Decentralisation

holly_johnson · 21-03-2006 11:08AM

caldwelk wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2092856,00.html
Sorry, it won't download as a link.

I saw this article in the Sunday Times headed "€1,500 for civil service move"
It says "THE Department of Finance has offered a one-off payment of €1,500 to state employees who have to move to Dublin for training before being decentralised." The payment will not be taxed.

I'm a civil servant and it's the first that I've heard of it. Thank you CPSU union for keeping me informed as usual.

I heard about this yesterday. This hasn't been agreed, it was tabled at a decentralisation meeting, so perhaps that's why it wasn't released. I wonder how the paper heard about it??

pete · 21-03-2006 11:21AM

caldwelk wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2092856,00.html
Sorry, it won't download as a link.

I saw this article in the Sunday Times headed "€1,500 for civil service move"
It says "THE Department of Finance has offered a one-off payment of €1,500 to state employees who have to move to Dublin for training before being decentralised." The payment will not be taxed.

I'm a civil servant and it's the first that I've heard of it. Thank you CPSU union for keeping me informed as usual.

€1,500 - that's what, less than 2 months dublin rent? or about 25 nights in a B&B?

just how much training are people expected to need?

davidoco · 21-03-2006 11:22AM

There seems to be a big difference in opinion from semi state bodies moving and Departments or sections of Departments moving. Most Departments have plenty of staff willing to move and fill posts.

There are still 4,236 (September 04 figures) Dublin civil servants out there looking for a decentralised post.

pete · 21-03-2006 11:24AM

ishmael whale wrote:

The only detailed figures that I’m aware of are here:

http://www.decentralisation.gov.ie/applications/takeup/

They date from September 2004 and as we know Parlon has been blowing about an extra 100 applications a month, but I suspect the essential picture remains the same.

About half the applications are from Dublin based civil servants, but a large whack of them are in respect of the locations closest to Dublin. The further you move from Dublin, the less likely you are to find a Dublin based civil servant applying. The slack is made up, as we’ve seen from the thread, by people applying to move between decentralised locations. I take it Parlon’s hundred a month fall into these proportions – hence the lack of updated figures as the one thing the programme doesn’t need is transparency.

see also http://www.decentralisation.gov.ie/documentlibrary/Feb%202006%20Assignments%20Summary%20Table.htm

pete · 21-03-2006 11:29AM

davidoco wrote:

There seems to be a big difference in opinion from semi state bodies moving and Departments or sections of Departments moving. Most Departments have plenty of staff willing to move and fill posts.

There are still 4,236 (September 04 figures) Dublin civil servants out there looking for a decentralised post.

Don't confuse "expressing an interest" with "committing to moving". Most people I know who submitted a list of preferred locations to the CAF have done so to protect their current post in the short term (ie they won't be transferred out and replaced with a willing decentralisee if they say they're going with their dept). We'll have to wait and see how things pan out when departments start looking for formal commitments from their staff.

Also I can't help but wonder how many of those 4,236 dublin expressions of interest have applied for the same commuter-belt posts?

Marica · 23-03-2006 07:07PM

davidoco wrote:

There seems to be a big difference in opinion from semi state bodies moving and Departments or sections of Departments moving. Most Departments have plenty of staff willing to move and fill posts.

There are still 4,236 (September 04 figures) Dublin civil servants out there looking for a decentralised post.

This is because the situation is very different for staff of State agencies. Most staff in the agencies are public servants, not civil servants. Civil servants all effectively have the same "employer", the Department of Finance, regardless of what Department they currently work in. They are centrally recruited through open competition and then assigned to a particular department. Their terms and conditions, grades, pension scheme, etc, are uniform across departments, and they can transfer from one department to another without loss of service, changing pension scheme, etc.

Staff of State agencies are employed by the individual agency. Agencies recruit their own staff, have different terms and conditions and operate their own pension schemes. As an employee of an agency you have a contract with that agency as your employer and it is not possible to transfer from Agency A to Agency B as they are different entities (no more than it is possible to transfer from one company to another in the private sector). Likewise, it is not possible to just transfer from a civil service post into an agency post. Agencies, because they were usually established to do a specific function, tend to have recruited staff with particular skills/qualifications to work in specialist roles. This is where the problem is with including the agencies in the decentralisation programme. A typcial scenario:

Agency A is listed for decentralisation to a town beyond the commuter belt. It has, say, 100 staff, none of whom have signed up to move. Of those 100 staff, 25 are administrative and 75 are professional/technical, ie qualified in particular disciplines and recruited to do specific jobs. 120 people have applied through the CAF to move to that location so on paper the move is oversubscribed and Tom Parlon is delighted. However, on closer inspection of the figures, 100 of the applicants are administrative civil servants of various grades from CO to AP, and 20 are professional/technical grade civil servants from various backgrounds, none of whom have the specialist skills or qualifications needed to perform the work of Agency A. Even if they were an exact skills match, the can't transfer anyway as Agency A is an entirely separate legal entity from the civil service. And what would happen Agency A's existing staff? Even if they applied to go elsewhere through the CAF, they can't transfer into the civil service (and the CPSU, PSEU and AHCPS will make sure of that!) and they can't transfer to another agency.

Including the agencies in the decentralisation programme was a mistake. Personally I think the Department of Finance mandarins who drew up the lists of organisations and locations didn't realise at the time (probably because they had no experience of working outside the civil service) that State agencies were a completely different kettle of fish from the civil service. By the time they were made aware of this fact, it was too late to go back as it would look like a climbdown. Decentralising civil servants will be problematic and disruptive enough, but at least there are no legal and contractual barriers to surmount. They haven't even begun discussing how these obstacles might be overcome yet the OPW is going around buying sites for agencies in the designated towns.

Decentralisation is good in principle: if they had selected a smaller number of reasonably-sized towns and initially targeted a more modest number of civil service posts to move over a more realistic timeframe it could have worked, but the government chose to politicise it and against even the advice of senior Finance personnel, push it through with a battering ram.

holly_johnson · 24-03-2006 09:32AM

Marica wrote:

This is because the situation is very different for staff of State agencies. Most staff in the agencies are public servants, not civil servants. Civil servants all effectively have the same "employer", the Department of Finance, regardless of what Department they currently work in. They are centrally recruited through open competition and then assigned to a particular department. Their terms and conditions, grades, pension scheme, etc, are uniform across departments, and they can transfer from one department to another without loss of service, changing pension scheme, etc.

Staff of State agencies are employed by the individual agency. Agencies recruit their own staff, have different terms and conditions and operate their own pension schemes. As an employee of an agency you have a contract with that agency as your employer and it is not possible to transfer from Agency A to Agency B as they are different entities (no more than it is possible to transfer from one company to another in the private sector). Likewise, it is not possible to just transfer from a civil service post into an agency post. Agencies, because they were usually established to do a specific function, tend to have recruited staff with particular skills/qualifications to work in specialist roles. This is where the problem is with including the agencies in the decentralisation programme. A typcial scenario:

Agency A is listed for decentralisation to a town beyond the commuter belt. It has, say, 100 staff, none of whom have signed up to move. Of those 100 staff, 25 are administrative and 75 are professional/technical, ie qualified in particular disciplines and recruited to do specific jobs. 120 people have applied through the CAF to move to that location so on paper the move is oversubscribed and Tom Parlon is delighted. However, on closer inspection of the figures, 100 of the applicants are administrative civil servants of various grades from CO to AP, and 20 are professional/technical grade civil servants from various backgrounds, none of whom have the specialist skills or qualifications needed to perform the work of Agency A. Even if they were an exact skills match, the can't transfer anyway as Agency A is an entirely separate legal entity from the civil service. And what would happen Agency A's existing staff? Even if they applied to go elsewhere through the CAF, they can't transfer into the civil service (and the CPSU, PSEU and AHCPS will make sure of that!) and they can't transfer to another agency.

Including the agencies in the decentralisation programme was a mistake. Personally I think the Department of Finance mandarins who drew up the lists of organisations and locations didn't realise at the time (probably because they had no experience of working outside the civil service) that State agencies were a completely different kettle of fish from the civil service. By the time they were made aware of this fact, it was too late to go back as it would look like a climbdown. Decentralising civil servants will be problematic and disruptive enough, but at least there are no legal and contractual barriers to surmount. They haven't even begun discussing how these obstacles might be overcome yet the OPW is going around buying sites for agencies in the designated towns.

Decentralisation is good in principle: if they had selected a smaller number of reasonably-sized towns and initially targeted a more modest number of civil service posts to move over a more realistic timeframe it could have worked, but the government chose to politicise it and against even the advice of senior Finance personnel, push it through with a battering ram.

I thought that state agency staff could move into the Civil Service if they didn't want to move? Also, you say Decentralisation is good in principle (as long as the state agencies are not included). I dispute this. It is not only state agencies that have technical grades, the civil service has more than its share, and look at what is happening to them, IT staff in particular. Our jobs are going, we don't want to go, but we have no choice either. So as far as I am concerned, we are all in the same (sinking) boat.

Macy · 24-03-2006 09:37AM

Marica wrote:

Personally I think the Department of Finance mandarins who drew up the lists of organisations and locations didn't realise at the time (probably because they had no experience of working outside the civil service) that State agencies were a completely different kettle of fish from the civil service. By the time they were made aware of this fact, it was too late to go back as it would look like a climbdown. Decentralising civil servants will be problematic and disruptive enough, but at least there are no legal and contractual barriers to surmount. They haven't even begun discussing how these obstacles might be overcome yet the OPW is going around buying sites for agencies in the designated towns.

Totally agree with the vast majority of your post. However, on the above, Department of Finance staff did point out about the State agencies. A memo was released under FOI recently where they expressly said that State Agencies shouldn't be included because of this. It was the politicians that chose to ignore this fact and pushed the State Agencies into the equation too, against the advice of their own staff.

jdwals · 24-03-2006 10:53AM

The Department of Finance officials knew as much about Decentralisation as the rest of us until it was broken to key officials before budget day. Even the Secretary Generals or equivilent of the Departments/Agencies involved did not know until they were told just before it was announced.
This was a solo run by the Government who dreamed up this idea with the one and only objective of securing votes in the next election. There was no other consideration involved.
It is not for the good of the staff, it is not for the good of the civil service and it is not for the good of the country.
If anyone doubts this try to get any of the following that should have been done in advance of the announcement:
Costing. Cost benefit analysis. Identification of potential locations and evaluation of why one location is better than the other. Analysis of number of probable staff applications. Location of potentialy interested staff (Dublin Vs outside of Dublin).
These do not exist.
This Government can't sneeze without employing a consultant. But yet, for the biggest and most expenisve project in the history of this state there was absolutley no pre-evaluation carried out.
Before people get the idea I am against decentralisation - I am not. I think it has some good merits - but done right. And this has not been done right.
This has already cost the tax payer millions both in actual cost and reduced productivity and will cost millions more before it concludes in what ever shape or form. Another long one in a long line of disasters on the part of this current Government.

Macy · 24-03-2006 12:04PM

holly_johnson wrote:

I thought that state agency staff could move into the Civil Service if they didn't want to move?

No. There is no agreement for transferability. And given the way the CPSU and PSEU have fought to protect their status in the Civil Service, it's unlikely that there will ever be agreement on this.

holly_johnson wrote:

Our jobs are going, we don't want to go, but we have no choice either. So as far as I am concerned, we are all in the same (sinking) boat

I'd agree, but it's about time you all told your union that in no uncertain terms. Heads should be rolling in the unions, as it's clear their not serving their Dublin members interests.

Macy · 24-03-2006 12:06PM

jdwals wrote:

The Department of Finance officials knew as much about Decentralisation as the rest of us until it was broken to key officials before budget day. Even the Secretary Generals or equivilent of the Departments/Agencies involved did not know until they were told just before it was announced.

McCreevy has people working on the budget. AFAIK the memo saying not to include State Agencies was from Pre-budget times. Certainly it was before the actual plan was formulated.

holly_johnson · 24-03-2006 12:13PM

Macy wrote:

McCreevy has people working on the budget. AFAIK the memo saying not to include State Agencies was from Pre-budget times. Certainly it was before the actual plan was formulated.

Perhaps one or two people knew in Dept Finance about parts of the Decentralisation plan, but NO ONE knew the whole plan until McCreevy announced it. Sec Gens found out about an hour before the speech in the Dáil. McCreevy devised most of this plan by himself, or using people other than civil servants.

Marica · 24-03-2006 12:33PM

holly_johnson wrote:

I thought that state agency staff could move into the Civil Service if they didn't want to move? Also, you say Decentralisation is good in principle (as long as the state agencies are not included). I dispute this. It is not only state agencies that have technical grades, the civil service has more than its share, and look at what is happening to them, IT staff in particular. Our jobs are going, we don't want to go, but we have no choice either. So as far as I am concerned, we are all in the same (sinking) boat.

At the moment State agency staff have no right of transfer into the civil service and anyway the civil service unions will resist allowing staff from the agencies to become civil servants as an influx of people from outside the service will damage the promotional prospects of the people they represent. In Foreign Affairs a couple of years ago there was industrial action over the transfer of about 50 former APSO staff into the general service grades in the department, so letting in 2000 or so agency staff will be quite contentious. No discussions have yet taken place on the practicalities of allowing staff from the agencies to become civil servants - it's a minefield of contractual issues, pension arrangements, recognition of service for seniority, etc and I think it will be quite a while before they get their heads around it.

To clarify what I meant about excluding State agencies from the programme, I agree with you that the professional and technical posts in the civil service should not be included either. I still think decentralisation on a smaller scale is not necessarily a bad thing - previous programmes have transformed a lot of medium-sized towns for the better - but only non-specialist administrative grades are really suitable for decentralisation and it must be entirely voluntary.

pete · 24-03-2006 01:49PM

Marica wrote:

but only non-specialist administrative grades are really suitable for decentralisation and it must be entirely voluntary.

Don't you mean "non-specialist administrative posts"?

Or are only IMPACT members allowed to specialise?

pete · 24-03-2006 01:53PM

holly_johnson wrote:

I heard about this yesterday. This hasn't been agreed, it was tabled at a decentralisation meeting, so perhaps that's why it wasn't released. I wonder how the paper heard about it??

from the PSEU website (my emphasis):

It was noted that a meeting of a sub-committee had taken place to discuss payments for people required to go to locations, for which they had not applied - most commonly Dublin - in order to train, prior to re-locating under the programme. An offer of up to €1,500 for somebody spending two months in this situation had been made and there had been discussions regarding the conditions for such payments. The meeting noted that a draft set of proposals were awaited from the Official Side.

NewDubliner · 26-03-2006 09:07PM

From The Sunday Business Post
I doubt if the people who were polled and favoured 'decentralisation' were told how much they'd have to pay for it, but the article is a valid observation of the political dilemma posed by the project.

Kenny, Rabbitte cannot deny that decentralisation plans are popular

26 March 2006 By Paul T Colgan
The opposition may be attempting to take advantage of government difficulties with decentralisation, but neither Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny nor Labour leader Pat Rabbitte can ignore the fact that their supporters are still in favour of the plan.

Siptu workers at Fas issued two weeks’ strike notice last Thursday over their opposition to plans to move from Dublin to Birr in Co Offaly. The union has accused Fas of ‘‘promotional blackmail’’ as the agency has linked decentralisation moves to staff promotion and recruitment.

The strike is the most serious threat to government plans since they were announced by former finance minister Charlie McCreevy in 2003. It follows months of discontent at other state agencies.

According to government figures provided to Fine Gael late last year, fewer than one in nine civil servants are willing to move jobs. Answers to parliamentary questions revealed that, of the 7,400 posts being decentralised, only 753 civil servants had expressed a willingness to move.

The same figures showed that, in the case of one state body, Pobal, not one of its 40 staff was prepared to move to Clifden in Co Galway. At An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Failte Ireland, no staff were willing to move to offices in Clonakilty and Killarney. At the Ordnance Survey of Ireland, only 15 out of 210 were happy with relocating to Dungarvan, Co Waterford.

At Development Cooperation Ireland, the state agency that controls the government’s €500million overseas development aid programme, only 13 of the 123 staff said they would be moving.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed that only one in five workers at the Department of Finance’s specialist information and computer technology unit was ready to move to offices in Kildare town.

Understandably, Kenny and Rabbitte have sought to portray government plans as a ‘‘shambles’’.

However, both men are hamstrung in launching an all-out attack on the coalition by the fact that opinion polls show Fine Gael and Labour voters largely support decentralisation and wish to see it continue.

An opinion poll published in January showed that, among Fine Gael supporters, 56 per cent believe the government should proceed with the programme, 23 per cent feel it should not and 13 per cent have no opinion.

In the case of Labour, 50 per cent said they felt it should continue, 34 per cent said it should not and 16 per cent had no opinion.

In Connacht/Ulster, 78 per cent were in favour of decentralisation; in Leinster (excluding Dublin), the figure was 74 per cent.

While Kenny and Rabbitte may fume about decentralisation being little more than a cunning plan to win votes in marginal constituencies, neither of them can deny its popularity among voters, if not workers.

Last year’s report by the Decentralisation Implementation Group estimated that a series of properties needed for decentralisation would be available early next year, just before the expected Dail election.

Among them were the Department of Communications in Drogheda, Co Louth; the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism in Killarney, Co Kerry; the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in Knock, Co Mayo; and the Department of Transport in Co Galway.

While the Fas strike action will cause concern for those overseeing the project, it is not expected that similar industrial action will be taken anywhere else.

Sources at Siptu, the union representing the workers who plan to hold stoppages and picket Fas headquarters, said they were unaware of any other similar disputes that might arise. The union has said it will shortly launch a campaign to have state agencies removed from the decentralisation programme.

Dinarius · 27-03-2006 10:08AM

Let's face it, crowds are stupid. We all know that. The locals who perceive a slice of the civil service pie coming to their town should be told a few home truths, principal among which is the massive inflation that it would bring. Particularly in the area of housing.

Secondly, has anyone considered for one minute whether each area will be able, almost overnight, to cater for an influx in school children? Are the place there? Or whether the local hospital will be able to cope with increased numbers?

And prior to all of that, have they been made aware of the huge infrastructural damage that will be caused?

Of course they haven't.

What is happening is for the most part little short of criminal. However, I use the term 'for the most part' advisedly. Moving Marine to Clonakilty when...

a. All 90 positions were filled almost immediately AND in all the required grades.

b. Marine is a political non-entity. Policy and administration could be handled from Alaska, never mind Clonakilty. The fishing industry is dead.

....is a no-brainer, and should have been done immediately when they had the initiative. Or is it?

They may have all the requirements, but how many of those working in Marine are going? What will happen to them?

If the figures above are correct, then about 6000+ Dublin based civil services will be left on the payroll with nothing to do.

Look at it another way, if they fill 7000+ places by playing musical chairs as they are currently doing, who will take the jobs of the 7000 that have left their ex-Dublin posts for other ex-Dublin posts?

This could only happen in Ireland.

D.

Macy · 27-03-2006 11:07AM

While the Fas strike action will cause concern for those overseeing the project, it is not expected that similar industrial action will be taken anywhere else.

Well it will depend on the outcome in FAS. No other semi-state has introduced the same contracts, without following agreed consultation procedures, so of course it isn't on the cards, yet.

Sources at Siptu, the union representing the workers who plan to hold stoppages and picket Fas headquarters, said they were unaware of any other similar disputes that might arise. The union has said it will shortly launch a campaign to have state agencies removed from the decentralisation programme.

Again, it will depend on other semi states action with regard to contracts. If another state agency introduced decentralisation clause contracts in the same way I've no doubt it would be put in dispute. This again will depend on what happens in FAS.

samb · 27-03-2006 01:59PM

Dinarius wrote:

The locals who perceive a slice of the civil service pie coming to their town should be told a few home truths, principal among which is the massive inflation that it would bring. Particularly in the area of housing.
.

Most voters probably own a house already (or have a huge morgage) and would be delighted to see the price keep rising. The young don't vote, so the government has done little to address this issue. If we must may a morgage for 30+ years, then we are not as wealthy as we are being told we are.

NewDubliner · 01-04-2006 08:28AM

This from the Independent, 1st April, It claims that the redeployment of of the agriculture workers as driver testers failed because of union opposition. I thought the reason was that they were in the wrong locations or couldn't drive?

400 Agriculture civil servants will soon be at a loose end
Senan Molony
Political Correspondent

FOUR hundred civil servants who will soon have no work to do must be speedily redeployed to prevent another scandal of the State paying out millions for workers who engage only in thumb-twiddling, the Dail Public Accounts Committee has warned.

It is highlighting the 400 civil servants soon to become effectively workless in the Department of Agriculture. They are being freed up following changes to the Common Agricultural Policy leading to direct payments to farmers and a wholesale end to government administration.

It is understood a proportion of the workers have already no work to do, while the Secretary General of the Department had admitted that all 400 will soon have nothing to occupy their time.

A recent proposal to transfer the cohort to the Department of the Environment to act as additional driver testers failed when the unions won a victory on the whole issue of out-sourcing of their traditional work to private testers.

Now the chairman of the PAC, Michael Noonan TD, has warned that there is no room for demarcation in the modern public service - and that surplus civil servants should swiftly transfer to other work.

He warned that the record of the civil service in the area of redeployment was not good - which had huge implications for the Government's planned decentralisation.

The_Conductor · 01-04-2006 12:25PM

NewDubliner wrote:

This from the Independent, 1st April, It claims that the redeployment of of the agriculture workers as driver testers failed because of union opposition. I thought the reason was that they were in the wrong locations or couldn't drive?

Eh no. That would be because the salary scales we were sent showed the Driver Testers would be on the low end of the EO salary scale (i.e. only of interest to COs) no flexitime which people have at present, it was only ever for a 1 year contract (and you had to sign an agreement that you would not seek to rejoin the Department of Agriculture at the end of the contract), and the final reason was no-one with penalty points was allowed to apply (this restriction did actually kill a couple of applications, including one that I am aware of where the individual was not aware that they had 2 penalty points).

While the CPSU and the PSEU did advise members in Agriculture House not to apply- given the restrictions on the posts in the first place, you would have had to have been a CO without any ambitions whatsoever, and a massachistic streak, to apply......

NewDubliner · 01-04-2006 05:51PM

smccarrick wrote:

Eh no. .

Thanks for the clarification, but I think that the Indo's statement is still quite wrong.

Firetrap · 01-04-2006 09:55PM

It is April Fool's day you know

Though nothing could be a bigger joke than the whole Decentralisation program

gazzer · 04-04-2006 02:44PM

My friend told me a story at the weekend concernign the civil servents (CO's) who moved to the Dept of Justice to work on the pulse system a few months back.

No this could be a load of cobblers but anyway he said that the staff who moved put in a claim for the highest point on their salary to be increased by a further 8000 euro due to the fact that the gardai had been inputting the data on the pulse system prior to the new staff transferring in and because the wages for the gardai was more than the CO's who transferred in they were entitled to an increase under the eqality act..

Has anybody else heard this story??

holly_johnson · 04-04-2006 03:02PM

gazzer wrote:

My friend told me a story at the weekend concernign the civil servents (CO's) who moved to the Dept of Justice to work on the pulse system a few months back.

No this could be a load of cobblers but anyway he said that the staff who moved put in a claim for the highest point on their salary to be increased by a further 8000 euro due to the fact that the gardai had been inputting the data on the pulse system prior to the new staff transferring in and because the wages for the gardai was more than the CO's who transferred in they were entitled to an increase under the eqality act..

Has anybody else heard this story??

eh no... I think he might be pulling your leg a tad. I reckon if that was true, we would all have heard about that one!

pete · 04-04-2006 06:54PM

gazzer wrote:

My friend told me a story at the weekend concernign the civil servents (CO's) who moved to the Dept of Justice to work on the pulse system a few months back.

No this could be a load of cobblers but anyway he said that the staff who moved put in a claim for the highest point on their salary to be increased by a further 8000 euro due to the fact that the gardai had been inputting the data on the pulse system prior to the new staff transferring in and because the wages for the gardai was more than the CO's who transferred in they were entitled to an increase under the eqality act..

Has anybody else heard this story??

Sounds like wishful thinking from someone who read an overview of the infamous paperkeeper claim.... but that's not to say it didn't happen.

I've been around civil service unions long enough to find it somewhat credible.

gazzer · 05-04-2006 02:27PM

In regards to the CO/Gardai pay claim in posted yesterday i got my hands on a copy of the CPSU magazine Aontas and there is indeed an article about an equal pay claim been lodged for CO's working in garda stations.. however it was not the CO's who transfered to work on the Pulse system who claimed but rather 8 women back in 1999 who lodged an equal pay claim as they were 'doing like work to gardai who were assigned to clerical/admin functions in garda stations around the country. The case was lodged with the Dept of Justice in 1999 and then the Equality Tribunal in 2000.

There is a form in the latest issue of Aontas inviting members to make a claim under the equality tribunal findings.... so it is not really as a result of Decentralisation that this has come about but i suppose it will have some bearing on anyone who transfers to work in a garda station... the article doenst say how much extra the staff will be getting so i dont know if that 8000 euro quoted by my friend is true.

jd · 05-04-2006 09:35PM

Is it true there is a "Central Decentralisation Unit" in the DOF?

holly_johnson · 05-04-2006 09:39PM

jd wrote:

Is it true there is a "Central Decentralisation Unit" in the DOF?

yes

NewDubliner · 05-04-2006 09:50PM

jd wrote:

Is it true there is a "Central Decentralisation Unit" in the DOF?

Yes, it's at http://www.decentralisation.gov.ie Latest news is a really gripping essay: In Defence of Decentralisation. A handy re-hash of all the past spin.

Decentralisation

Comments