Decentralisation

K-9 · 14-06-2007 02:46PM

Macy wrote:

You would have a choice - move or redundancy. The choice wouldn't be move or leave with no redundancy or face being "white walled" like much of the public service (yes there are some of us in the public service effected Victor - very FF/PD to ignore us though and the fact that there's no transferability! )

Redundancy would of course depend on lenght of service.

Macy wrote:

Can you explain how my living costs will be reduced, since my in laws who do the child minding will be hundreds of miles away rather than 2 minutes away, I'll have all the related house sale fees, plus last time I was in a Tesco in Donegal it wasn't any cheaper than my local one here. On top of this my wife would have to leave her job. So the net benefit is where exactly to justify less salary?

Well of course it would depend on how much you pay for childminding and how much your wife earns which I'm not going to pry into but of course house prices/rents are cheaper.

Macy · 14-06-2007 03:00PM

Seanies32 wrote:

Redundancy would of course depend on lenght of service.

Of course, but with the current supposedly voluntary arrangement it isn't an option. The Government are trying to avoid redundancy payments by bullying people into go. Unfortunately, several constructive dismissal cases have already had to be dropped due to staff suddenly being "looked after", so the voluntary myth remains.

NewDubliner · 14-06-2007 06:42PM

Dinarius wrote:

Intertesting that about 90% of this thread is concerned with the effect that decentralisation has/shouldn't have on those that are decentralised/are offered decentralisation.

Very, very little on the effect that this lunancy with have on costs, efficiencies and service.

I think this is partly because people are naturally concerned about their own welfare, but also because the government does not want its sums examined. Instead, it's trying to pass off the plan as a caring/sharing sort of thing. Anti-Dubliners don't care how much it costs or who will have their lives ruined, so long as the gains all come their way. The claim that it would do something to alleviate congestion in Dublin has been demonstrated to be false.

Past decentralisation schemes, presented as 'successes', would actually be deemed failures if measured against the original goals.

Smoke and mirrors.

BostonB · 14-06-2007 10:28PM

Seanies32 wrote:

My quote
....
Right, quality of life, childcare and housing costs are cheaper here. Could make the difference between 2 partners working and one not. Better quality of life. That frees up time for relatives and children. The 15/20 hours commuting time a week that is saved can be used at the weekends.

I have the same problems , and I might have to move to Dublin away from same. Unfortunately that's life.

Traffic problems outside Dublin, yes, no 4 hour commutes though.

The majority of people do not choose to live in Dublin, look at the last census and that is what we are trying to get away from, or do you want everybody to live there. Let's everybody move there tomorrow if it's so fantastic.

Well offer redundancy to those who don't want the work then.

Dublin is the biggest population centre in Ireland. End of. There are reasons for that, even if you wish they don't exist the fact is they do. Looked at all the people who track up to dublin for various medical treatments as one significant one.

IMO costs are not that much cheaper that you can afford to do the same things on half the salary. Unless of course you are very well paid in which case none of this would be an issue anyway. Beside the partner might WANT to work.

I don't think visiting relations every other weekend is the same as living 2 mins from them, and seeing them every other day. Especially if they do child minding for you.

Anyone doing a 4 hour commute isn't living in Dublin, or Lenister for that matter. So I dunno where you are going with that line.

BostonB · 14-06-2007 10:30PM

Dinarius wrote:

Intertesting that about 90% of this thread is concerned with the effect that decentralisation has/shouldn't have on those that are decentralised/are offered decentralisation.

Very, very little on the effect that this lunancy with have on costs, efficiencies and service....

It has been talked about here and there.

K-9 · 15-06-2007 12:27AM

BostonB wrote:

Dublin is the biggest population centre in Ireland. End of. There are reasons for that, even if you wish they don't exist the fact is they do. Looked at all the people who track up to dublin for various medical treatments as one significant one.

So no decentralisation then.

BostonB wrote:

IMO costs are not that much cheaper that you can afford to do the same things on half the salary. Unless of course you are very well paid in which case none of this would be an issue anyway. Beside the partner might WANT to work.

Average house price in Dublin €429,000, outside €262,000. Based on say a mortgage of 80% thats a saving of at least €800 per month after tax income . With interest rates going up that difference is going to get larger. Childcare costs are cheaper as well. If people are paying tax at 41% & 6% prsi they could be saving anywhere up to about €1,500 per month on mortgage alone. If the partner wants to work well thats another income too.

Look you'd be surprised how much cheaper can be. Me and my partner moved back after being in Dublin. Quality of life, less travelling/commuting, it mighn't be 4 hours but it is considerable, less stress etc.

BostonB wrote:

Anyone doing a 4 hour commute isn't living in Dublin, or Lenister for that matter. So I dunno where you are going with that line.

Maybe not all 4, but at least 2 seems to be the average. If its not why was it an issue during the election.

Victor · 15-06-2007 12:33AM

Seanies32 wrote:

Look you'd be surprised how much cheaper can be. Me and my partner moved back after being in Dublin. Quality of life, less travelling/commuting, it mighn't be 4 hours but it is considerable, less stress etc. Maybe not all 4, but at least 2 seems to be the average. If its not why was it an issue during the election.

You seem to be confusing people who live in Dublin and those who commute from distant places to work in Dublin. It rarely takes my bus more than 15 minutes to get me home.

K-9 · 15-06-2007 12:37AM

Victor wrote:

You seem to be confusing people who live in Dublin and those who commute from distant places to work in Dublin. It rarely takes my bus more than 15 minutes to get me home.

Thats great for you, doesn't mean its not an issue in Dublin as well,

BostonB · 15-06-2007 01:08AM

Seanies32 wrote:

So no decentralisation then.

So lets have decentralisation because everyone wants to live outside of Dublin.

Seanies32 wrote:

Average house price in Dublin €429,000, outside €262,000. Based on say a mortgage of 80% thats a saving of at least €800 per month after tax income . With interest rates going up that difference is going to get larger. Childcare costs are cheaper as well. If people are paying tax at 41% & 6% prsi they could be saving anywhere up to about €1,500 per month on mortgage alone. If the partner wants to work well thats another income too.

So lose €3000~3500 a month to gain what 2000 maybe 2500 back, and be away from all your friends and family and live were you don't want to.

I can't imagine why people aren't leaping at it.

Seanies32 wrote:

Look you'd be surprised how much cheaper can be. Me and my partner moved back after being in Dublin. Quality of life, less travelling/commuting, it mighn't be 4 hours but it is considerable, less stress etc.

For you, not everyones in the same situation. Indeed they could end up with more travelling and less quality of life. I know one guy in our office who has moved down the country and couldn't find anywhere to live within 40mins of the new job location.

Seanies32 wrote:

Maybe not all 4, but at least 2 seems to be the average. If its not why was it an issue during the election.

The results suggest it wasn't. The vote was not for quality of life.

Zynks · 15-06-2007 03:03AM

Macy wrote:

Can you explain how my living costs will be reduced, since my in laws who do the child minding will be hundreds of miles away rather than 2 minutes away,

If other people I know in similar situations are a valid reference, I can see at least three people benefiting from an improved quality of life in this scenario: the inlaws getting time to enjoy their own time rather than feeling obliged to baby sit on a daily basis, and the kid(s) having a chance to develop social skills with other kids their own age.

Macy wrote:

I'll have all the related house sale fees

http://www.privateseller.ie/?gclid=COq1o4uC3YwCFQtHQwodtkvI7g

Macy wrote:

...plus last time I was in a Tesco in Donegal it wasn't any cheaper than my local one here.

For commoditised goods, maybe not. For anything else, it is cheaper. There was new about this yesterday. I think the source was the CSO.

Macy wrote:

On top of this my wife would have to leave her job. So the net benefit is where exactly to justify less salary?

Maybe she would like to spend more time with the kids (I know my wife would), maybe there is an opportunity to start a new business. Maybe there are even jobs going, specially as the local population increases and new jobs are created as a result.

I understand the uncertainty all of this brings. Humans are not very good dealing with "the unknown". But maybe, just maybe, you might find yourself looking back in a few years thinking it was the best thing that ever happened.

NewDubliner · 15-06-2007 08:18AM

I understand the uncertainty all of this brings. Humans are not very good dealing with "the unknown". But maybe, just maybe, you might find yourself looking back in a few years thinking it was the best thing that ever happened.

Or maybe not. I accept that people who don't live and work in Dublin feel nothing but pity for unfortunate Dubliners and maybe feel insulted that they don't want to share their idyllic lifestyle. Your concern is very touching, although it shows ignorance of the many positive lifestyle qualities of Dublin.

You cannot justify the increased taxes, congestion in Dublin and decreased efficiency caused by the present plan. All of the arguments in favour involve spending unlimited amounts of money in return for unquantifiable benefits.

BostonB · 16-06-2007 12:29AM

Zynks wrote:

.... the inlaws getting time to enjoy their own time rather than feeling obliged to baby sit on a daily basis, and the kid(s) having a chance to develop social skills with other kids their own age....

.

Then it could be that they love seeing them, and having them mix with their cousins of the same age. Swings and roundabouts.

Zynks wrote:

...Maybe there are even jobs going, specially as the local population increases and new jobs are created as a result.

I love the idea that population will increase, and new jobs will be created as a result due to 10,000 public sector workers being moved. But no mention of the 160,000+ immigrants who will have far greater effect.

Zynks wrote:

I understand the uncertainty all of this brings. Humans are not very good dealing with "the unknown". But maybe, just maybe, you might find yourself looking back in a few years thinking it was the best thing that ever happened.

Then theres the certainity of facts.

K-9 · 16-06-2007 12:57AM

BostonB wrote:

.
I love the idea that population will increase, and new jobs will be created as a result due to 10,000 public sector workers being moved. But no mention of the 160,000+ immigrants who will have far greater effect.

Down with that sort of thing:D. What have immigrants got to do with decentralisation.

Workers feelings on employers decisions wasn't much use here: from RTE news

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0615/jobs.html

newdubliner wrote:

You cannot justify the increased taxes, congestion in Dublin and decreased efficiency caused by the present plan.

Efficiencies and the public service. Since when that matter? As Enda Kenny said in the election debate, "500 staff doing nothing in the health service". Thats the tip of the iceberg. Everybody goes on about inefficiencies in the public service, eliminating these will result in less jobs.

newdubliner wrote:

. All of the arguments in favour involve spending unlimited amounts of money in return for unquantifiable benefits.

But this is the public service

BostonB · 16-06-2007 01:25AM

Seanies32 wrote:

Down with that sort of thing:D. What have immigrants got to do with decentralisation.

I quoted why. "...local population increases and new jobs are created as a result..."

Seanies32 wrote:

Workers feelings on employers decisions wasn't much use here: from RTE news

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0615/jobs.html

Whats your point? Is the public sector is exactly like the private sector. If its not making money they should close if down and sack all the workers?

Seanies32 wrote:

Efficiencies and the public service. Since when that matter? As Enda Kenny said in the election debate, "500 staff doing nothing in the health service". Thats the tip of the iceberg. Everybody goes on about inefficiencies in the public service, eliminating these will result in less jobs.

But this is the public service

So the sweeping generalisation here is all of it is inefficient and over staffed.

In one public sector place I worked for a while, they were understaffed by about 50% and very underfunded. With the result that used a lot of obsolete equipment and couldn't train their staff in new more efficient techologies.
Since I only have limited experience and access, I'd guess theres a wide variation in efficiency and staffing levels across the public sector. A lot of the places I've worked in the private sector weren't efficient either, and were mismanaged. Some were the exact opposite. You expect such variation in my experience.

K-9 · 16-06-2007 01:41AM

BostonB wrote:

Whats your point? Is the public sector is exactly like the private sector. If its not making money they should close if down and sack all the workers?

No, but as the leader of the opposition says there is deadwood there they should be sacked. Doesn't matter if it's making money or not.

BostonB wrote:

So the sweeping generalisation here is all of it is inefficient and over staffed.

What sweeping generalisation? Just looking at my post. It is accepted there are areas where it does happen, the leader of the opposition wouldn't say it otherwise. Don't make another sweeping generalisation and say they are all needed.

BostonB wrote:

You expect such variation in my experience.

Yes but if 500 people are doing nothing as Enda Kenny said, well that shouldn't. Efficiencies in other areas yes definitely.

BostonB wrote:

In one public sector place I worked for a while, they were understaffed by about 50% and very underfunded. With the result that used a lot of obsolete equipment and couldn't train their staff in new more efficient techologies.
Since I only have limited experience and access, I'd guess theres a wide variation in efficiency and staffing levels across the public sector.

Yes but you can be sure unions will be looking for more money for the extra staff plus extra wages for the existing staff despite this being negotiated in pay agreements.

As you say you only have limited experience of the efficiencies and staffing levels.

podgerodge · 16-06-2007 06:28AM

It would be best for the environment and best for our economy if more departments were taken out of overcrowded, clogged up and expensive Dublin. Think how much cheaper property is down the country for a start, with less time stuck in traffic.

Firetrap · 16-06-2007 01:23PM

1. Even if every department earmarked for decentralisation moved down the country, what do you think is going to happen to the space that's been vacated? Surely it won't be sold/leased to the private sector which will use it as office space and have lots of new office staff clogging up the roads coming in and out to work? The idea that the roads will be miraculously congestion free is a load of baloney.
2. A large number of people who've applied to decentralise are already down the country and for whatever reasons want to switch to another decentralised department.
3. Lots of people who are working in Dublin want to be there and don't want to move. What about native Dubs? People who've been in Dublin for years and have families and are settled into their communities? People whose spouses have careers in Dublin and won't have the opportunity to do so elsewhere? People who are more than happy to work in Dublin?
4. No thought has been put into this plan. I know of a place earmarked for decentralisation that got a phonecall the day before the budget and was asked how many staff it had. Next day, it was on the list.
5. There are people working in some places who've built up expertise over the years which isn't transferable during a 6 week crash course.
6. People will get promoted into positions they're ill suited for simply because they were willing/able to move.
7. I can see lots of departments having two offices - one in the decentralised location and another back in Dublin for the people who've not moved. What a waste of money.
8. It's not cheap buying a house outside of Dublin either. In fact, some property prices shot up in some locations earmarked for decentralisation.

Now, I'm not against decentralisation if it's done properly and with thought. However, a hastily cobbled together brainwave of Charlie McCreevy's the day before the budget as a political stroke doesn't count. In this day and age,with the health system falling to bits, with schools needing to be built, housing lists running into thousands etc., the government would be far better off spending money on fixing these things. If they're serious about helping the employment situation in towns around the country, they should do something constructive about it. Decentralisation isn't the answer.

Liam Byrne · 16-06-2007 04:38PM

Looked at all the people who track up to dublin for various medical treatments as one significant one.

That's caused by a failure in the Government planning, and should not have a bearing on whether anyone moves from Dublin; those (and other) facilities should be available at key locations all around the country, and not just on the east coast.

BostonB · 16-06-2007 05:04PM

Liam Byrne wrote:

That's caused by a failure in the Government planning, and should not have a bearing on whether anyone moves from Dublin; those (and other) facilities should be available at key locations all around the country, and not just on the east coast.

Yes agreed but reality is, at the moment there are not. If you need treatment on a regular basis, or someone in your family does you can't very ignore it.

BostonB · 16-06-2007 05:28PM

Seanies32 wrote:

No, but as the leader of the opposition says there is deadwood there they should be sacked. Doesn't matter if it's making money or not.

You linked to a company closing down because it was losing money. If its doesn't matter why link to it?

Enda was simply stating a truisim. Almost all large organisation are not 100% efficent. Did Enda have any realistic ideas on how how he'd achive it? Or were they election sound bites.

Seanies32 wrote:

What sweeping generalisation? Just looking at my post. It is accepted there are areas where it does happen, the leader of the opposition wouldn't say it otherwise. Don't make another sweeping generalisation and say they are all needed.

I can only make "another" sweeping generalistation if you are conceeding you already made one.

"... Since when that matter? ....But this is the public service" Seem pretty sweeping to me.

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes but if 500 people are doing nothing as Enda Kenny said, well that shouldn't. Efficiencies in other areas yes definitely.

Where did he get this 500 figure from?

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes but you can be sure unions will be looking for more money for the extra staff plus extra wages for the existing staff despite this being negotiated in pay agreements.

That makes no sense. You can only get the payscale of the role, grade etc. You can't get extra money without breaking the unions own agreement. Same with the existing staff. You should know this. In fact only a handful of staff were taken on, partly because its hard to attract people into some areas of the public sector, and secondly because there is recuitment embargo's in many areas. Outsourcing and use of external contractors is often use to band aid staffing/skill shortages.

Seanies32 wrote:

As you say you only have limited experience of the efficiencies and staffing levels.

So what?

K-9 · 16-06-2007 06:47PM

BostonB wrote:

You linked to a company closing down because it was losing money. If its doesn't matter why link to it?

Your quote that I replied to was:

BostonB wrote:

Is the public sector is exactly like the private sector. If its not making money they should close if down and sack all the workers?

And my reply was:

Seanies32 wrote:

No, but as the leader of the opposition says there is deadwood there they should be sacked. Doesn't matter if it's making money or not.

If there's deadwood, private or public, they should be sacked, or are you defending them in the public sector.

BostonB wrote:

Enda was simply stating a truisim. Almost all large organisation are not 100% efficent. Did Enda have any realistic ideas on how how he'd achive it? Or were they election sound bites.

Well he had 500 admin staff in the HSE. Thats pretty specific. Realistic ideas? If he knows where they are get rid of them.

My original quote was:

Seanies32 wrote:

Efficiencies and the public service. Since when that matter? As Enda Kenny said in the election debate, "500 staff doing nothing in the health service". Thats the tip of the iceberg. Everybody goes on about inefficiencies in the public service, eliminating these will result in less jobs.

bostonb wrote:

So the sweeping generalisation here is all of it is inefficient and over staffed.

In one public sector place I worked for a while, they were understaffed by about 50% and very underfunded. With the result that used a lot of obsolete equipment and couldn't train their staff in new more efficient techologies.
Since I only have limited experience and access, I'd guess theres a wide variation in efficiency and staffing levels across the public sector. A lot of the places I've worked in the private sector weren't efficient either, and were mismanaged. Some were the exact opposite. You expect such variation in my experience.

Where did I say it was all inefficient and over staffed. I mentioned the 500 staff and of other areas. I didn't say all!

But as you say, there are inefficiencies there.

bostonb wrote:

"... Since when that matter? ....But this is the public service" Seem pretty sweeping to me.

In reply to:

newdubliner wrote:

All of the arguments in favour involve spending unlimited amounts of money in return for unquantifiable benefits.

Well, look at the Health Service. Large increases in budgets.

bostonb wrote:

Where did he get this 500 figure from?

Probably something to do with all the health boards being abolished into one body but no job losses.

bostonb wrote:

That makes no sense. You can only get the payscale of the role, grade etc. You can't get extra money without breaking the unions own agreement. Same with the existing staff. You should know this.

Yes, but the Union probably will argue we need extra money for the existing staff to implement the new technologies/practices that of course will make their job more efficient and easier. There are plenty of cases of this happenning.

bostonb wrote:

In fact only a handful of staff were taken on, partly because its hard to attract people into some areas of the public sector, and secondly because there is recuitment embargo's in many areas. Outsourcing and use of external contractors is often use to band aid staffing/skill shortages.

Of course I accept there are exceptions but the following link from finfacts gives the overall figures http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006397.shtml

That would suggest a lot of areas didn't have embargoes.

Quote from Joan Bruton, not somebody I would see eye to eye on regularly:

and Labour’s spokeswoman on finance Joan Burton called for benchmarking to be much more transparent.

“I really don’t think we are seeing the money showing up on the frontline of health and education in particular. The bloated bureaucracy is swallowing so much up,” she said.

bostonb wrote:

As you say you only have limited experience of the efficiencies and staffing levels.

bostonb wrote:

Since I only have limited experience and access, I'd guess theres a wide variation in efficiency and staffing levels across the public sector. A lot of the places I've worked in the private sector weren't efficient either, and were mismanaged. Some were the exact opposite. You expect such variation in my experience.

As you say you have experience of an area that was understaffed. Numbers increased by 18% in 5 years. With public sector pay being such a large part of govt. expenditure people start wondering, do we need the same increases in the next 5 years to deliver better service especially at a time when the boom seems to be over or do we reform the public sector. All taxpayers, both public and private have a right to value for their money and to expect variation in efficiencies in services. Pay increases f 12% a year as in 01-06 can't be afforded by the economy anymore especially with just expecting variations in efficiency.

The_Conductor · 16-06-2007 07:12PM

Guys- the increases that occurred in the Public sector were almost exclusively in the HSE. There was a net decrease in numbers employed in the civil service in the past 5 years, not an increase. The current decentralisation proposals concern the Civil Service and 4 state bodies under the auspices of government departments, not the Public Sector as a whole.

Debating deadwood in the HSE is offtopic to this thread- while it may be a valid topic for discussion, surely it would be better to discuss it in a dedicated thread where it could receive the attention it deserves.

Most civil servants who are posting on this thread do not have fundamental problems with decentralisation- but they do with the manner in which the current proposals make no sense from either an operational perspective, or to the country as a whole- as they run totally contrary to the National Spatial Strategy (and in many cases actually involve a net decrease in civil servants in current decentralised locations- such as Longford, Ballinasloe, Newtownwest, Galway (to name but a few)).

As I pointed out in this thread several times- totally aside from the people whose jobs are being decentralised having no say in the matter- the simple fact of the matter is that 64% of the civil service are women, the vast majority of whose partners may be employed elsewhere (but even when they are also civil servants- for the most part will not be working in the same government department). A further aside is that 43% of all civil servants are over the age of 50. There was an embargo in place in the civil service for 5 years from 2000 onwards- which did not help the demographics of staff employed there

A lot of the public sector bashing happening in this thread is simply irrelevant from a civil service perspective- as it relates to the HSE or other bodies, that are not part of the decentralisation scheme.

Perhaps it would be pertinent to actually focus on valid facts as they relate to the decentralisation proposals.

Shane

Firetrap · 16-06-2007 07:33PM

I take your point but the location of medical services (yes, people shouldn't have to traipse up to Dublin for treatment) but it has nothing to do with decentralisation.

eigrod · 16-06-2007 08:32PM

Does anybody know if there is any reference at all to Decentralisation in the new programme for Government ?

K-9 · 16-06-2007 08:46PM

BostonB wrote:

You linked to a company closing down because it was losing money. If its doesn't matter why link to it?

The link, if you read further down, is also about a company closing down in Millstreet and relocating to Shannon. Some workers may relocate, others take redundancy, but unfortunately its unlikely the company is going to renege on its decision.

smccarrick wrote:

Most civil servants who are posting on this thread do not have fundamental problems with decentralisation- but they do with the manner in which the current proposals make no sense from either an operational perspective, or to the country as a whole- as they run totally contrary to the National Spatial Strategy (and in many cases actually involve a net decrease in civil servants in current decentralised locations- such as Longford, Ballinasloe, Newtownwest, Galway (to name but a few)).

As I pointed out in this thread several times- totally aside from the people whose jobs are being decentralised having no say in the matter- the simple fact of the matter is that 64% of the civil service are women, the vast majority of whose partners may be employed elsewhere (but even when they are also civil servants- for the most part will not be working in the same government department). A further aside is that 43% of all civil servants are over the age of 50. There was an embargo in place in the civil service for 5 years from 2000 onwards- which did not help the demographics of staff employed there

Would there be no opposition if it was linked to the national spatial strategy? Maybe, maybe not, but the above figures regarding women and people over 50 would still apply.

There maybe no fundamental opposition to it either but again the same demographics apply. So the question is, if it was according to the national spatial strategy, and it completely made sense from a operational basis, these problems would still apply and would there still be high opposition to it?

The_Conductor · 16-06-2007 09:08PM

Well, the scheme, as proposed, does not make sense when you look at it from an economic viewpoint.

I accept that because of the demographics of the serving civil servants, that its unlikely that a sizeable number of them would be interested in moving from Dublin. Far more pertinent however, and curiously enough its not widely reported in the media, is the fact that the decentralisation scheme is actually the 5th such scheme in the past 28 years- so a lot of the civil servants who were willing to decentralise quite simply did do so a long time ago. This also explains why over 2/3 of the current applications for decentralisation are from people already outside the greater Dublin area who wish to move to another location- and not from people inside Dublin at all.

Further- over 3/4 of the civil service were decentralised over the years from Dublin- most Departments only have certain sections still in Dublin (and some departments have over 90% of their total staff already decentralised).

The thread really has descended into a thread where its an us-versus-them thread- people down the country who think they deserve to have jobs moved into their localities- and that those Dubs are simply being intransient in refusing to move, instead of looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is what makes most sense for the country as a whole- and no matter what way you present arguments, the current proposals do not make sense for the country as a whole.

Victor · 16-06-2007 09:14PM

Seanies32 wrote:

So the question is, if it was according to the national spatial strategy, and it completely made sense from a operational basis, these problems would still apply and would there still be high opposition to it?

If it was according to the national spatial strategy, it would be moving jobs to places with things like trains stations - Dungarvan doesn't have (or in reality need) a train station or cinemas or whatever. Picking fewer locations would give people greater choice and more oppurtunity through critical mass. Can you imagine the 12 staff slated for I think it was Ballinasloe - great oppurtunity for promotion or transfer there! But at least it has a train station.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/10585846?view=Eircomnet&cat=Top%20Stories

Setback for decentralisation plan to Knock
From ireland.comSaturday, 16th June, 2007

Plans to decentralise the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to Knock, Co Mayo, have received a setback with the refusal of planning permission for a new headquarters building.

The move of 140 staff, planned as far back as 2003, was to have been completed later this year. Some 37 staff from the department moved to temporary accommodation at Tubbercurry, Co Sligo, last July.

At the end of last year, it was projected 64 staff would be in place in Tubbercurry, covering six sections of the department.

Despite missed deadlines for the planned new headquarters, Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs Éamon Ó Cuív announced last July work would commence on the new offices in the first quarter of 2007.

"It is estimated that the headquarters will transfer there from mid-2008. Once the new offices are ready, the staff in Tubbercurry will relocate, giving a total of 140 in the new location," he said.

The building was to have comprised two three-storey wings of offices linked by a glazed atrium stepping up the hillside site.

However, planning permission was appealed by Peter Sweetman and Associates of Rathmines, Dublin and, in its ruling yesterday, An Bord Pleanála rejected the application.

The board said that, notwithstanding the proximity of the building to Ireland West International Airport, Knock, the headquarters would have been in a "rural area which is remote from the town of Charlestown or any other settlement, remote from the normal range of services and facilities associated with office accommodation and remote from public transport infrastructure".

It was considered the proposed location of a standalone office building unrelated to the operation of the airport would give rise to unsustainable forms of commuting and would be contrary to the current Mayo Development Plan.

The board also found that, by virtue of the proximity of the runway at Ireland West, the building would have represented a poor working environment for staff.

The board's decision was welcomed by An Taisce, which called for a complete review of the decentralisation programme.

"Decentralised offices should be situated in the gateways and hubs in locations which have good access to public transport, and do not worsen car-based sprawl," it said in a statement.

K-9 · 17-06-2007 12:46AM

smccarrick wrote:

The thread really has descended into a thread where its an us-versus-them thread- people down the country who think they deserve to have jobs moved into their localities- and that those Dubs are simply being intransient in refusing to move, instead of looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is what makes most sense for the country as a whole- and no matter what way you present arguments, the current proposals do not make sense for the country as a whole.

Well the OP, those 92 pages back was from Dublin and was asking peoples opinion on it. But again back to your post earlier, even if it was in the national interest in your opinion, the demographics of the civil service would still be the same and there would be considerable opposition from within. Wives not wanting to move and people over 50 not wanting it either. Nothing particularly wrong with, I'd be the same if i was in the same situation!

Really, it comes down to that. National interest, national spatial strategy and efficiencies are only side issues.

victor wrote:

If it was according to the national spatial strategy, it would be moving jobs to places with things like trains stations - Dungarvan doesn't have (or in reality need) a train station or cinemas or whatever. Picking fewer locations would give people greater choice and more oppurtunity through critical mass. Can you imagine the 12 staff slated for I think it was Ballinasloe - great oppurtunity for promotion or transfer there! But at least it has a train station

Yeah but as above, the wives and people over 50 still wouldn't want to move no matter if it agree with the national spatial strategy. E.g Letterkenny is part of the strategy, this would make no difference to people not wanting to go for their own reasons.

Your link is interesting and shows how ineptly it was planned and didn't do Tom Parlon much good in the election but again if it was perfectly planned the wives and people over 50 would still be opposed. The argument can be dressed up but thats what it comes down to. Self interest of the workers involved. Not necessarily a bad thing!

Victor · 17-06-2007 01:00AM

Seanies32 wrote:

Your link is interesting and shows how ineptly it was planned and didn't do Tom Parlon much good in the election but again if it was perfectly planned the wives and people over 50 would still be opposed. The argument can be dressed up but thats what it comes down to. Self interest of the workers involved. Not necessarily a bad thing!

Whatever about self interest, people would be a lot more willing to move to places where there is choice and oppurtunity - professional, personal, social, whatever.

K-9 · 17-06-2007 02:02AM

Victor wrote:

Whatever about self interest, people would be a lot more willing to move to places where there is choice and oppurtunity - professional, personal, social, whatever.

Of course, but still the people over 50 and the women, who make up 64% of the civil service would still have their personal issues. Thats what it comes down to, they still wouldn't want to move no matter how well planned.

They could have plenty of opportunities like those you mention but those issues are still side issues.

I think we've got to the nub of the problem, its self interest for the people who are going to be decentralised which is ok. The others are just side issues.

Decentralisation

Comments