Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Decentralisation
Comments
-
Seanies32 wrote:...
If there's deadwood, private or public, they should be sacked, or are you defending them in the public sector.
Wheres the deadwood in the private company you linked to?Seanies32 wrote:Well he had 500 admin staff in the HSE. Thats pretty specific. Realistic ideas? If he knows where they are get rid of them.
So all of them were deadwood. Did he get rid of them?Seanies32 wrote: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!
I've quoted the sweeping generalisation. No point doing it again.Seanies32 wrote: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.
Of course I accept there are exceptions but the following link from finfacts gives the overall figures...
That would suggest a lot of areas didn't have embargoes.
Indeed thats what unions do. But its conflict with their own agreements, and when they break them, every other group rolls in behind as in the case with the Nurses. Personally I wouldn't have the greatest opinion of the unions. Many of them are self serving of their unions interests rather than their members.
Some areas obviously do get more staff or they wouldn't function. People leave, retire or die, they need to be replaced. If theres a need for more schools you're going to need more teachers etc. Or you need more Guards. I don't see how you can get around that basic need for manpower. Some of the decentralised locations couldn't get staff from other locations, so they hired new staff, which gives the impression that people have moved when they haven't. Some depts seem to be able to ignore the embargo. Seems to be related to political clout.Seanies32 wrote: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.
Well I'd agree with her. I've experienced first hand nurses spending the majority of their time doing paperwork, rather than caring for their patients. That is actually a result of benchmarking, you achive your goals if you've the paper to prove it. Its a bit like ISO 9000 in the private sector. Set you own goals as low as you like and then achive them. Or in other projects, where more money is spent on everything except actually doing it.Seanies32 wrote: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.
What does "variations in efficiency" mean?
The problem in the public sector is there is no ownership or responsibility of anything. Therefore noone can be held accountable for anything. This comes from the top down. The way I see it, the public sector implements Govt policy. At top is the govt. Which has managed thrown vast amounts of public money at every problem with out managing the problems or the money, with the result is the problems don't get solved.
Decentralisation is a classic example. The numbers involved are so small compared to the influx of immigrants that the number don't really have any impact on local economies. Managing the decentralisation of immigrants around the country would have more effect. The savings that are put forward for decentraliation don't exist. The plan has not been costed, they are just going to throw money at it. It doesn't map to any govt policy, except to win votes in specific areas. Most of the people who would want to decentralise have already done so years ago, so the majority of the people are those who didn't want to go or who can't.
Theres really two choices. Move the people to new locations they'll agree too. I'm sure many would be happy within 50 mile radius of Dublin, out into places like Meath, Kildare Wicklow etc. You'll get some who'll move to major towns instead of BallyInTheMiddleOfNowhere. Or simply make them redundant.Redundancy Situations in Ireland
A redundancy situation occurs where one of the following situations arises:
* An employer ceases to carry on business or ceases to carry on business in the place where an employee has been employed.
* The employer’s requirements for employees in a specific category has ceased or diminished.
* An employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no staff. In deciding whether an employer is continuing the business with fewer or no staff, close members of an employer's family are not taken into account.
* An employer has decided to let work be done in a different manner in future and the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained to do the work in the different way.
* An employer has decided that an employees work will in future be done by another person who can do other work as well and the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained to do that other work.
Many people have commented that Decentralisation itself is a good thing. Its just been missmanaged. If done properly there wouldn't be the resistance there has been.0 -
Bostonb wrote:Wheres the deadwood in the private company you linked to?
I'm not going thro the u said, I said thing and quoting everything you said and I said. Read the posts again.
U said there was inefficiencies in both the public and private sector.
Point being, doesn't matter if its public or private, they should be removed.bostonb wrote:So all of them were deadwood. Did he get rid of them?
Eh no, he's not in Govt.bostonb wrote:I've quoted the sweeping generalisation. No point doing it again.
Read my last post where I said it wasn't a sweeping generalisation. Every civil/public servant inefficient, I don't think so. He was referring specifically to the Health Boards and the HSE.bostonb wrote:Indeed thats what unions do. But its conflict with their own agreements, and when they break them, every other group rolls in behind as in the case with the Nurses. Personally I wouldn't have the greatest opinion of the unions. Many of them are self serving of their unions interests rather than their members.
Agreed, but as you say, thats what unions do.bostonb wrote:Some areas obviously do get more staff or they wouldn't function. People leave, retire or die, they need to be replaced. If theres a need for more schools you're going to need more teachers etc. Or you need more Guards. I don't see how you can get around that basic need for manpower. Some of the decentralised locations couldn't get staff from other locations, so they hired new staff, which gives the impression that people have moved when they haven't. Some depts seem to be able to ignore the embargo. Seems to be related to political clout.
I take your point but the public sector pay is a major issue, especially with inflation.bostonb wrote:What does "variations in efficiency" mean?
As you posted, some are inefficient and understaffed, other area aren't, hence the varations.bostonb wrote:Many people have commented that Decentralisation itself is a good thing. Its just been missmanaged. If done properly there wouldn't be the resistance there has been.
Yes they've said its a good thing. But as the demographics already stated show, 63% in the civil service are women and 43% are over 50. This is the real issue. Eliminate all the other issues, inefficiencies, national spatial strategy, even move them to Kildare etc., unions etc. it will still come down to demographics.
Any other issues are just side issue. Women with partners/husbands working in Dublin and people over 50 will be opposed to relocating their job no matter what the alternative. That's the nub of the issue and will always be an issue.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
BostonB wrote:So quoting an example where a company was moving/closing because it was making losses has nothing to do decentralisation. You can't directly compare the two sectors.
You're missing the point. Losses doesn't matter. They have been offered redundancy or relocation. How many will take the relocation ?bostonb wrote:Oh I thought you said he had 500 admin staff. What did you mean by that then?
What, who? . Enda Kenny has 500 Admin staff? The point was in the leaders debate he pointed out that there was 500 Admin staff in Health that where not needed. When all the Health Boards where axed and the HSE was formed nobody lost their job. That is the point .I've made it a couple of times but you are either ignoring or not getting my point. Did he get rid of them actually is a side issue, tho obviously not because he's not Taoiseach.bostonb wrote:Sounds like any sector. Not just the Public Sector as you generalised earlier.
Let's go back to my original quote again that you keep calling a sweeping generalisation.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
Obviously 500 Admin staff and the extra staff carried over from the Health Board is inefficient. As you admitted yourself you have experienced inefficiencies yourself. All I was stating is there are inefficiencies there, thats not a sweeping generalisation. As you say there is wide variations over departments which I accept. Also you say that decentralisation is inefficient.bostonb wrote:Benchmarking was intended to keep pay scales inline with the private sector. Problem is it was playing catch up, with the private sector. Now when the economy slows its an unwieldly tool that reacts too slow. In theory benchmarking should bring in pay cuts in line with the private sector. I can't imagine that will happen with out a fight.
Thats debatable if they where playing catch up. The thread that I linked to earlier on finfacts says they where actually about 15% ahead anyway, and thata by authorities more knowledgable than you or me. In fact benchmarking, far from reducing pay to bring it in line will probably increase the gap.bostonb wrote:How many of them have decentralised already? Are these the issues? Are their any polls or stats to back up that these are the issues. Has anyone asked or polled the staff? Its not just the Civil Service. What about the State agencies they are moving too. The whole public sector is top heavy with older staff as the result of various policies, and theres still a lot of men working in the sector aswell. Breaking it down on the basis of age or sex is bizarre, and discriminatory. There was no preplanning for this, it was a case of let move where we can get votes, and we'll throw money at the problem in order to get it done. Which is not the way to get people on board, it justs gets their backs up. People move around a lot in the public sector, they are not adverse to doing that.
Well the facts where quoted below:smccarrick wrote: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
To me, this is the major issue. The people referred to above would have serious difficulty in moving because of personal reasons, no matter how well planned and consulted it was.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Seanies32 wrote:You're missing the point. Losses doesn't matter. They have been offered redundancy or relocation. How many will take the relocation ?
Yes I don't get the point of that link. Why a private company moving and shedding staff because of continuing losses related to a the public sector.Seanies32 wrote:What, who? . Enda Kenny has 500 Admin staff? The point was in the leaders debate he pointed out that there was 500 Admin staff in Health that where not needed. When all the Health Boards where axed and the HSE was formed nobody lost their job. That is the point .I've made it a couple of times but you are either ignoring or not getting my point. Did he get rid of them actually is a side issue, tho obviously not because he's not Taoiseach.
I want to know how the figure of 500 was calculated. I'm sure there is surplus staff. But usually when you look closely at politicans quoted figure they rarely add up. Bertie being a another case in point. How did Enda get 500 I have no idea.Seanies32 wrote:Let's go back to my original quote again that you keep calling a sweeping generalisation....Obviously 500 Admin staff and the extra staff carried over from the Health Board is inefficient. As you admitted yourself you have experienced inefficiencies yourself. All I was stating is there are inefficiencies there, thats not a sweeping generalisation. As you say there is wide variations over departments which I accept.
But your sweeping comment was "... Since when that matter? and "But this is the public service" as if its all the same. You've since accepted it isn't. I never said the comments re the HSE were sweeping. The HSE is a farce. The
condition of the Health Service Speaks for itself. However off the cuff sound bites from electioneering politicians aren't worth squat. Or votes apparently.Seanies32 wrote:Also you say that decentralisation is inefficient.
Wasn't aware I said that. Because the current farce is not decentraliation.Seanies32 wrote:Thats debatable if they where playing catch up. The thread that I linked to earlier on finfacts says they where actually about 15% ahead anyway, and thata by authorities more knowledgable than you or me. In fact benchmarking, far from reducing pay to bring it in line will probably increase the gap.
More knowledgable? Meh.
Debatable sure. But that was the intent, but not the sole objective. It was also to prevent industrial disputes and facilitate improvements across the public sector. However the Govt has failed to achieved pretty much most of this. But we've voted them back in again, so maybe they'll have another crack at it once they've moved them all to their home counties.Seanies32 wrote:To me, this is the major issue. The people referred to above would have serious difficulty in moving because of personal reasons, no matter how well planned and consulted it was.
So don't try and plan it because it won't work anyway. Maybe that is the Govt thinking on it. Seems to their method on a lot of things. I don't agree with making assumptions/guess like that off the top of your head because of someones gender and age.0 -
BostonB wrote:Yes I don't get the point of that link. Why a private company moving and shedding staff because of continuing losses related to a the public sector.
Actually if you look at the company is Millstreet they are not shedding staff, they are offering relocation or redundancy. Relocation would be the private sector equivalent of decentralisation, not exactly the same, but comparable. In this case transfer to another department in the same area wouldn't be an alternative like the civil service, redundancy yes. On the RTE News an employee said relocation wouldn't be an option for a lot of the staff because of moving house, family, age profile of some of the staff etc. etc. Same considerations as for people who would be decentralised. The same personal issues mean they would not move.
Self interest in not moving location for your job is perfectly acceptable, just say it. It's perfectly acceptable to say it, whether private/public or civil service.bostonb wrote:I want to know how the figure of 500 was calculated. I'm sure there is surplus staff. But usually when you look closely at politicans quoted figure they rarely add up. Bertie being a another case in point. How did Enda get 500 I have no idea.
8 Health Boards into 1 HSE and everybody keeping their job. I quoted Enda Kenny, I would have just as much faith in politicians as you but the most important figure is 8 into 1 doesn't go. The HSE is a farce as you say so why doubt it?bostonb wrote:But your sweeping comment was "... Since when that matter? and "But this is the public service" as if its all the same. You've since accepted it isn't.
My quote was:Seanies32 wrote:But this is the public service
Was meant slightly toungue in cheek but as you say the HSE is a farce. And again, "since when did that matter",
again the HSE.
You've now made a sweeping statement:bostonb wrote:The HSE is a farce. The
condition of the Health Service Speaks for itself.
I would agree to a large extent, but I wouldn't call the whole HSE a farce same as the whole public service/civil service. I'm sure parts (maybe even large parts) are but I wouldn't make a generalisation about it.
But as you say yourself: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.
Thats where I got the wide variations in efficiency. One of the arguments is that decentralisation is not planned. So hence inefficient.bostonb wrote:More knowledgable? Meh.
Debatable sure. But that was the intent, but not the sole objective. It was also to prevent industrial disputes and facilitate improvements across the public sector. However the Govt has failed to achieved pretty much most of this. But we've voted them back in again, so maybe they'll have another crack at it once they've moved them all to their home counties.
Again debatable. Unions could be blamed just as much. E.g. the Nurses dispute and the expectant clamour of Guards and other public service workers after them, despite this supposedly being ended by Benchmarking. Hence the proposed pay cuts for Nurses by the HSE for their withdrawal from the benchmarking process and the cries of how dare they from the nurses.
They where missing the point, they signed up to benchmarking when it suited them, withdrew when it suited them but moaned when the pay rises from benchmarking where going to be withdrawn.
Unions are there to represent their members interests, not the national interest. How does the Govt. prevent industrial disputes, ban Unions?bostonb wrote:So don't try and plan it because it won't work anyway. Maybe that is the Govt thinking on it. Seems to their method on a lot of things. I don't agree with making assumptions/guess like that off the top of your head because of someones gender and age.
Wasn't my assumption as I stated in the last post.smccarrick wrote: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.
64% are women, a large part of those would have partners/husbands, fair assumption. Unless a large part of the women who work for the civil service are single, way more so than national averages. it would be a reasonable assumption to make.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
smccarrick wrote:Well, strange that you should bring it up- but there is an abnormally large number of single people working in the civil service.
But you did say
63% in the civil service are women and 43% are over 50. And a lot of those women would have partners/husbands with jobs.
Maybe we need accurate figures on these.bostonb wrote:That company is alaready decentralised and they have a valid reason for moving. The State agencies can't transfer at all. The idea is to tranfer out of the same area not back into it anyway. That company is also offering redundancy which isn't offered to the public sector.
But they don't have a choice to relocate or not. Their employer made the decision and they have to accept. As you point out below with the Unions sometimes the Employers/Govt. should say no. Same with decentralisation. The decision has been made, the Government should have a backbone and say no the civil service. No to redeployment as well.Seanies32 wrote:8 Health Boards into 1 HSE and everybody keeping their job. I quoted Enda Kenny, I would have just as much faith in politicians as you but the most important figure is 8 into 1 doesn't go. The HSE is a farce as you say so why doubt it?bostonb wrote:If you merged two accountancy companies would they need 50% less staff even though they now had double the workload? The HSE is a mess. But off the cuff soundbytes are not accurate figures.
You say the HSE is a mess and a farce yet you attack Enda Kenny for bringing it up as an issue.
Do you think there is 8 times the workload of each Health Board in the HSE ? Do they need 8 Times the financial staff of each HB for the HSE? You say the HSE Is a Farce and then attack Enda for his figures. Which would be worse, Enda having soundbites and acting on them if in power, or just ignoring the situation, saying its a mess and then not attempting to reform it?
You are attacking the person who highlights the mess and farce of the HSE.bostonb wrote:Which part of the HSE are you defending?
The ones who chose to offer new public only contacts to consultants. Took them long enough yes, they tried to achieve too much by consensus when it just can't be achieved and went ahead and did something. The ones who where going to dock the Nurses share of benchmarking for not participating in it. The ones who insist that there are genuine changes in Nurses and Consultants work practices for any new contracts/lower hours. I'm sure it is a mess in large parts as you say but not all of it is bad.bostonb wrote:Benchmarking was intended to keep pay scales inline with the private sector. Problem is it was playing catch up, with the private sector. Now when the economy slows its an unwieldly tool that reacts too slow. In theory benchmarking should bring in pay cuts in line with the private sector. I can't imagine that will happen with out a fight.
Was the public sector playing catch up. Are there any independent figures to verify this?bostonb wrote:Debatable sure. But that was the intent, but not the sole objective. It was also to prevent industrial disputes and facilitate improvements across the public sector. However the Govt has failed to achieved pretty much most of this.Seanies32 wrote:Unions are there to represent their members interests, not the national interest. How does the Govt. prevent industrial disputes, ban Unions?bostonb wrote:Have a backbone and say no.
You said The Govt. are to blame for the failure of benchmarking to improve the public sector and prevent industrial disputes. I asked how do they prevent strikes and you said for them to have a backbone and say no. This is how they prevent industrial action. So the Govt. disagrees with the Nurses Unions demands, says No and this leads to better industrial relations.
Industrial disputes are both the Govt. and Unions responsibility.bostonb wrote:I hear what they are saying every day but thats not the same thing. Since the vast majority don't want to move I'd assume single, married, old or young, male or female doesn't come into it.
How do you hear what they are saying everyday ? Do you work or are you connected to the civil service workers ?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Seanies32 wrote:But you did say
63% in the civil service are women and 43% are over 50. And a lot of those women would have partners/husbands with jobs.
Maybe we need accurate figures on these.
Under equality legislation I don't think its possible to ask whether people are single/married/cohabiting. The statistics regarding the number of men and women in the civil service are freely available from the Department of Finance- ditto their age profiles. Those are accurate figures. An accurate figure is also that currently there are 973 couples included in the number of jobs that are proposed to be decentralised (on the decentralisation form people were asked to specify if they had a partner working in the civil service and if so what their RSI number was/is). Note: thats just the people who filled out the decentralisation form- a majority of the Dublin based staff didn't bother (this number is known, but is not freely available).Seanies32 wrote:But they don't have a choice to relocate or not. Their employer made the decision and they have to accept. As you point out below with the Unions sometimes the Employers/Govt. should say no. Same with decentralisation. The decision has been made, the Government should have a backbone and say no the civil service. No to redeployment as well.
Yes- they do have a choice. To move and accept a relocation package, or not move and accept redundancy. These are choices that are not available to the civil service staff.
Would you like to clarify what your opposition to redeployment of staff is? Surely it makes sense to have staff gainfully employed?Seanies32 wrote:You say the HSE is a mess and a farce yet you attack Enda Kenny for bringing it up as an issue.
Do you think there is 8 times the workload of each Health Board in the HSE ? Do they need 8 Times the financial staff of each HB for the HSE? You say the HSE Is a Farce and then attack Enda for his figures. Which would be worse, Enda having soundbites and acting on them if in power, or just ignoring the situation, saying its a mess and then not attempting to reform it?
You are attacking the person who highlights the mess and farce of the HSE.
Just what is your point about the HSE? I don't think anyone is arguing against what you're saying about it being inefficient and a mess. The HSE has nothing whatsoever to do with the decentralisation scheme or the civil service though. I suggested to you that you might like to start a seperate thread about the HSE- as its simply not relevant to this thread. I'd suggest once again that you do so.Seanies32 wrote:You said The Govt. are to blame for the failure of benchmarking to improve the public sector and prevent industrial disputes. I asked how do they prevent strikes and you said for them to have a backbone and say no. This is how they prevent industrial action. So the Govt. disagrees with the Nurses Unions demands, says No and this leads to better industrial relations.
Industrial disputes are both the Govt. and Unions responsibility.
How do you hear what they are saying everyday ? Do you work or are you connected to the civil service workers ?
Benchmarking, and the national pay awards, to which the private sector have also subscribed, have resulted in fewer days being lost to industrial disputes in both the public and the private sector, than were lost prior to the start of these national agreements.
One of the things the civil service signed up to was internal structures for dealing with disputes. Unlike the public sector and the private sector- civil servants are not entitled to refer disputes to the Labour Court and its machinations. None of the strikes that you refer to (nurses/gardai/teachers etc) involved civilservants. Civil servants are a very small group in the larger context of the public service. Bringing civil servants into the disputes with the nurses is akin to my dentist moaning about how much he has been quoted by a local builder to convert his attic. I.e. its not relevant.
This thread is about the civil service and the proposed decentralisation of its remaining civil servants (75% of whom are already decentralised) to a large number of very provincial locations for purely political reasons. Going on about the Public Sector at large or how crap the HSE is- are totally irrelevant and have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. While its understandable that you are unhappy with the health services, as indeed most sane people are, its quite simply nothing to do with this thread and should be dealt with elsewhere.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Decentralisation slower than expected - Cowen
Tuesday, 26 June 2007 22:24
Decentralisation is proceeding more slowly than projected due to its voluntary nature and industrial relations issues, according to the Minister for Finance Brian Cowen.
Minister Cowen said that State agencies did not have the same culture of retraining and departmental transfers as exists in the Civil Service.
He said that he expected line ministers to push for decentralisation in their respective departments, but that this could only occur with the agreement of the unions and through established industrial relations machinery.
Culture of departmental transfers. Whats that mean then? 0 -
It means nobody really caring what job they do & moving from department to department before they get found out.BostonB wrote:Culture of departmental transfers. Whats that mean then?0 -
You mean like the members of the cabinet?NewDubliner wrote:It means nobody really caring what job they do & moving from department to department before they get found out.
0 -
Well if people are unwilling/unable to relocate to the midlands with their jobs, there are enough locals willing (& able) to do the work and they can take the jobs we leave in Dublin.
It would certainly save me an 80 mile each way commute.
If I'm repeating someone elses comments, I apologise, but 1800 odd posts in, life's too short to read them all
0 -
-
Deleted User wrote:Well if people are unwilling/unable to relocate to the midlands with their jobs, there are enough locals willing (& able) to do the work and they can take the jobs we leave in Dublin.
It would certainly save me an 80 mile each way commute.
If I'm repeating someone elses comments, I apologise, but 1800 odd posts in, life's too short to read them all
Nothings stopping you. Of course in a few years they might move you from the midlands to Kerry.
http://www.publicjobs.ie/0 -
-
NewDubliner wrote:How can you justify this? Spite? 'Anti-Dublin' mindset? There is no economic or business justification for the 'decentralisation' current plan.
The statistics show a very low interest among Dubliners to relocate with their jobs. The success of the plan depended mostly on this and to some extent on inter-changeability, but underestimated the very real issues.
No amount of coercion or 'sack-em-all' bluster will make this plan work.
Not at all anti-Dub but if all the jobs where moved to towns/cities in the national spatial strategy there still would be opposition. On the same basis it could be argued this is anti-country!
Economic justification? Well as the private sector Co. relocated in the link I quoted earlier for economic reasons, it was pointed out that that is different and isn't comparable to the decentralisation scheme.smccarrick wrote:Under equality legislation I don't think its possible to ask whether people are single/married/cohabiting. The statistics regarding the number of men and women in the civil service are freely available from the Department of Finance- ditto their age profiles. Those are accurate figures. An accurate figure is also that currently there are 973 couples included in the number of jobs that are proposed to be decentralised (on the decentralisation form people were asked to specify if they had a partner working in the civil service and if so what their RSI number was/is). Note: thats just the people who filled out the decentralisation form- a majority of the Dublin based staff didn't bother (this number is known, but is not freely available)smccarrick wrote:Quote:
Originally Posted by smccarrick
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.smccarrick wrote:Well, strange that you should bring it up- but there is an abnormally large number of single people working in the civil service.
So there is no accurate figures on the married/cohabitating couples and single people in the civil service. But I do think it is a reasonable assumption to make, as you did yourself, that a lot would have partners etc.i.e. the 64% Women.smccarrick wrote:Would you like to clarify what your opposition to redeployment of staff is? Surely it makes sense to have staff gainfully employed?
Nothing really, but of course I'd prefer to avoid it:D. If my employer moves to Dublin I would have the chance to relocate but not redeploy. Yes, I would have redundancy for my 4 years ( not much ) but I wouldn't have the option of redeployment. Redeployment will rarely have a perfect job close to you, especially in specialised areas like the civil service. Really can everybody expect to have the same job close to us so that we can redeploy?Victor wrote:You mean like the members of the cabinet?
Well they can't redeploy/decentralise or stay in their job by choice. They don't have great job security either!
I did get a bit carried away there with the public service but it was in a debate with BostonB. Apologies
NewDubliner wrote:Quote:
Decentralisation slower than expected - Cowen
Tuesday, 26 June 2007 22:24
Decentralisation is proceeding more slowly than projected due to its voluntary nature and industrial relations issues, according to the Minister for Finance Brian Cowen.
Minister Cowen said that State agencies did not have the same culture of retraining and departmental transfers as exists in the Civil Service.
He said that he expected line ministers to push for decentralisation in their respective departments, but that this could only occur with the agreement of the unions and through established industrial relations machinery.
He does have a point, State agencies wouldn't have the same experience on decentralisation as has been pointed out here they are not the Civil Service.
It will only occur with the agreement with unions and through ind. relations machinery.....Is that a bad thing?Smccarrick wrote:Also- the IT sections seem to be resting in Maynooth temporarily- and are sort of saying that they have no intention of moving further afield, they want to go to Backweston instead (and keep the old Irish Sugar buildings etc).
Somebody said this thread was anti-Dub?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement