Decentralisation

Firetrap · 01-09-2007 08:45PM

I also think a lot of people can't get past the whole "Dublin has all the jobs" mentality. Whilst I do think that having certain departments or sections of them outside of Dublin is a good idea if thought out and done properly, Decentralisation as it's currently set out is not the way to go. I also frequently read snide comments in the media about staff in the public service who are supposedly all inefficient, lazy, overpaid and have great pensions. This is a compensation for being told they've to move to a different job in the arse end of Donegal.

Hotblack Desiato · 02-09-2007 12:22PM

Seanies32 wrote:

Anyway, I think decentralisation is one of those issues that people are not going to agree on.

I think everyone on this thread agrees that decentralisation is not a bad idea in principle.

In practice the current plan is an expensive, unimplementable, inefficient mess that will inflate the cost and reduce the effectiveness of public services for decades to come.

Given the increasing links between 'targets' and cost-of-living pay rises in the public sector, it's the staff who will end up carrying the can for politician's folly.

In a way as posted on the poll site it is similar to Aet Lingus and Shannon. Not exactly the same reasons of course, but the staff in the airport are quite similar to staff in the decentralisation programme. There are interesting similarities.

There is nothing more than a superficial similarity which is misleading.
Aer Lingus will gain efficiency from moving from Shannon.
Public services will lose efficiency by moving to 53 scattered locations.

NewDubliner · 02-09-2007 02:07PM

ninja900 wrote:

There is nothing more than a superficial similarity which is misleading.Aer Lingus will gain efficiency from moving from Shannon.
Public services will lose efficiency by moving to 53 scattered locations.

I think the point the 'pro-decentralisation' poster was trying to make was that it didn't matter if the scheme resulted in higher taxes or reduced efficiency, it is 'good for the regions' and that overrides any business logic.

BostonB · 02-09-2007 02:30PM

NewDubliner wrote:

...it is 'good for the regions' and that overrides any business logic.

Has it any significant impact in the regions compared to the impact of net immigration in those same regions?

NewDubliner · 02-09-2007 04:21PM

BostonB wrote:

Has it any significant impact in the regions compared to the impact of net immigration in those same regions?

The present scheme has no mechanisms to estimate costs and benefits nor to measure the outcome. If it turns out to be a costly failure, there's no plan 'b'.

The arguments from the pro-decentralisation lobby run like this:

"It could be of some benefit to the regions."

"It might lead to reduced costs. Or, it might not."

"People can work outside of Dublin".

"We must do it."

K-9 · 03-09-2007 01:33AM

ninja900 wrote:

Aer Lingus will gain efficiency from moving from Shannon.
Public services will lose efficiency by moving to 53 scattered locations.

Yes, they probably will gain efficiency but the staff still aren't happy!:D

Shows you sometimes staff aren't the best barometer.

NewDubliner · 03-09-2007 07:41AM

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes, they probably will gain efficiency

Or more likely, in the case of the Civil & Public Services, probably not.

How will you estimate the efficiency gains and and how will you measure the cost of achieving them?

The_Conductor · 03-09-2007 08:45AM

NewDubliner wrote:

Or more likely, in the case of the Civil & Public Services, probably not.

How will you estimate the efficiency gains and and how will you measure the cost of achieving them?

Its very much a case of those who are advocating the scheme delibertly not having a manner of measuring these gains/losses, so that a measure of success or failure on economic grounds cannot be measured. Of course, they would have you believe that economics have nothing whatsoever to do with it- that every little bohereen should have a small office on it, with locals employed- not those Dublin jackeens, who we really don't want in our communities anyhow. Shure, our local politicians have told us that these jobs can be done by anyone- so why not encourage as many of our youngsters as possible to stay in the area instead of migrating to Dublin/other towns/cities?

We've already decentralised 75% of the civil service and large tracts of the public sector out of the greater Dublin region- sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Towns like Longford and Ballinasloe feel very aggrieved by the current proposals- as the DSFA are moving staff from Longford to Carrick, and the Department of Agriculture from Ballinasloe to Portlaoise...... Local politicians never highlighted this happening- and people do feel agrieved.

When will this country ever wake up and see politicians for what they really are?

MG · 04-09-2007 07:48AM

ninja900 wrote:

Unlike years ago, it's not a criterion, it's a prerequisite. Usually two years in your present grade is requried, but service longer than that does NOT gain you anything. On the contrary, there have been several age discrimination cases lost by government departments who failed to give staff with high seniority a fair crack at promotion.

Does this not perhaps weigh on the mind of the decision makers?

ninja900 wrote:

That's rubbish, the only union really opposed to decentralisation is SIPTU and they represent only a handful of civil servants, if any (they are stronger in the state agencies like Fas however.)

The actual civil service unions - CPSU are in favour, PSEU "neither for nor against" officially but in practice in favour (doing little on behalf of their Dublin members) and the AHCPS, representing senior grades and by far the smallest of the three is opposed, but mainly on the grounds of waste of money.

I tend not to distinguish between civil and public servants, semi state workers, rather seeing all as government employees. SIPTU are the largest trades union in the country. The AHCPS represents the most powerful government officials. To me that’s a lobby and a damn powerful one.

Schuhart wrote:

This is true - the debate is always debated as a HR issue. Its all about whether the staff want to move or not. When you reflect on it, that's actually irrelevant. If the State saved money by sending people to Urlingford, then the public interest would be to send them to Urlingford whether they wanted to go or not. If (as is actually the case) it costs a squad of money to shift people out of Dublin and there's no discernable benefit other than a load of fat County Councillors getting their mugshot in the local paper at the opening of the new offices, then clearly we should not do it even if the staff were chomping at the bit.

I’d actually disagree with this. The last thing it’s been debated as is a HR issue, which is natural as it would not be wise for civil & public servants to actually come out and say that real reason they don’t want to leave is that they are comfortable with their lives right now and don’t really fancy moving down to the sticks. Much better to come up with vague notions about inefficiencies. Meanwhile, multinational manage to work in separate locations and most are outsourcing work in India and China, while running a European accounting centre from an IDA industrial estate. Some other ideas for vague excuses are:

1The administration is in its early months and there's an awful lot to do at once.
2. Something ought to be done but is this the right way to achieve it?
3. The idea is good but the time is not ripe.
4. The proposal has run into technical, logistic and legal difficulties which are being sorted out.

A transfer to Urlingford to the first person to figure out which most appropriate figure gave me these ideas……….

Schuhart wrote:

The Heathrow slots moving from Shannon is actually the first time a West of Ireland lobby has been comprehensively told to feck off. I've a feeling this is simply because the Northern card trumps the Western card. Belfast now carries more political weight than Shannon - unsurprisingly.

Agreed. And the acid test of the power of the anti decentralization lobby will be to see if they are given the same message.

NewDubliner · 04-09-2007 09:44AM

MG wrote:

Agreed. And the acid test of the power of the anti decentralization lobby will be to see if they are given the same message.

There is no anti-decentralisation lobby. There is a lobby that opposes government waste.

A scheme which has no reference to cost or benefit cannot succeed.

This is not a vague notion, it's a certainty.

Just as Aer Lingus has told the mid-west to cop-on, so should the government.

Schuhart · 04-09-2007 12:13PM

MG wrote:

The last thing it’s been debated as is a HR issue, which is natural as it would not be wise for civil & public servants to actually come out and say that real reason they don’t want to leave is that they are comfortable with their lives right now and don’t really fancy moving down to the sticks.

Think again. The story that sparks this most recent bit of interest is a Labour Court ruling that people who opt to remain in Dublin must have access to promotion in Dublin. That’s purely a HR issue – it actually makes no operational sense at all. If the office is going to Birr then clearly, from an operational viewpoint, no-one should be promoted in Dublin. But that operational issue is hardly mentioned at all.

MG wrote:

Much better to come up with vague notions about inefficiencies. Meanwhile, multinational manage to work in separate locations and most are outsourcing work in India and China, while running a European accounting centre from an IDA industrial estate.

The multinational parallel just doesn’t work. That relates to firms finding locations where the labour costs as cheap, providing a financial cushion for any higher costs involved from an inconvenient location.

Objectively, the decentralisation idea is a crock. It brings costs and no benefits, and I don’t see a need to make excuses for it. But that’s not to say that an idea that is a crock won’t grow political legs – as is the very case with decentralisation as, despite it being such an obviously bad idea, it hasn’t yet been reversed.

MG wrote:

Agreed. And the acid test of the power of the anti decentralization lobby will be to see if they are given the same message.

Indeed, except the only way of actually achieving the original target is to make the moves compulsory. That might be even less feasible than sacrificing Aer Lingus on the altar of Shannon. Hence, it may simply drag on, as it has, with small groups of people fired into any location West of Maynooth in the hope that will look like progress.

NewDubliner · 04-09-2007 02:45PM

Schuhart wrote:

Think again. The story that sparks this most recent bit of interest is a Labour Court ruling that people who opt to remain in Dublin must have access to promotion in Dublin. That’s purely a HR issue – it actually makes no operational sense at all. If the office is going to Birr then clearly, from an operational viewpoint, no-one should be promoted in Dublin.

Moving the HQ from Dublin to Birr makes no operational sense either & maybe the labour court had this in mind.

The Dublin staff are victims of a failed stroke intended to save Tom Parlon's seat.

Schuhart · 04-09-2007 04:29PM

NewDubliner wrote:

Moving the HQ from Dublin to Birr makes no operational sense either & maybe the labour court had this in mind.

I very much doubt it, as the Labour Court would simply have no remit on that. What I expect they have ruled on is the extent to which access to promotion is a reasonable expectation for someone who decides not to volunteer to serve in the new location – which is purely a HR thing.

As to the decision to locate FAS in Birr – clearly no business case has been presented that suggests this to be a sensible use of public funds.

Firetrap · 05-09-2007 12:53AM

It's an interesting logic. There are plenty of departments/agencies already located outside Dublin where access to promotion is limited. The bottom line is that if staff want to move up the career ladder, they have to accept posts in Dublin.

I don't think the average man on the street gives a toss about decentralisation or cares about paper pushers being turned into probation officers overnight. Would it be safe to say that most of the people who read and contribute to this thread do so because they're directly affected by it? IMHO the only way it'll ever register with Joe/Josephine Soap is if the sheer economic lunacy of the scheme makes a significant impact in the popular media...think about all those sites bought but not built on, the shiny but strangely empty offices, all the staff still in Dublin being paid to do nothing, the extra staff being taken on to fill new posts. If the exchequer returns continue to fall, the government will have to be more careful about where it spends its money.

K-9 · 05-09-2007 01:17AM

NewDubliner wrote:

Or more likely, in the case of the Civil & Public Services, probably not.

How will you estimate the efficiency gains and and how will you measure the cost of achieving them?

So you answer a question by asking another!

As you say, its hard to measure the efficiencies etc. Not arguing that.

Aer Lingus staff do not want to move, its the private sector now. The move to Belfast will result in extra efficiencies/revenue for Aer Lingus. They still are protesting.

Arguments have been made regularly here that decentralisation is inefficcient and will cost extra in the long run, which is a good point.

But the staff in both cases do not want to move! One is efficient and revenue based, the other isn't.

The common denominator is the staff and not wanting to be a turkey voting for Christmas!

Why would anybody, private/semi-private/public want to move their base and home? Its a valid reason but one that isn't put forward by any of the unions,associations etc. I wonder why?

BostonB · 05-09-2007 01:33AM

Seanies32 wrote:

...
The common denominator is the staff and not wanting to be a turkey voting for Christmas! ..

Exactly. A vote for decentralisation or moving to Belfast for that matter is to vote yourself out of a job.

Seanies32 wrote:

...Why would anybody, private/semi-private/public want to move their base and home? Its a valid reason but one that isn't put forward by any of the unions,associations etc. I wonder why?

I'm open to correction but AFAIK its because the bulk of the unions mempership are already down the country and in favour of decentralisation. The majority of the people moving around are not people moving to and from Dublin (truely decentralising) but from one country location to another. In effect its only the minority who are based in Dublin and who wish to remain there who have issues with decentralisaion. The union are sitting on the fence and trying and please everyone.

BostonB · 05-09-2007 01:42AM

Firetrap wrote:

It's an interesting logic. There are plenty of departments/agencies already located outside Dublin where access to promotion is limited. The bottom line is that if staff want to move up the career ladder, they have to accept posts in Dublin....

I thought the reverse was true. Was that not the issue with the FAS promotions? No promotion unless you signed to move to Birr?

I agree that none of this is of interest to the average Joe. No one seems interested that a billion or more is going to be spent without any clear breakdown of costs, or clear deliverables in terms of value gained (to the tax payer). Its a big black hole.

K-9 · 05-09-2007 02:35AM

Firetrap wrote:

Would it be safe to say that most of the people who read and contribute to this thread do so because they're directly affected by it? IMHO the only way it'll ever register with Joe/Josephine Soap is if the sheer economic lunacy of the scheme makes a significant impact in the popular media...think about all those sites bought but not built on, the shiny but strangely empty offices, all the staff still in Dublin being paid to do nothing, the extra staff being taken on to fill new posts. If the exchequer returns continue to fall, the government will have to be more careful about where it spends its money.

But politics will override a lot of those concerns. Wrong, yes, reality, yes.

Most of the posters on this thread are never going to agree with it because they are directly affected by it to. There is nothing wrong with that, as I keep saying, but very few seem to accept that and post it.
Those are the 2 main realities of decentralisation.

NewDubliner · 05-09-2007 08:16AM

Seanies32 wrote:

So you answer a question by asking another!

I didn't answer any question, I drew attention to the fact that you'd ignored cost-effectiveness.

Seanies32 wrote:

As you say, its hard to measure the efficiencies etc. Not arguing that....Arguments have been made regularly here that decentralisation is inefficient and will cost extra in the long run, which is a good point.

So why do it? If the the same job will cost more and be less efficiently executed post decentralisation?

The onus of proof that it will be be worth it is on the decentralisation lobby.

Seanies32 wrote:

But the staff in both cases do not want to move! One is efficient and revenue based, the other isn't.

One is a commercial entity and the there is not. You're generalising on efficiency. Are you suggesting that the departments being moved are inefficient ones? Are you arguing that they will become more efficient post-decentralisation? Evidence please?

Seanies32 wrote:

The common denominator is the staff and not wanting to be a turkey voting for Christmas!

The big difference is that one move is based on commercial logic, the other is not.

Firetrap · 05-09-2007 09:25AM

BostonB wrote:

I thought the reverse was true. Was that not the issue with the FAS promotions? No promotion unless you signed to move to Birr?

That is true with FÁS. It was nice to see that one blowing up in the face of the FÁS people. I was just pointing out as a sort of an aside the set-up in some places (not naming names) where there's a Dublin office and regional offices. Because of the set-up, staff in the regions have much more limited scope for promotion and if they do want to get promoted, they'd have to apply for posts based in Dublin. A sort of reverse decentralisation if you like!

K-9 · 05-09-2007 12:09PM

NewDubliner wrote:

So why do it? If the the same job will cost more and be less efficiently executed post decentralisation?

The onus of proof that it will be be worth it is on the decentralisation lobby.

But if its as inefficient and expensive as you say they are hardly going to highlight it are they? It is up to the unions representing you to highlight it and publicise the stupidity, IYO, of it.

So unions and anti decentralisation it is your interest to highlight the inefficiencies etc. If yous don't it will definitely go ahead

Some evidence and facts please! Convince the public!

newdubliner wrote:

One is a commercial entity and the there is not. You're generalising on efficiency. Are you suggesting that the departments being moved are inefficient ones? Are you arguing that they will become more efficient post-decentralisation? Evidence please?

The big difference is that one move is based on commercial logic, the other is not.

No, you took me up wrong. Not comparing efficiencies or revenue etc.

Comparing the reaction of both sets of workers!

NewDubliner · 05-09-2007 12:56PM

Seanies32 wrote:

Some evidence and facts please! Convince the public!

Do you have any? You're the one promoting the project.

The fact is that there is no evidence of any business logic supporting the project.

K-9 · 05-09-2007 01:48PM

NewDubliner wrote:

Do you have any? You're the one promoting the project.

The fact is that there is no evidence of any business logic supporting the project.

I'm not promoting it. I see the reality and politics of the situation.

So, do you's have any facts then?

Moaning about it isn't going to do much.

Do you's have any independent sites that I can go on with facts about the inefficiencies etc.?

Victor · 05-09-2007 02:16PM

I'm not a state employee and have an interest in this thread, simply becuase I think the scheme is barmy.

Firetrap wrote:

That is true with FÁS. It was nice to see that one blowing up in the face of the FÁS people. I was just pointing out as a sort of an aside the set-up in some places (not naming names) where there's a Dublin office and regional offices. Because of the set-up, staff in the regions have much more limited scope for promotion and if they do want to get promoted, they'd have to apply for posts based in Dublin. A sort of reverse decentralisation if you like!

But not every headquarters is in Dublin. I imagine there are quite senior people among the 75% of the civil service outside Dublin.

A real problem is, in any culture, in any industry you are likely to find the best and brightest in the big cities. Move your headquarters to a small town and you separate your enterprise from the best and brightest.

NewDubliner · 05-09-2007 03:23PM

Seanies32 wrote:

So, do you's have any facts then?

I do. The absence of cost/benefit analysis. But you keep ignoring this fact.

Seanies32 wrote:

Do you's have any independent sites that I can go on with facts about the inefficiencies etc.?

Do you have any independent sites with facts concerning the costs and benefits?

So many of the 'pro' lobby insist that the Civil Service should be compared to a business & people should go where they're told....except that the same 'pro' lobby does not want to engage with any cost/benefit analysis of the project.

K-9 · 05-09-2007 06:22PM

NewDubliner wrote:

Do you have any independent sites with facts concerning the costs and benefits?

Thanks for the correction. English grammer and spelling board is it? :rolleyes:

NewDubliner wrote:

I do. The absence of cost/benefit analysis. But you keep ignoring this fact.

So many of the 'pro' lobby insist that the Civil Service should be compared to a business & people should go where they're told....except that the same 'pro' lobby does not want to engage with any cost/benefit analysis of the project.

Cost/benefit analysis would not matter. People say that if it was planned better, more efficient, more revenue based etc. etc. decentralisation would work. That's why they don't approve of it.

Yet with Aer Lingus, the operations are being moved to Belfast for the benefit of the company because it is effective on a cost/benefit analysis basis. The employees are protesting and don't want the move. Of course any parallels with decentralisation is dismissed, as that's the private sector and the move is efficient etc. etc.

The point is the staff still don't approve.

Decentralistion wouldn't be accepted even if all the cost/benefit analysis in the world was done and said it was correct. A lot people affected by it don't want to have to move for their jobs, careers etc. if at all possible. They don't want to sell their houses, change childcare etc.

Those are the real issues, and no cost/benefit analysis is going to change it. Why don't the anti-decentralisation just come out and say it?

NewDubliner · 05-09-2007 09:36PM

Seanies32 wrote:

Those are the real issues, and no cost/benefit analysis is going to change it. Why don't the anti-decentralisation just come out and say it?

Because that would allow blame for the failure of the project to be shifted from the government's mismanagement (i.e. no cost/benefit analysis) to 'selfish' Dublin Civil Servants.

The 'pro' lobby is motivated by spiteful begrudgery against Dublin people, why don't they just come out and say it?

Schuhart · 05-09-2007 09:39PM

Seanies32 wrote:

Those are the real issues, and no cost/benefit analysis is going to change it. Why don't the anti-decentralisation just come out and say it?

As I've already said, for one, if a cost/benefit analysis showed a positive return then most certainly the project should proceed and feck what the staff say. The bizarre situation in this agenda is we know it costs a packet for no benefit and the only thing delaying it is staff objections - which count as the scheme was announced as voluntary.

We know the scheme is pointless because the only assessment done (which was done after the scheme was announced) was a study to see if accommodation costs would be cheaper. The short answer is no savings can be expected for decades - and that's just pure accomodation costs. They did no assessment of whether the reason office space in Dublin cost more might reflect that its a more useful product.

On waste, we have the examples of both the abolition housing grants and the simplified agriculture payments left staff unoccupied in decentralised units, with no apparent pressure to find them new work. In Dublin, they could have been just reallocated to new work or Departments. Trying Googling for the stories - the Agriculture staff were in Castlebar and the Housing Grants staff in Ballina. And these are just the stories that made the media. No-one is asking too much about what exactly the 'advance' groups of staff chucked out of Dublin are doing to fill their days. Its not important - once you've someone on the State payroll in a small town the objective is achieved.

Why make excuses for decentralisation? The plan is just nuts.

The_Conductor · 05-09-2007 09:40PM

Seanies32 wrote:

Yet with Aer Lingus, the operations are being moved to Belfast for the benefit of the company because it is effective on a cost/benefit analysis basis. The employees are protesting and don't want the move. Of course any parallels with decentralisation is dismissed, as that's the private sector and the move is efficient etc. etc.

The point is the staff still don't approve.

Seanies32- I am good friends with 2 Aerlingus pilots and numerous cabin crew who are living in the border regions and would very much prefer to work out of Belfast than Dublin. The employees are protesting because Aerlingus wants them to give up their Dublin based jobs and to sign new contracts, on lesser terms than they are currently on, in order to work from Belfast. The new contracts are what is being offered to newly recruited staff in Belfast- and are effectively undercutting the Dublin airport based staff, thus generating considerable cost savings for Aerlingus.

Certainly it is effective on a cost/benefit basis for Aerlingus to do this- making people quit and then offering them their jobs back for less money and on lesser superannuation and other terms than they previously earned. This is what staff are protesting over- not over the prospect of working out of Belfast, which many of them are thrilled at, but at the underhand manner in which they are being manipulated. Shannon is a bit of a red herring for most of these people, but its a convenient flag for them to hoist to their masts as a manner of trying to get Belfast off the rails......

Certainly its more efficient to offer people their jobs back for a lesser sum of money....... That Aerlingus is a private company and the civil service is the public sector has nothing whatsover to do with this- and comparing Aerlingus' problems with decentralisation is a massive slight to the workers in Aerlingus who are being abused by management.

BostonB · 06-09-2007 01:11AM

That point was made earlier...

Seanies32 wrote:

S...The common denominator is the staff and not wanting to be a turkey voting for Christmas! ...

BostonB wrote:

Exactly. A vote for decentralisation or moving to Belfast for that matter is to vote yourself out of a job...

Its not going to happen over night, but you can see where its going.

Decentralisation

Comments