Questions about moving private to public sector

The_Conductor · 20-01-2008 11:41AM

EF wrote: »

A good few in my building were refused term time because so many applied for it this year. Theyre not one bit happy about being refused but it's only fair.

Ditto- in with us. People assume that its a right- when in actual fact its a privillege. My own boss, a single woman, hates term time with a passion- as inevitably those who are ineligible to take termtime (aka those without a dependent parent or children under the age of 18) are left to carry the can while others are out. Its a particularly bad problem in the civil service- as it has a much larger number of women with children than there is in the private sector (about 64% of the service are women- of whom about 45% are married under the age of 40 (note: I don't have figures for kids- but you can extrapolate)). So- in theory- up to about 1/4 of staff could be eligible- and a large number of those do apply. I accept that they don't have very many options with our bizzarely long summer break for the teachers- but whether you like it or not, having children is a lifestyle choice- its not something that should directly inconvenience other people. I can't put on paper the amount of spite some people feel (not constantly of course) towards this scheme. Whatever about in the Public sector at large- in the civil service these people are not replaced- other than occasionally a student might be given work experience in a section (some of whom are only brilliant, and sanity savers).

The civil service can be great if you have a family- but it can be totally poxy if you don't.

BostonB · 20-01-2008 01:23PM

The pension is effected too.

dixiefly · 21-01-2008 01:07AM

Jigsaw wrote: »

For some of the reasons listed above, I am doing my best to move out of the public sector. At first the hour long coffee breaks and the flexi time is great, but as stated above, the fact that you can work your ass off and get the same recognition and salary as someone who doesn't bother their arse is very demotivating. Often their is very little to do and the workload ca be very stagnant and everyone seems to complain. Because I worked in private sector previously I see people complaining about things and know that if they complained about the same thing in a private sector job, peoples' jaws would hit the floor.

Personally I would much rather be in at 8am and work my arse off until 6pm as long as the job inspired me and I felt driven and could see prospects for promotion and pay rises providing I prove myself to be an asset to the company in question. Unfortunately I cannot see this happening within my public sector job.

Dont assume that the private sector is all sweetness and light in this regard. I work for a successful private sector company that never seems to give pay rises based on achievement. Some companies, yes but a lot of companies are feeling the pinch.

It's horses for courses really and you should get a very good idea about the company you are going into before ditching your job.

BostonB · 21-01-2008 01:17AM

Tends to as much about networking and making as much noise as you can. Then about being productive. Especially in larger companies.

SerialComplaint · 21-01-2008 05:32PM

smccarrick wrote: »

Ditto- in with us. People assume that its a right- when in actual fact its a privillege. My own boss, a single woman, hates term time with a passion- as inevitably those who are ineligible to take termtime (aka those without a dependent parent or children under the age of 18) are left to carry the can while others are out. Its a particularly bad problem in the civil service- as it has a much larger number of women with children than there is in the private sector (about 64% of the service are women- of whom about 45% are married under the age of 40 (note: I don't have figures for kids- but you can extrapolate)). So- in theory- up to about 1/4 of staff could be eligible- and a large number of those do apply. I accept that they don't have very many options with our bizzarely long summer break for the teachers- but whether you like it or not, having children is a lifestyle choice- its not something that should directly inconvenience other people. I can't put on paper the amount of spite some people feel (not constantly of course) towards this scheme. Whatever about in the Public sector at large- in the civil service these people are not replaced- other than occasionally a student might be given work experience in a section (some of whom are only brilliant, and sanity savers).

The civil service can be great if you have a family- but it can be totally poxy if you don't.

I'm not doubting these problems resulting from term time, but do remember the big picture. Many of those taking term time (particularly the female staff members) would probably be gone from the workforce without it.

So if you can bear the pain of their absence during the summer, you get to share the joy of having experienced and mature staff members around for the rest of the year.

The_Conductor · 21-01-2008 05:58PM

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So if you can bear the pain of their absence during the summer, you get to share the joy of having experienced and mature staff members around for the rest of the year.

Only thats not what happens either- in a lot of cases the self-same people work half days and/or take days off every week. The summer is by and far the largest holiday- and is the holiday that is officially taken off- but all school hols tend to be the same, legitimately or otherwise (Halloween being a case in point)- and these same people will also have precedence over everyone else at other times (Christmas/New Years) etc.

The issue is really that there is such a large group of these people- up to 25-30% of staff, in the civil service. Its brilliant if you have a family- but its stressful as hell if you don't.

SerialComplaint · 21-01-2008 09:29PM

smccarrick wrote: »

Only thats not what happens either- in a lot of cases the self-same people work half days and/or take days off every week. The summer is by and far the largest holiday- and is the holiday that is officially taken off- but all school hols tend to be the same, legitimately or otherwise (Halloween being a case in point)- and these same people will also have precedence over everyone else at other times (Christmas/New Years) etc.

The issue is really that there is such a large group of these people- up to 25-30% of staff, in the civil service. Its brilliant if you have a family- but its stressful as hell if you don't.

When you say that 'these same people will also have precedence', can you confirm if this is a matter of policy? Is there something written down in the HR handbook that says people with kids get priority for such leave?

I accept that some of these people may well be on job-sharing or other reduced working hours initiatives, but the 'big picture' issue still applies. Without such flexibility, many of these people would probably have resigned completely. While they may be on reduced hours now, they may well return to full hours as kids gets older.

The_Conductor · 21-01-2008 09:53PM

I'm not aware of any specific written policy- its understood that this is the way things happen, and not questioned. I suppose the biggest way this affects the fulltime singletons/no-kids people is aside from term-time and school hols- the fulltime people don't take hols at the same time- to maintain cover (even in sections with 8-10 people). While you might have a lot of people working in a section on paper- when you actually take term-timers/part-timers/morning only staff/ongoing training/out-of-office meetings/holidays etc into account- its only then that you realise how stretched and thin on the ground you actually are.

jasonb · 22-01-2008 11:54AM

Hi all...

I worked in IT in the Private Sector for nearly 10 years and then left to join the Public Sector to 'make a difference' ( and do a broader line of work instead of the niche I'd developed into in the private sector ). I took a pay cut to join the public sector but I'm on decent enough wages now.

It's 5 years later and I'm looking to go back to the Private Sector. I'm tired of working in an organisation that has no accountability at all. As previous posters said, you can work your ass off or do nothing all day and it makes no difference. People who should have been fired years ago get promotions 'cos they're here long enough and if you didn't promote them 'there'd be hassle'. It's all about perception here, do we look good, do we say the right things, not actually about doing the right things.

I've found myself getting less and less motivated and I think if I don't leave soon I'll just go mad. I can see the benefits of the public sector for staff ( the time off / holidays are very flexible and I know that me leaving means I probably won't be able to spend as much time with my wife and any kids we have in the upcoming years ) but I need to do something productive with my days AND feel like I'm not the only one who thinks this way!

J.

bill_ashmount · 22-01-2008 06:09PM

kmick wrote: »

One girl was trying unsuccessfully to plug her network cable into the wall for 2 days (i.e. no PC for two days). Problem was she was trying to plug it in to phone point. Now you may laugh but no-one either knew or wanted to help her and there were no formal IT services to help her out.

People that dumb shouldn't be employed. She could have looked at someone else's setup or anything. There must be 100 different ways of learning how to fix this problem. Unreal.

SerialComplaint · 23-01-2008 10:33PM

smccarrick wrote: »

I'm not aware of any specific written policy- its understood that this is the way things happen, and not questioned. I suppose the biggest way this affects the fulltime singletons/no-kids people is aside from term-time and school hols- the fulltime people don't take hols at the same time- to maintain cover (even in sections with 8-10 people).

I don't think the singletons/no-kids can really complain, unless they have been refused leave to accomodate the parents.

ixoy · 23-01-2008 11:48PM

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I don't think the singletons/no-kids can really complain, unless they have been refused leave to accomodate the parents.

From speaking to members in the civil service, that's exactly what can happen.

SerialComplaint · 24-01-2008 12:05AM

ixoy wrote: »

From speaking to members in the civil service, that's exactly what can happen.

If it is, they should make a formal complaint to the Equality Authority on grounds of discrimination based on family status.

BostonB · 24-01-2008 01:01AM

SerialComplaint wrote: »

If it is, they should make a formal complaint to the Equality Authority on grounds of discrimination based on family status.

Somehow I doubt people are refused specifically because of term time. They'll come up with a different reason. I haven't first hand experience of people being refused, but heard stories 2nd hand. Some places are more short staffed than others. Where I am, term time has a big impact on workload. Mainly because you get temp staff in who make loads of mistakes, increasing the workload further.

That said I'm not against term time. As its not term time itself its that the problem. Its poor management of resources. If a lot of the inefficiencies where eliminated, term time would have far less impact.

The_Conductor · 24-01-2008 08:10AM

SerialComplaint wrote:

I don't think the singletons/no-kids can really complain, unless they have been refused leave to accomodate the parents.

Its a regular occurence- leave would be refused to accomodate parents more often than not.

SerialComplaint · 24-01-2008 10:26PM

smccarrick wrote: »

Its a regular occurence- leave would be refused to accomodate parents more often than not.

Then it's off to the Equality Authority/Tribunal to get this sorted - It is illegal to discriminate on grounds of family status or marital status.

ParkRunner · 25-01-2008 02:49PM

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Then it's off to the Equality Authority/Tribunal to get this sorted - It is illegal to discriminate on grounds of family status or marital status.

Hope you dont get a term-timer to handle your complaint

Zulu · 25-01-2008 03:09PM

Electric wrote: »

She got her marching orders not too long after

well this didn't happen the the public service. Civil servants don't get fired, now do they?

parsi · 26-01-2008 09:10PM

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Then it's off to the Equality Authority/Tribunal to get this sorted - It is illegal to discriminate on grounds of family status or marital status.

I've never heard (could be wrong) of someone going to the Equality Tribunal because they can't get leave ! You're entitled to x days of leave during the year and not just at a particular time.

What often happens is that the singletons don't particularly travel during the core summer months - after all why go in August when June is waaaay cheaper ?

SerialComplaint · 27-01-2008 01:25AM

EF wrote: »

Hope you dont get a term-timer to handle your complaint

Funnily enough, I did hear of somebody who brought an issue to the Equality Authority over the summer and was basically given the brush-off until September. The EA has taken serious action now, mind you.

parsi wrote: »

I've never heard (could be wrong) of someone going to the Equality Tribunal because they can't get leave ! You're entitled to x days of leave during the year and not just at a particular time.

What often happens is that the singletons don't particularly travel during the core summer months - after all why go in August when June is waaaay cheaper ?

If leave over the summer is being approved for staff with kids and not approved for those without kids (as alleged by other posters), then this is a clear case of discrimination on grounds of family status. Personally, I doubt if this is happening in any widespread manner. If any line manager was dumb enough to operate in this way, a quick word with any half-decent HR manager will get this sorted. But if not, the Equality Tribunal would sort this out pronto.

The_Conductor · 27-01-2008 11:42AM

Termtime- for which only parents with children or people with a dependent older relative may apply, can only be taken in a certain window (the summer when kids are off school) and is for a minimum period of 8 weeks (12 possible). This is not considered "normal" leave- but unpaid leave only open to certain qualifying candidates. The simple fact of the matter- is that upwards of a quarter of staff in the civil service do, in actual fact, qualify for the privilege of taking termtime leave- and in practise the vast majority of these do exercise that privilege. What this means for those who do not qualify is that in practise they cannot take leave- or can only take it in very short stints- as sections are incredibly short staffed and to do otherwise would adversely effect the operation of individual sections.

That said- as pointed out above, a lot of singletons or childless couples, do tend to try to take their leave in the period up to May, and then later in the year in the period from September onwards- primarily as a manner of getting around this, though the fact that it is offseason and less expensive is a helpful, though for most people not a determining, factor.

In my own experience, single women do tend to feel bitter about the scheme, a lot more than guys (well, the guys are less likely to complain).

It is discriminatory- certainly, insofar as it is strictly limited to a certain subgroup of staff, irrespective of its salary and superannuation implications. It does affect the ability of others to take leave- as it becomes so much more difficult to manage the staffing the staffing of sections- when a quarter of your staff are effectively outside your control. Will it change- I doubt it. It is seen as a perk of the job for these people (despite the fact that its unpaid leave), I will be shocked to a change- though it would be for the better. If it was opened up to everyone on the same basis- there would not be the same feelings towards it- as is, there is a certain degree of jealousy and spitefulness associated towards it.

Ps- the unions are wholeheartedly in favour of leaving the system as is.

gazzer · 27-01-2008 09:21PM

well this didn't happen the the public service. Civil servants don't get fired, now do they?

Yes they can.. and do. In the section I worked in last year 2 girls were fired. In my last department there were 3 staff that were fired over the course of the year. It is becoming a more common occurrence since benchmarking.

With regards the term time. I had never really thought much about it but from reading the posts here it does seem very discriminatory. Everybody should be entitled to apply for it. Obviously not everybody would be able to get it but it should be open to everybody.

Mrs. MacGyver · 28-01-2008 10:55PM

As a single female civil servant with no children, i would like to take term-time leave help look after my mother who is becoming visually impaired (she's not old), i would also like to travel. I don't want to avail of a career break as you only get two (of up to 5 yrs duration each) and i've 30 odd years service until retirement. I don't feel resentful but i would still like the opportunity to go on term time if it was available.

SerialComplaint · 29-01-2008 10:35PM

Mrs. MacGyver wrote: »

As a single female civil servant with no children, i would like to take term-time leave help look after my mother who is becoming visually impaired (she's not old), i would also like to travel. I don't want to avail of a career break as you only get two (of up to 5 yrs duration each) and i've 30 odd years service until retirement. I don't feel resentful but i would still like the opportunity to go on term time if it was available.

I would suggest that you apply for term term (even if you don't meet whatever conditions are currently set for the scheme) and if/when you get refused, you should point out the discrimination involved. If this doesn't get your HR dept moving, take it to the Equality Tribunal.

ParkRunner · 17-02-2008 11:20AM

I was thinking that people with no children should be able to take a form of term time over the winter months..have the opportunity to leave this country when it is dark and cold here and spend a good few weeks travelling or doing whatever they like really.
This would mean sections wouldn't be completely understaffed in the summer and also give those without children an opportunity to have a break also..just an idea.

BostonB · 17-02-2008 12:27PM

In my experience the summer months are the quietest. So its the best time to do it, if you are going to do it. Maybe its different in different sections.

The_Conductor · 17-02-2008 05:22PM

BostonB wrote: »

In my experience the summer months are the quietest. So its the best time to do it, if you are going to do it. Maybe its different in different sections.

I'd have to agree- November through to Feb/March is probably the busiest time of all (at least with us). Us singletons/no-kids-couples try to take our time off March-May and then Sept-Oct. If the option to take 8 or 12 weeks off in the wintertime was available- I think I'd be beating a hasty retreat to a small fishing village north of Lisbon with a few good books, DVD boxsets and my swimming gear.......

BostonB · 17-02-2008 06:46PM

I'd also add that the problem with term time is not that it leaves offices short staffed but that its badly managed. The staff drafted into cover for term time are often poorly trained for the new role and that actually increases the workload in most cases.

microgirl · 17-02-2008 06:54PM

smccarrick wrote: »

It is a contributory PRSI pension- with your public sector pension reduced by whatever the prevailing contributory pension is (unlike whats reported in the media- the contributory pension is not in addition to your public pension).

Eh, mine is

The_Conductor · 18-02-2008 03:43PM

microgirl wrote: »

Eh, mine is

I'd be very interested in knowing what the details are- as none of the post 1995 schemes are structured such that your public pension is in addition to your contributory PRSI pension (this includes all pension schemes in the state bodies based on the Department of Finance model pension scheme). The intention is that your public sector pension is reduced by whatever the prevailing rate of contributory old age pension is- giving you an overall pension similar to those employed pre-1995 (i.e. those who do make PRSI contributions). This is the genesis of the Pre and Post 1995 salary scales. There is a formula for determining these scales taking the contributory pension into account its known by the acronim COPC.

I.e. You have to claim your pension from the Department you work for- which is reduced by the amount of the current contributory OAP, which you are also expected to claim. It works out the same- only you are claiming it from two sources, not one. A problem does arise if you elect to retire early on a reduced pension- insofar as that portion of your pension which would be paid from your PRSI contributions, does not kick in until age 65. A topup is possible in exceptional circumstances, but the norm would be that a person would be advised to claim unemployment assistance until age 65, to minimise the difference (you would still be about EUR 70 a week worse off, but its doable).

S.

Questions about moving private to public sector

Comments