO competition- closing date is 12th Jan.

Why have they moved so quickly through the AO placement process, if this is the case?

First batch of interviews done for each stream and interviewees given their OOM just to keep us in limbo for half a year?

The_Conductor

yop_mayo wrote: »

Why have they moved so quickly through the AO placement process, if this is the case?

First batch of interviews done for each stream and interviewees given their OOM just to keep us in limbo for half a year?

They put a panel together- its what they are tasked to do, regardless of whether, or not, there are posts to be filled. Its all part of the process.

The_Conductor

John Hutton wrote: »

Really interesting as most AOs in my dept are yellow pack. Do you have any more to add on this, this just your dept or something more widespread?

According to a Forsa representative, its across the board, it is not limited to one Department, and it has been taken up with DPER. I have no ideas of numbers in this position- but personally know of 4-5 off hand. Apparently, there has been an undertaking given to address these officers, by assigning them to appropriate posts- which will by definition create a number of HEO posts, which will be addressed in the first instance from the new interdepartmental panel, as so many Departments owe posts to the interdepartmental panel (and there is also an undertaking that Departments are going to be forced to take their quotas from the panel, they will not get away with internal promotions this time round- as has been rife in a number of Departments/Bodies/Agencies.........)

John Hutton

The_Conductor wrote: »

According to a Forsa representative, its across the board, it is not limited to one Department, and it has been taken up with DPER. I have no ideas of numbers in this position- but personally know of 4-5 off hand. Apparently, there has been an undertaking given to address these officers, by assigning them to appropriate posts- which will by definition create a number of HEO posts, which will be addressed in the first instance from the new interdepartmental panel, as so many Departments owe posts to the interdepartmental panel (and there is also an undertaking that Departments are going to be forced to take their quotas from the panel, they will not get away with internal promotions this time round- as has been rife in a number of Departments/Bodies/Agencies.........)

Very very interesting. Watch this space it seems. I had not heard this (by rights I should) probably because I have been wfh since March with none of the usual casual chats were you hear this stuff.



I will not go into detail of how I know, but at least 1/3 of each new AO batch go into what would be traditionally HEO jobs across the CS. There is great dispute over this as HR argues that if an AO ever at any time occupied that position it is an AO position - they are trying to define a job as a HEO or an AO "spot" based on grades that preformed said role at some stage, with no reference to the duties involved. This is not a tenable argument, I would suggest that the definition of whether something is an AO or HEO position must have reference to involvement in policy formation and the management responsibility involved.

ddpas

John Hutton wrote: »

Very very interesting. Watch this space it seems. I had not heard this (by rights I should) probably because I have been wfh since March with none of the usual casual chats were you hear this stuff.



I will not go into detail of how I know, but at least 1/3 of each new AO batch go into what would be traditionally HEO jobs across the CS. There is great dispute over this as HR argues that if an AO ever at any time occupied that position it is an AO position - they are trying to define a job as a HEO or an AO "spot" based on grades that preformed said role at some stage, with no reference to the duties involved. This is not a tenable argument, I would suggest that the definition of whether something is an AO or HEO position must have reference to involvement in policy formation and the management responsibility involved.

Thanks a million for all the info. Am I right in saying that they don’t hire graduates at HEO level even though it’s the same grade as AO?
Also very interested to see how the AO panels will work out in January.. in top 5 on newest panel so looking forward to hearing some updates in the new year on when positions are expected to be offered

John Hutton

ddpas wrote: »

Thanks a million for all the info. Am I right in saying that they don’t hire graduates at HEO level even though it’s the same grade as AO?
Also very interested to see how the AO panels will work out in January.. in top 5 on newest panel so looking forward to hearing some updates in the new year on when positions are expected to be offered

They certainly do hire graduates as HEOs, but you do not have to be a graduate to be a HEO like you do to be an AO. The reality is though that to be a HEO you generally would need a lot of management experience.


Dont let any of this put you off, AO is a great job and position to be in. Not as good for promotion as it used to be , but ironically if AOs are put into a HEO role, then moved to a proper AO role they will be in pole position for AP as they will have the policy and managerial experience.

billyhead

It swings in roundabouts in that a newly appointed HEO could just be working on policy with no subordinates to manage.

John Hutton

billyhead wrote: »

It swings in roundabouts in that a newly appointed HEO could just be working on policy with no subordinates to manage.

20k difference in pay though, that's the issue.

The_Conductor

John Hutton wrote: »

20k difference in pay though, that's the issue.

Thats why they use the term 'yellow-pack HEO'.........

Ravelleman

AO is due a rethink, in my view, but there is little incentive to do so while it remains such a sought after role.

November Golf

Ravelleman wrote: »

AO is due a rethink, in my view, but there is little incentive to do so while it remains such a sought after role.

Its also unlikely to get a rethink while 70%+ of successful candidates are serving Civil Servants.

If the AO was a genuine graduate role, the first year or two should be closer to EO grade work and building up over time. That is of course unrealistic when the bulk of new appointment are already EO's.

doc22

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

Its also unlikely to get a rethink while 70%+ of successful candidates are serving Civil Servants.

If the AO was a genuine graduate role, the first year or two should be closer to EO grade work and building up over time. That is of course unrealistic when the bulk of new appointment are already EO's.

If the above is true then the vast majority of AO's would have no where near 20k disparity in wages to HEO on promotion.

AO isnt the gold plated role it once was were they went to central departments and automatically promoted after set period and faced little competition in internal panels. Now open panels are the norm and competition for promotion can come from all grades too.

The AO/HEO roles are now going to be mixed as a fair portion of AOs who wish to move from Dublin end up in HEO type positions on transfer due to the nature of the work in regions.

How much staff responsibilities are AOs complaining about because EOs and AOs are expected to have some staff responsibilities and be team leaders? I don't think they are being put in as office managers in Intreos in Coolock .

November Golf

doc22 wrote: »

If the above is true then the vast majority of AO's would have no where near 20k disparity in wages to HEO on promotion.

AO isnt the gold plated role it once was were they went to central departments and automatically promoted after set period and faced little competition in internal panels. Now open panels are the norm and competition for promotion can come from all grades too.

The AO/HEO roles are now going to be mixed as a fair portion of AOs who wish to move from Dublin end up in HEO type positions on transfer due to the nature of the work in regions.

How much staff responsibilities are AOs complaining about because EOs and AOs are expected to have some staff responsibilities and be team leaders? I don't think they are being put in as office managers in Intreos in Coolock .

Well an EO with 2 years experience would start on AO point 2 - If they were asked to essentially be a HEO on day 1, were is a clear different of about €14,300. of course the higher up the scale they were before promotion may close that gaps, its still no excuse for being paid significantly less than the role your doing.

In term of the pay scales, the AO grade essentially spans the EO and HEO grades and, In my opinion, the work expectation should spans both grades also.

Executive officer (PPC)
30,884 – 32,677 – 33,689 – 35,664 – 37,436

Administrative officer (PPC)
33,053 – 35,546 – 36,257 – 39,378 – 43,372

Higher executive officer (PPC)
49,845 – 51,303 – 52,756 – 54,210 – 55,669

The AO role was originally different to the EO/HEO grades in that they focused on policy but it seems from what people are saying that isn't the case anymore, at least in some departments.

It takes an AO 10 years and a HEO 7 years to hit Max on the scales; it would make sense if the first 3 year were closer to EO grade work with perhaps some variations and develop over time. Perhaps working on specific projects but focused on personal and professional development.

Otherwise, its just a means of paying de facto HEO's less money, as least starting off.

floorpie

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

If the AO was a genuine graduate role, the first year or two should be closer to EO grade work and building up over time. That is of course unrealistic when the bulk of new appointment are already EO's.

John Hutton wrote: »

They certainly do hire graduates as HEOs, but you do not have to be a graduate to be a HEO like you do to be an AO. The reality is though that to be a HEO you generally would need a lot of management experience.

I see posters frequently refer to AO as a "graduate role" as if it's for people fresh out of college who have no experience, i.e., what would typically be called a grad programme.

I asked during the interview what was meant by "graduate role" and they told me that it only means that a degree is required, and doesn't imply that it's for 21 year old graduates. Applicants may already be EOs or even HEOs who have a degree, or get a degree in order to apply. The average age of an AO is in the 40s.

Is this not the case? Can people with no employment experience get hired at this grade?

November Golf

floorpie wrote: »

I see posters frequently refer to AO as a "graduate role" as if it's for people fresh out of college who have no experience, i.e., what would typically be called a grad programme.

I asked during the interview what was meant by "graduate role" and they told me that it only means that a degree is required, and doesn't imply that it's for 21 year old graduates. Applicants may already be EOs or even HEOs who have a degree, or get a degree in order to apply. The average age of an AO is in the 40s.

Is this not the case? Can people with no employment experience get hired at this grade?

You can apply for CO role with a barely passed leaving cert, but I think at this stage to be hired its nearly expected you have some qualification be that a level 6, 7 or 8.

I accept your point that its not graduate programme in the sense of someone just out of college but that is how its marketed. In many ways, it probably should be.

A HEO isn't meant to do able to apply for an AO role since it has the same MAX salary, and a CO/EO should be able to gain the required experience over time for promoted to HEO. The purpose of having an AO grade should be different, especially given that people with sufficient experience can apply for AP roles from outside the organisation.

floorpie

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

I accept your point that its not graduate programme in the sense of someone just out of college but that is how its marketed. In many ways, it probably should be.

Yeah this is why I asked them the question, the marketing/hiring process is confusing: the pay is 33k, a degree is required, and they call it a graduate role everywhere in the literature. On the other hand they were really drilling into my management experience, how I motivate my team, how I communicate with supervisees etc. Confusing

ddpas

floorpie wrote: »

Yeah this is why I asked them the question, the marketing/hiring process is confusing: the pay is 33k, a degree is required, and they call it a graduate role everywhere in the literature. On the other hand they were really drilling into my management experience, how I motivate my team, how I communicate with supervisees etc. Confusing

I agree with you there it’s not the traditional graduate programme... but at the same time they didn’t look for any specific experience for this role. As a graduate myself, I found that I was able to come up with past examples from college projects/research work etc to show that I had the competencies they were looking for. Managing people doesn’t necessarily mean you have to manage staff at work, a simple example like leading a team project can do the trick.. I think the questions were more so testing your ability to work in a managerial position rather than looking for past experience in such a position

floorpie

ddpas wrote: »

I agree with you there it’s not the traditional graduate programme... but at the same time they didn’t look for any specific experience for this role. As a graduate myself, I found that I was able to come up with past examples from college projects/research work etc to show that I had the competencies they were looking for. Managing people doesn’t necessarily mean you have to manage staff at work, a simple example like leading a team project can do the trick.. I think the questions were more so testing your ability to work in a managerial position rather than looking for past experience in such a position

So based on your understanding, no experience in employment is required? This puts a new spin on the AO vs HEO discussions in previous posts. AOs couldn't expect pay parity with HEOs in this case and shouldn't be thrown into leadership positions as described.

November Golf

floorpie wrote: »

So based on your understanding, no work experience is required? This puts a new spin on the AO vs HEO discussions above. AOs couldn't expect pay parity with HEOs in this case.

I think the argument is not so much over the pay but the role and expectations. The issue is that some newly appointed AO's are being used to fill HEO vacancies - Essentially doing the job of a HEO, while being paid €14,300 less for it.

floorpie

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

I think the argument is not so much over the pay but the role and expectations. The issue is that some newly appointed AO's are being used to fill HEO vacancies - Essentially doing the job of a HEO, while being paid €14,300 less for it.

I'm mainly confused about the role and expectations. I see no way in which a young graduate without work experience could randomly be assigned to a HEO-type role with leadership responsibilities. Couldn't a HEO have 50 staff?! Are PAS assignments truly first come first serve?

The_Conductor

floorpie wrote: »

I'm mainly confused about the role and expectations. I see no way in which a young graduate without work experience could randomly be assigned to a HEO-type role with leadership responsibilities. Couldn't a HEO have 50 staff?! Are PAS assignments truly first come first serve?

Honestly- there are AOs out there who are put in precisely the scenario you described.

PAS assignments are 100% first come first served.

ddpas

floorpie wrote: »

So based on your understanding, no experience in employment is required? This puts a new spin on the AO vs HEO discussions in previous posts. AOs couldn't expect pay parity with HEOs in this case and shouldn't be thrown into leadership positions as described.

Based on my experience no.. I have no real work experience other than a summer internship and I was successful at interview. The AO job is described as a junior manager level when you look into it (maybe not so much when it’s advertised) so taking on that responsibility is something I’m going to expect... at the same time, listening to the others on this thread who know a lot more than me, there seems to be some expectation issues alright

John Hutton

CS run a lengthy AO training programme - none of which even references managing staff. Yet AOs are used to directly replace HEOs who have loads of staff, and the AO training has little direct application to their work (aside from the more general modules that would apply for anyone, communication skills for example).

This is objectionable for several reasons:
1. It can be a big and perhaps unfair ask for the new AO to manage staff (personally I dont think this is that big of a deal, but it can be for some. If PMDS was used properly it would in theory lead to AOs not passing probation because they cant manage)
2. It means less HEOs are taken from the panels, screwing people over. I know of one situation where a HEO in a division moved and an AO was brought in to replace, dispite two EOs in the division being top of the internal HEO panel.
3. It means that an AO can directly replace a HEO and will be paid far less money than the person they replace, for the same work. The objection here is obvious and I cannot understand how the unions allowed it, good to hear action is being taken.
4. You cannot go from being an AO to HEO and vice versa. I know one person, an EO, who was on a panel for both, AO came first and they had to accept it as couldn't guarantee that HEO would come. They ended up as an AO directly replacing a HEO. HEO panel subsequently called and they weren't allowed take it.

All of this said, AO is a great job and no one should let this put them off. Some in traditional AO roles can have difficulty with AP as they don't have traditional managerial experience.

The simple position is that if HEOs and AOs are interchangeable and do the same work, they should be paid the same. The only justification for different pay is if the roles are different, but this is not the case.

floorpie

The_Conductor wrote: »

Honestly- there are AOs out there who are put in precisely the scenario you described.

PAS assignments are 100% first come first served.

This is very strange. Clearly the grade should be split into AO and HAO, or else subsumed into EO/HEO and remove the degree requirement. I'd say it's verging on unethical to throw a person with no work experience into such a situation, especially when your assignment is mandatory (i.e. you can't choose another one) and you're in a probationary period.

So does this mean that there may be 24 year old APs who have just 2 years' work experience? The AP info booklets, similar to AO, list no requirement for number of years in any position

ddpas

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

I think the argument is not so much over the pay but the role and expectations. The issue is that some newly appointed AO's are being used to fill HEO vacancies - Essentially doing the job of a HEO, while being paid €14,300 less for it.

Despite the pay difference (which is obviously a whole other story) would an AO who is given additional responsibility (in managing, leading whatever it may be) not be in a far better position for going for AP than an AO who never got that experience?

John Hutton

ddpas wrote: »

Despite the pay difference (which is obviously a whole other story) would an AO who is given additional responsibility (in managing, leading whatever it may be) not be in a far better position for going for AP than an AO who never got that experience?

Not necessarily.


Loads of people get stuck at HEO because they do not get policy experience. An AO put into a HEO role is not a sort of AO+ position (I would not use 'additional responsibility' to describe it) where you get the traditional AO policy experience and some staff to manage. If it was then that would be a big leg up.