Nearly 80% of the OPW’s specialist posts – including engineers, architects and heritage experts – will be unfilled if a recommendation to decentralise the organisation to Trim is implemented, according to IMPACT. The union says the recommendations of the Decentralisation Implementation Group, published today (Wednesday), have simply ignored the problem in order to force through the Government’s ill-thought-out decentralisation plans. The union also said a consultants’ report on the costs of decentralisation, also published today, contained absolutely no figures, even though the taxpayer will have to meet the wage costs of civil servants who remain in Dublin when their organisations move. The proposed OPW move to trim would see almost 80 per cent of specialist posts unfilled, while qualified architects, engineers and heritage experts are left behind in Dublin at the taxpayer’s expense. IMPACT says that 149 of the 328 OPW posts earmarked for Trim are specialist – not interchangeable administrative posts. But only 34 specialists – less than 23% of the required number – have volunteered to move there. Similar problems exist in other departments and offices earmarked for early relocation in today’s report. They include the Department of Communications, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Education and Science. IMPACT’s figures are based on official statistics produced by the Department of Finance Central Applications Facility (CAF) earlier this year. They disaggregate trained and qualified staff – many from disciplines experiencing labour market shortages – from the general CAF figures now being used as the basis of decentralisation plans. These staff cannot be replaced from within the civil service. Problems will arise in a number of departments earmarked for early decentralisation in today’s report, including:OPW – only 23% (34 of 149) of required specialist staff will move to Trim. Communications – only 26% (6 of 23) of required specialist staff will move to Drogheda, and only 53% (9 of 17) will go to Clonakilty. The prison service – Only 12% (4 of 34) of required specialist staff will move to Longford. Agriculture – Only 25% (14 of 57) of required specialist staff will move to Portlaoise. Environment – only 19% (3 of 16) of required specialist staff will move to Wexford. Education – Only 4% (1 of 26) of required specialist staff will move to Mullingar and none will move to Athlone. Defence – only 20% (1 of 5) of required specialist staff will move to Newbridge. Communications and Rural Affairs – no specialist staff will move to Knock. IMPACT national secretary Peter Nolan said the Government should not decentralise organisations that depend heavily on specialist staff, regardless of today’s report. “It would be highly arrogant of the Government to put its ill-thought-out decentralisation plans ahead of quality public services. Today’s report is simply ignoring a real threat to services. If implemented, its recommendations would create skills shortages across the civil service while skilled professionals sit idle in Dublin. We need a fundamental review of this programme,” he said.
pete wrote: Of course nobody's saying when yet.....
The Government has published a list of the first departments selected for decentralisation out of Dublin. The first wave will include moving the headquarters of both the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to Drogheda in Co Louth. Social and Family Affairs will also move 100 staff to Sligo, while Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will move 91 staff to Clonakilty in Co Cork. The Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism headquarters will move to Killarney in Co Kerry. The Revenue Commissioners will move 150 staff to Kilrush in Co Clare, Listowel in Co Kerry and Newcastlewest in Co Limerick. Each location will get 50 staff. The Department of Foreign Affairs will relocate 125 staff to Limerick, while the Irish Prison Service headquarters will move 159 staff to Longford. The Department of Transport is moving 40 staff to Loughrea in Co Galway, and the Department of Defence headquarters, with its 202 staff, will move to Newbridge in Co Kildare. The Department of Agriculture is relocating 392 staff to Portlaoise in Co Laois. The Office of Public Works headquarters will also be in the first wave of transfers, with 333 staff moving to Trim in Co Meath. Finally, the Department of Finance is moving 135 staff to Tullamore in Co Offaly. In total, 2,130 civil servants will be moved out of Dublin in the first wave of decentralisation.
smccarrick wrote: These reports are deemed necessary to help each decentralising Department/Office with their decentralisation plans.
NewDubliner wrote: Next move will be via Flynn's 'independent' commission & then maybe we'll see some money committed to specific costs & proposals in the budget.QUOTE] Not necessarily- the following e-mail was sent to all who filled in their CAF applications 10 days ago (including those who filled it in speculatively without any intention whatsoever of moving)..... Further queries to the CAF "hotline" have also elicited the response that they have received the blessing of the Freedom of Information Officer to release these details, and that further changes (if any) may or may not be made to existing applications prior to conveyance of applications to personnel officers (a bit difficult as they have taken the update facility offline.....) S. Original Message From: AutoResponse@publicjobs.ie [mailto:AutoResponse@publicjobs.ie] Sent: 05 November 2004 16:53 To: SMcCarrick@nospam.nospam.nospam Subject: Re: Decentralisation application Dear Applicant, I would like to thank you for the decentralisation application you made via the Central Application Facility [ CAF ]. Over the coming days/weeks we will be issuing a report to each decentralising Department/Office listing members of their staff that have applied to decentralise. These reports will include staff who have chosen to decentralise with their own Department/Office and staff who have chosen to decentralise with a different Department/Office. The report will include name, grade, employment status and other details relevant to your application. It will include only the 1st choice location that you selected. These reports are deemed necessary to help each decentralising Department/Office with their decentralisation plans. Yours sincerely, Central Application Facility Public Appointments Service (formerly the Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission)
uncivilservant wrote: My apologies - i had assumed you were responding to the person you had quoted. I believe smccarrick was speaking of the generality of the situation, whereas NewDubliner was stating a (commonly held) belief that decentralisation is being used as a method to introduce widespread outsourcing of IT by the back door. Agreed. But as another poster has pointed out, the unions are taking a somewhat passive role in this affair.
SkepticOne wrote: NewDubliner was suggesting that it was deliberate: "If, when it produces its next report, the puppet Flynn commission decides to proceed with stripping all IT work from Dublin, I think it will be a very deliberate act, intended to remove CS workers from IT and setting the scene for out-sourcing & lucrative contracts for the private sector" and it was this that I was responding to.
If so (and even if it is simple management incompetence), I think it is up to staff to take appropriate action either on an individual or collective basis. Problems of this sort are not unique to the civil service.
SkepticOne wrote: Everyone has had difficulties with employers and has had to handle the situation in some way or other. When demands are made that are unacceptable, then it is up to individuals to decide whether it is worth going along with it (say, because pay, pension, benefits or whatever is good) or not going along with it.
smccarrick wrote: The normal means of resolving industrial relations matters are not open to civil servants- something a lot of people are very unaware of- we do not have access to the Labour Relations Commission / Labour Courts - we are totally at the whim of political expediency. This is something that the public quite simply is unaware of, as no-one is interested in enlightening them.......
SkepticOne wrote: I think it is up to staff to take appropriate action either on an individual or collective basis. Problems of this sort are not unique to the civil service.
uncivilservant wrote: In the civil service there's a big, big difference between the "employer" and "the manager". Also, the key word in the quoted paragraph is "apparent". It's not deliberate, it's a result of "general" recruitment policies. Dear lord, don't let it be deliberate....
uncivilservant wrote: Half a billion euro a year is a lot of money, regardless of how you cut it. Other sources have put the figure at closer to 1 billion, if i remember correctly.
SkepticOne wrote: Is it not a case of take the rough with the smooth, strike or walk out?
uncivilservant wrote: Victor, "this piece Half a billion euro a year is a lot of money, regardless of how you cut it. Other sources have put the figure at closer to 1 billion, if i remember correctly.
Victor wrote: I imagine this piece eminated from among the Dublin estate agents in the SCS, worried at property prices.
In reality, the diverted business will be small in terms of Dublin's economy and will be less than a year's growth.
SkepticOne wrote: So what is the great attraction to this employer who doesn't appreciate the staff's skills and moves them around the country without consultation? Great money, pension etc? Is it not a case of take the rough with the smooth, strike or walk out?
smccarrick wrote: Some departments (aka the entire cs) have a deliberate policy of not wanting to know what the skills of their staff are, along with apparent policies of attempting to place people in roles where they cannot make use of their skills and qualifications. This extends to Personnel departments refusing to keep copies of curriculum vitaes on people's personnel files.
SkepticOne wrote: You would think they would appreciate the skills of their own staff more. Apparently not though.
NewDubliner wrote: If, when it produces its next report, the puppet Flynn commission decides to proceed with stripping all IT work from Dublin, I think it will be a very deliberate act, intended to remove CS workers from IT and setting the scene for out-sourcing & lucrative contracts for the private sector.
Victor wrote: How many people in IT get "wages"
BolBill wrote: 1. All IT jobs will be out sourced to contract, meaning that the government will be spending at least 3 times more on IT wages than at present.
4. Some buildings are been vacanted to allow the government to convert the ideally situated properties into apartments for TD's to use. 5. The buildings outside of Dublin that the Depts are moving to will be generally owed by TDs themselves or associates of TDs hence somebody makes a lot of money from leasing out these buildings.
uncivilservant wrote: Is the penny starting to drop? Taken from an article in The Sunday Business Post, 7th November - http://www.thepost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-739495766-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FProperty.asp
The Dublin region will experience a spending reduction of at least €500 million to €600 million per annum as a result of decentralisation, according to Dr Brendan Williams, a lecturer in urban economics at the Dublin Institute of Technology. Williams told the annual conference of the Society of Chartered Surveyors (SCS) last Friday that this would be the effect of moving public service jobs out of the capital city. "The expected boost that such relocations will confer on selected areas have been widely publicised in the regions, while debate as to the potential negative impact of the initiatives on the economic base of the Dublin area has to date been minimal," he said. "Based upon government figures, the effect of the loss of such jobs would in isolation represent a reduction of spending capacity in the Dublin region of €500 million to €600 million per annum." Such a loss would have serious impact on retail spending in the capital city.
The PSEU Representative reminded the meeting that there was a number of other issues still to be finalised, as follows : i) Staff on Allowances including the Revenue APTH, ii) Staff ‘acting’ on higher duties iii) Staff required to re-locate to Dublin in order to train before going to their location of choice iv) The Dublin CAF arrangements. It was noted that there were significant rumours about possible IT out-sourcing and some clarity on this was sought also. 9. In response to some of these issues, the Official Side stated, as follows : i) Their position is that allowances that are personal to holders, including higher scales and Revenue APTHs can be retained if the Staff Side is agreeable. However, the CPSU had yet to confirm its agreement. With regard to allowances related to work, their position is that unless the person continues doing the work even if their posts are re-located, they will cease to be paid the relevant allowances, while recognising that claims for loss of earnings can be processed through the C&A machinery. Re 8 (iv) above, they said that the arrangements for a Dublin CAF would be set out in their out in their paper for the next meeting. They agreed to consider the other matters again.
gazzer wrote: That could cause a problem Pete depending on where the office is, however as far as i know you cant be sent to a department/section that is more than 15 miles away from the office you are being moved from.
I would love to be moved to the revenue offices that are on the Navan Road (beside the halfway house) but as far as i know there are no IT posts going there and as i am based in the city centre at the moment i could be sent up to 15 miles away in any direction. So if i was to be sent to somwhere out on the southside it would really increase my commuting time. Like you Pete i have around an 70 - 80 minute commute each way at the moment
gazzer wrote: Hope i explaned that correctly to you.
