The Great Taxpayer Swindle.

coolhandluke

Over the last no. of year's i have noticed more and more work being "outsourced" from the public service to the private sector,for serious and i mean serious money.
We are told this is due to lack of resources on our part,not that anyone in management would ever ask the people who actually do the work if they could do it,now this argument may hold water for increased workloads.
But,it's a different thing altogether outsourcing work that we already do. Can anyone please explain to me how it's "more efficient" to pay me to do a job, give that job to someone else for no good reason,eventhough you know you still have to pay me anyway .Is this happening much or is my particular place just a bit mad ?

gandalf

Sounds like you have particular examples, care to share them ?

Hobbes

It varies from department to department but my guess is they outsourced it because people in work couldn't be assed to do it.

I recall being in one meeting with a particular department and everyone in the meeting walking out mid-meeting because "We get a half day today". Or another who walked out of a training course where he was the senior person supposed to know this stuff with the excuse "I have to get back to my farm".

The Corinthian

Unfortunately what will often occur in the public and semi-state sector is that either the skills or the will to carry out a project will simply not exist. Many state workers feel slighted by lack of career progression and pay rises, when compared with the private sector and so over time the rot of public sector apathy sets in.

Of course, I’m not defending these public and semi-state sector workers. They earn less than in the private sector because their jobs are essentially guaranteed. During the Dot Com era, the teachers unions were very vocal in their comparison of teachers pay compared with the salary levels of the IT sector - come the Dot Bomb, these same unions when conveniently quiet on the subject. There’s also no excuse for the level of sheer, and often infectious, laziness that can be found in many public and semi-state bodies.

Additionally, the politics plays a part. I’ve seen private consultants brought into one project largely because no one could agree upon who had ownership of it. I’ve seen a flexitime system killed (after it was paid for) because of objections by the employees. Many middle level and top-level public servants outsource to consultancies simply because they want to cover their asses if something goes wrong (after all they have nothing to gain by a good job done). Most of the money you bill in a public and semi-state project will be down to their not being able to decide what they want as well as time spent in endless (and I mean endless) meetings.

In short, the public and semi-state simply is not up to the task of many projects and as such must outsource for reasons that fundamentally are part of what they are.

gazzer

I work in an IT government dept as a programmer but i would say that around 60% of the programming staff in my builiding are from a private company.

I really dont know why this is. I had to do an exam and interview and was then placed on a panal. When my number was reached i was offered my current job. However there are still alot of people on the panel who have not been placed yet. Nobody in my section is a government employee, they are all from the private sector.

ArthurDent

gazzer wrote:

I work in an IT government dept as a programmer but i would say that around 60% of the programming staff in my builiding are from a private company.

I really dont know why this is. I had to do an exam and interview and was then placed on a panal. When my number was reached i was offered my current job. However there are still alot of people on the panel who have not been placed yet. Nobody in my section is a government employee, they are all from the private sector.

Are the people on the panel qualified to do the job the contracting staff are? If so I would bring it up with your union representative. Perhaps the role they are being asked to play, is temporary in nature and would not result in a full time permenant job?

I work as a consultant to a Government body, but the reason I was hired was that I had industrial experience that was necessary for this role, something that was not available in the Dept I work in. My area is pretty sepcialised and have to submit a tender for my services every 6 months, with no guarentee that this tender will be accepted.

BTW - don't understand why this is in politics - do you think there is a political reason behind the hiring of temp staff in your dept?

Boggle

Unfortunately what will often occur in the public and semi-state sector is that either the skills or the will to carry out a project will simply not exist. Many state workers feel slighted by lack of career progression and pay rises, when compared with the private sector and so over time the rot of public sector apathy sets in.

Dunno where you might work but the private sector (speaking from an eng point of view) is no bed of roses either - no money, little opportunity for advancement, limited alternatives that might still be here in 5 years time.... Thing is if an engineer gets fed up and slacks off he/she gets the boot - a civil servant would just be blending in with the rest of the wasters...
(Apologies if I've got it wrong - so if I have please contradict me...)

The Corinthian

Boggle wrote:

Dunno where you might work but the private sector (speaking from an eng point of view) is no bed of roses either - no money, little opportunity for advancement, limited alternatives that might still be here in 5 years time.... Thing is if an engineer gets fed up and slacks off he/she gets the boot - a civil servant would just be blending in with the rest of the wasters...
(Apologies if I've got it wrong - so if I have please contradict me...)

Budgets, opportunities and advancement in the private sector are what you make of them. In the private sector you can stay in one job for a few years (or even less) and use that as a springboard for another better paying job. In the private sector you can often negotiate better pay, bonuses, benefits in kind and conditions. In the private sector employers have both the freedom to not only fire employees, but also reward them.

The public sector rarely has any of these.

But, with the private sector, you have to earn (or take) these benefits - God helps those who helps themselves. If you expect them to appear just because you feel you’ve put in the time then you might want to consider doing the civil service exams.

Boggle

Budgets, opportunities and advancement in the private sector are what you make of them. In the private sector you can stay in one job for a few years (or even less) and use that as a springboard for another better paying job. In the private sector you can often negotiate better pay, bonuses, benefits in kind and conditions. In the private sector employers have both the freedom to not only fire employees, but also reward them.

The public sector rarely has any of these.

But, with the private sector, you have to earn (or take) these benefits - God helps those who helps themselves. If you expect them to appear just because you feel you’ve put in the time then you might want to consider doing the civil service exams.

Oh how wrong I've been in life..... Actually, you'll find that with alot of companies, especially multi-nat's, that the pay awards are in effect handed down from above and your boss generally has limited involvement. So while many companies lack the ability to reward, they do posess the ability to fire. You can of course jump ship - but in doing this you of course lose those crappy stock options and if you do it too often you will no longer seem attractive as they do not see you as a long term asset... Coupled with this is the fact that when jumping you not only have to think about whether the pay is good or the location is suitable - but you also have to consider whether the company will be around in 5 years time...

The Corinthian

Boggle wrote:

Oh how wrong I've been in life..... Actually, you'll find that with alot of companies, especially multi-nat's, that the pay awards are in effect handed down from above and your boss generally has limited involvement.

Middle management, at least when competent, will tend to find various means to reward people; more interesting or lucrative projects/clients, training courses, ect. If your immediate management is crap, then transfer or simply bide your time until you can jump ship altogether.

You can of course jump ship - but in doing this you of course lose those crappy stock options and if you do it too often you will no longer seem attractive as they do not see you as a long term asset...

If you jump ship every six months, certainly you’re less attractive. However, employees who stay put for ten years are not terribly attractive either, TBH. As for stock options, your own description pretty much sums them up.

Coupled with this is the fact that when jumping you not only have to think about whether the pay is good or the location is suitable - but you also have to consider whether the company will be around in 5 years time...

Which is one of the reasons that private sector workers tend to get paid more once you’re above entry level.

coolhandluke

gandalf wrote :

Sounds like you have particular examples, care to share them ?

Afraid not,i remember last year when loads of civil servants were writing into the sunday indo giving out about the carry on in their particular department,everyone one of them asked for their details not to be printed.There's a reason for that !

Hobbes wrote :

It varies from department to department but my guess is they outsourced it because people in work couldn't be assed to do it.

While this may be true for some places,i can only speak about my experience. Where i work there is huge frustration at what the staff see as basically giving our work to the private sector for no good reason.And i only mean work not jobs because many of these workers can stay here for 15 to 20 years if they wish.It seems to be more about driving them out through boredom than anything else.

The Corinthian wrote

Many middle level and top-level public servants outsource to consultancies simply because they want to cover their asses if something goes wrong (after all they have nothing to gain by a good job done).

I think you've hit the nail on the head here!Many decisions seem to be made not in the public good or to improve the service but to further particular agenda's management seem to have.At the end of the day if management hand a consultancy company a couple of thousand euro,it will rarely come back and tell them what their doing is all wrong.I suppose my main gripe is that taxpayers money should be used to improve public services,not to provide a cash cow for certain private sector industries.

Zaph0d

Outsourcing benefits can include: fresh external perspective on problems, more motivated staff, new skills and experience, flexible co-operative staff focused on getting the job done rather than bickering with each other.

Outsourcing is sometimes done to hide headcount and report better employee productivity ratios for senior mangement.

Outsourcing can bring in new management skill and help make up for in-house management deficiencies.

Sometimes outsourcing saves money for an organisation and sometimes it is a waste: this depends on how well the outsourcing contract is negotiated and managed.

Some governent departments are capable of wasting tax payers money without the help of outsourcers.

DublinWriter

On the face of it, it does look like difference of a lot of money when you directly compare what an outsourced contrator would make comparing it to C.S. salary grades.

However, government departments generally have peeks and throughs in terms of personnel need, especially in I.T. when new systems are being developed and implemented.

Employing a contracted person can work out cheaper, even if the person is there up to five years. Remember that the state doesn't pay pensions or holiday pay to contractors and they can be fired for any reason without recourse to the 1931 Employement Act.

NewDubliner

Contractors are being used to do Civil Service IT work because:

1: The Civil Service cannot hire IT people directly.

2: Existing IT staff are tied down in legacy maintenance work.

3: CS promotional policies mean that experienced IT staff are moved from IT work to non IT work if that's where the next vacancy is.

4: There's no point in training the existing staff in new technologies as they'll all be re-assigned to clerical duties if they refuse to relocate out of Dublin.

5: Effect of 2&3 has severely weakened the existing skills base to the point where few talented & experienced people remain & therefore contractors must be used.

6: No experienced person would do programming work in the CS for Clerical Officer wages. The announcement that all IT work will be removed from Dublin doesn't help either.

7: The contractors will never leave beacause by the time the projects are delivered, there will be no qualified staff remaining to take on the maintenance of the projects.

8: It's easier to throw money at consultants than to repair the damage to CS IT.

9: Existing Dublin-based IT staff are unlikely to commit themselves in new IT projects when they know that they they have no chance of promotion, no matter how good they are.

All-in-all, CS IT is in a downward spiral & cannot regenerate itself.