Inefficiencies in the public and private sector

BrianD3 · 19-10-2008 04:30PM

asdasd wrote: »

And in general terms across the board:

1) Nobody can be sacked. Clearly then here is no penalty for inefficacy.

Many of those in the public sector are on temporary contracts, these contracts sometimes don't get renewed. There'll be a lot more of this in the near future. Permanent employees can also get sacked, it's rare enough but does happen. When I was in school one of our teachers was sacked, a few months of incompetence and he was gone. I also know of a Garda that was sacked. Also one of my relations was a Garda and was sacked.

2) The vacation time is way too large. 35 days a year is 7 weeks.

What public servants apart from teachers get 35 days? Last civil service job I applied for had 21 days rising to 22 days after 5 years service

3) 35 hours a week is a joke.
4) Working more than 35 hours a week gives time in lieu. so by working a normal private sector hours you can get a day off every 2 weeks. In addition to the 35 days. It can add up to 50 days in theory and about 45+ in practice ( taking holiday removes your option for time in lieu). Thats 9-10 weeks. Clearly no department is ever fully staffed.

There are many grades in the public service who are not on flexitime, don't earn overtime and are not entitled to time in lieu. So if they work past 5 o' clock, tough.

A lot of the public sector bashing in this forum and in the media is a load of exaggerated rubbish. Stirred up by idiots such as Brendan O'Connor and the Sunday Independent rag he writes for. More of it today, at least 5 articles having a go at the public sector. Anyone notice how O'Connor continually aligns himself with the downtrodden private sector workers and tries to stir up an "us and them" scenario. Meanwhile he's off working for the State Broadcaster on that appalling rubbish You're A Star, now there's a waste of taxpayer's money if ever there was one.

How many of those accusing the evil inefficient public servants of screwing the country have ever done a "nixer" or evaded tax in some other way? Pot, kettle black in that case, the black economy costs the exchequer a huge amount every year. Yet nobody ever seems to point that out. Probably because it's not popular to be seen to point a finger at "the working man" and so many in this country regard taxes as optional and applaud those who get away with evasion.

PaddyofNine · 19-10-2008 04:35PM

BrianD3 wrote: »

So if they work past 5 o' clock, tough

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Carrigart Exile · 19-10-2008 04:57PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The difference is that inefficient private sector companies go out of business or otherwise get eaten, and this happens all the time. The only people I've ever heard denying that are public sector workers, who never worked a day for a private company in their lives. Inefficiency in the public sector just means the balance comes out of yours and my pockets, they can't go bust.

now that's not entirely true, once companies become multinational corporations their decision making grinds to a near halt and the level of bureaucracy increases by a factor of 4.

I've worked in both the private and public sector and the only difference I see once you are dealing with organisations of similar size is that bad decisions are made quicker in the private sector and the rewards for those decisions are many times higher.

luckat · 19-10-2008 07:02PM

Most of what people are posting here is about laziness or (perceived) overpay. That's not at all what I'm talking about.

After all, a lot of clerical jobs in the civil service are little different from a job in a shop - and certainly little difference in the pay and conditions. And we don't get so *wildly* indignant when shop assistants are lazy or thick.

I'm trying to get down to the reality of what people complain about. If I had a medical card for every time someone here said the civil service was *inefficient*, I could supply the old and the young.

*How* is the civil service inefficient? Specifically? And ditto big companies. It's all very well to have a warm furry opinion that there are great inefficiencies. It's the facts I'm after, not generalities.

Just the facts, ma'am.

irish_bob · 19-10-2008 07:51PM

axel rose wrote: »

Yes paddy youre so right! seriously how did you find out it was 50%? God I remember the day 53% went out on fake sick leave :rolleyes:. There was war I tell ya!

The amount of nurses out with a 'sore back' Its all a big laugh alright. Sure what would they be doing to get a sore back!!! :rolleyes: I say all public and civil servants are drug dealers who keep immigrant children under the stairs to clean their house!! (The unions arranged it you know!!)

let us know when youve finished throwing your toys out of the pram , us adults will continue our discussion on the need for public sector reform while your squealing

irish_bob · 19-10-2008 07:54PM

luckat wrote: »

Most of what people are posting here is about laziness or (perceived) overpay. That's not at all what I'm talking about.

After all, a lot of clerical jobs in the civil service are little different from a job in a shop - and certainly little difference in the pay and conditions. And we don't get so *wildly* indignant when shop assistants are lazy or thick.

I'm trying to get down to the reality of what people complain about. If I had a medical card for every time someone here said the civil service was *inefficient*, I could supply the old and the young.

*How* is the civil service inefficient? Specifically? And ditto big companies. It's all very well to have a warm furry opinion that there are great inefficiencies. It's the facts I'm after, not generalities.

Just the facts, ma'am.

many in here have presented facts on why its inneficent but the obvious bias you bring to the table on this issue , blocks you from seeing it

irish_bob · 19-10-2008 08:01PM

BrianD3 wrote: »

Many of those in the public sector are on temporary contracts, these contracts sometimes don't get renewed. There'll be a lot more of this in the near future. Permanent employees can also get sacked, it's rare enough but does happen. When I was in school one of our teachers was sacked, a few months of incompetence and he was gone. I also know of a Garda that was sacked. Also one of my relations was a Garda and was sacked.

What public servants apart from teachers get 35 days? Last civil service job I applied for had 21 days rising to 22 days after 5 years service

There are many grades in the public service who are not on flexitime, don't earn overtime and are not entitled to time in lieu. So if they work past 5 o' clock, tough.

A lot of the public sector bashing in this forum and in the media is a load of exaggerated rubbish. Stirred up by idiots such as Brendan O'Connor and the Sunday Independent rag he writes for. More of it today, at least 5 articles having a go at the public sector. Anyone notice how O'Connor continually aligns himself with the downtrodden private sector workers and tries to stir up an "us and them" scenario. Meanwhile he's off working for the State Broadcaster on that appalling rubbish You're A Star, now there's a waste of taxpayer's money if ever there was one.

How many of those accusing the evil inefficient public servants of screwing the country have ever done a "nixer" or evaded tax in some other way? Pot, kettle black in that case, the black economy costs the exchequer a huge amount every year. Yet nobody ever seems to point that out. Probably because it's not popular to be seen to point a finger at "the working man" and so many in this country regard taxes as optional and applaud those who get away with evasion.

what was so wrong with what brendan o connor wrote today in the sindo , do tell

axel rose · 19-10-2008 08:06PM

Bob
just responding to some of the accusations.....seriously... take the likes of the opening hours of say the tax offices and social welfare.........
The work itself does not just stop at the counter people. there is a certain amount of paperwork involved. Oh and when we are at it - there are targets that have to be met. Even looking at sw. There has been a serious increase in the numbers applying for it in the last 12 months alone but the staffing levels expected to process these claims havent increased at all!
Paddy contradicts himself all over the place.....cant tax car outside office hours but he happily ignores my solution of using the internet. He works in the civil service and informs us all that half of ill workmates are faking sick leave......however he cant grab a days sick leave to tax his car!!!! It doesnt add up really!!!

Its all too easy to put all civil and public servants down as lazy and incompetent but i have yet to see 1 point backed up with an actual fact. As luckcat says just the facts.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 19-10-2008 08:09PM

luckat wrote: »

*How* is the civil service inefficient? Specifically? And ditto big companies. It's all very well to have a warm furry opinion that there are great inefficiencies. It's the facts I'm after, not generalities.

They fail to deliver value to the tax payer.

axel rose · 19-10-2008 08:17PM

Sean_K wrote: »

They fail to deliver value to the tax payer.

sean, where are your specifics? If you had this said to you in a review how would you take it? You fail to deliver to the service users?????
how??? Is this all areas???? public service? civil service? Any specific department get your all knowing disapproval? are we all the same?

I would love to have half the the perks and benefits that some gobsh1te tells me I have.
yes there are some lazy feckers that could do with a good kick up the backside but no more or less than any other sector.

I honestly believe that a lot of the responses are a case of the 'grass is greener.'.......

There are a lot of very naive people out there if they really think that you can keep a job if you either do nothing or or not even turn up. If there are criticisims they should be with the system-not the people that are limited to working within it.

portomar · 19-10-2008 08:24PM

innefficiencies in the public sector are different than innefficiencies in the private sector for 2 reasoins:

1) if i dislike the service eircom give me, i can change my line to BT (i know its not always this simple, but for the most part, you can pull your custom) i have no choice but to pay income tax, prsi, vat, etc. etc. hence, im stuck paying for the civil service, no matter what i do

2) private sector have the profit motive, if they fail, they go bust. Public sector has a "service motive" (not so as you'd notice at times) which is much harder to define as being a success or failure.

Now, the public sector is highly, highly unionised at all levels. i do not begrudge anyone union representation, quite the opposite. what is annoying is that the state has NEVER fought for the taxpayer, always caved or played softball. now, i work in a sector where some employers have made it impossible to get a union in (threat of sacking, sacking etc etc., seen this in other jobs ive worked in in other sectors) the state never tackle this and there is about 6 workplace inspectors to make sure the entire private sector employers stay within the law. so the effect of all this is that public servants get all these benefits, when other employers are free to flout the law.

i will spend my life funding this, and will never benefit, and i rue it.

dresden8 · 19-10-2008 09:05PM

portomar wrote: »

2) private sector have the profit motive, if they fail, they go bust. Public sector has a "service motive" (not so as you'd notice at times) which is much harder to define as being a success or failure.

Ahem, only some of the private sector have this motive as we have just found out.

portomar wrote: »

Now, the public sector is highly, highly unionised at all levels. i do not begrudge anyone union representation, quite the opposite. what is annoying is that the state has NEVER fought for the taxpayer, always caved or played softball. now, i work in a sector where some employers have made it impossible to get a union in (threat of sacking, sacking etc etc., seen this in other jobs ive worked in in other sectors) the state never tackle this and there is about 6 workplace inspectors to make sure the entire private sector employers stay within the law. so the effect of all this is that public servants get all these benefits, when other employers are free to flout the law.

i will spend my life funding this, and will never benefit, and i rue it.

That's not the fault of the public service. Politicians have not provided funding for labour inspectors and tax inspectors and all sorts of people who would support employees and tax-payers against their employers and rich people.

By employers and rich people I mean donors to political parties.

BroomBurner · 19-10-2008 09:07PM

portomar wrote: »

Now, the public sector is highly, highly unionised at all levels. i do not begrudge anyone union representation, quite the opposite. what is annoying is that the state has NEVER fought for the taxpayer, always caved or played softball. now, i work in a sector where some employers have made it impossible to get a union in (threat of sacking, sacking etc etc., seen this in other jobs ive worked in in other sectors) the state never tackle this and there is about 6 workplace inspectors to make sure the entire private sector employers stay within the law. so the effect of all this is that public servants get all these benefits, when other employers are free to flout the law.

i will spend my life funding this, and will never benefit, and i rue it.

A lot of private industry is highly unionised to the benefit of the employee, look at Siptu, Ibec, etc.
Civil and public service workers ARE tax payers too
A lot of people that begrudge the civil/public service are most often than not a victim of their own begrudgery

There are so many ineffiencies in both the public and private sector, I have worked extensively in both areas, in large and small companies and departments/organisations. The main issue for a large organisation is it's size. UNfortunately, the more people you have to manage, the harder it is to get anything done. This applies to all sectors.

portomar · 19-10-2008 09:18PM

dresden8 wrote: »

Ahem, only some of the private sector have this motive as we have just found out.

That's not the fault of the public service. Politicians have not provided funding for labour inspectors and tax inspectors and all sorts of people who would support employees and tax-payers against their employers and rich people.

By employers and rich people I mean donors to political parties.

at no point did i blame public servants for this, my problem is with the governments, successive ones, who have left this situation develop and fester.

portomar · 19-10-2008 09:22PM

BroomBurner wrote: »

A lot of private industry is highly unionised to the benefit of the employee, look at Siptu, Ibec, etc.

Civil and public service workers ARE tax payers too

There are so many ineffiencies in both the public and private sector, I have worked extensively in both areas, in large and small companies and departments/organisations. The main issue for a large organisation is it's size. .

agreed, as i said, that doesnt affect me as a taxpayer, so ive no reason to have any issue with it.

BroomBurner wrote: »

A lot of people that begrudge the civil/public service are most often than not a victim of their own begrudgery

not sure what you mean by this

BroomBurner wrote: »

UNfortunately, the more people you have to manage, the harder it is to get anything done.
This applies to all sectors

i agree, and at no point do i think that it would be easy to change ANY facet of public servants working arrangemants, but again, i can choose not to give intel or dell my business, i must fund the public service.

SimpleSam06 · 19-10-2008 09:26PM

BrianD3 wrote: »

A lot of the public sector bashing in this forum and in the media is a load of exaggerated rubbish. Stirred up by idiots such as Brendan O'Connor and the Sunday Independent rag he writes for.

Did you even bother to read the article I posted at the start of the thread?

BrianD3 wrote: »

and so many in this country regard taxes as optional and applaud those who get away with evasion.

When you look at the way they are spent, its hard not to feel sympathy.

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

now that's not entirely true, once companies become multinational corporations their decision making grinds to a near halt and the level of bureaucracy increases by a factor of 4.

Multinationals get eaten too. It just takes longer. Anyone remember DEC?

luckat wrote: »

After all, a lot of clerical jobs in the civil service are little different from a job in a shop - and certainly little difference in the pay and conditions.

The civil service is only a small part of the public sector. The larger issue, and the name of the thread, is the public sector, and their pay and pensions have grown tremendously in the last ten years, far beyond the private sector.

PaddyofNine · 19-10-2008 10:31PM

axel rose wrote: »

Paddy contradicts himself all over the place.....cant tax car outside office hours but he happily ignores my solution of using the internet.

I ignored your so called 'solution' because it isn't relevant to the argument at hand. I can't tax my car online because it's a recent purchase and the previous owner lost the log book, so I needed to go in to the office in person to admire the smooth efficiency that is the Irish Public Sector Bureaucratic Machine. But thanks for your concern.

axel rose wrote: »

He works in the civil service and informs us all that half of ill workmates are faking sick leave......however he cant grab a days sick leave to tax his car!!!! It doesnt add up really!!!

I don't work in the civil service, nor have I said I did - I work in the public sector. That's bad enough, I think if I worked in the civil service I'd go crazy.
And if you'll read what I've written more closely (hey, maybe you can do it on a 'tea-break' at work tomorrow

) you'll see I was hazarding a guess that maybe half of all workers who call in sick tomorrow morning might be actually sick. A guess, that's all. And thanks for illustrating my point about the mentality of the Irish Civil Servant so beautifully. I'd probably be in breach of my contract if I was to simply take a day's SICK LEAVE in order to go and run some personal errand.

axel rose wrote: »

Its all too easy to put all civil and public servants down as lazy and incompetent but i have yet to see 1 point backed up with an actual fact. As luckcat says just the facts.

I've highlighted a number of facts in the preceding posts.

Let's have some more:

FACT: There are a large number of very hard workers in the public sector who work hard, take great pride in their work, and are rewarded accordingly.

FACT: There are a large number of people in the public sector in general and the civil service in particular who wouldn't last a month in a private sector job. They enjoy excellent benefits, a salary which certainly matches their equivalents in the private sector, and are sitting pretty with among the best job security in the country, knowing that their incompetence would want to standout in a culture of gross incompetence in order for them to be even reprimanded, much less fired.

axel rose · 19-10-2008 10:53PM

eh no paddy, you said half of your ill workmates were faking it, I only suggested that if that was the culture in your area then why not join them. Ok I accept that your car tax issue was unique and neede to be sorted at the office but its a bit rich to say that the tax office only caters for those who work outside 9 to 5. There are other options and even then its hardly the fault of those who processed your form. Its the system thats the ass-not the individuals.

In the 10 years I have been in the public service any sick leave over 3 days required a doctors cert. Believe me its followed up. Why would any manager want to be disrespected in this way?

As for tea break....:rolleyes: At the moment Im on mat leave, when im at work I dont have access to either the internet or tea breaks.....or lunch breaks.......or dinner breaks.....my shifts last 25 hours long (and no I dont have a problem with that). so whats your point?
It gets a bit tiring when the individual gets criticized when the system is at fault.
I found more inefficiencies in working in a family run business. Now that I would never do again.

portomar · 19-10-2008 10:58PM

25 hour shift with no breaks? what do you do?

axel rose · 19-10-2008 11:07PM

I work with young people in care.And my workmates and manager (and the kids) would take great exception to someone skiving off.
My leave has not been covered by HSE staff, it has been covered by agency staff who cost at least twice the price and are not familiar to the kids. we can thank ms harney (aka Mrs VHI) Is that the fault of me, the manager or the system?

PaddyofNine · 19-10-2008 11:09PM

axel rose wrote: »

eh no paddy, you said half of your ill workmates were faking it, I only suggested that if that was the culture in your area then why not join them.........Its the system thats the ass-not the individuals.

It's precisely that sort of "Well, if everyone else is dossin' why the hell would I work harder?" attitude that's so intrinsic to the whole system. I wouldn't call in sick for a personal errand, nor have I ever called in sick for a hangover like many others, because some people like to take pride in their work, and like doing a job well. I certainly don't take it for granted, that's for sure.

And frankly people coming out with comments like "It's not us, it's the system" shows the kind of mindset that the regular Joe Soaps around the country have to deal with whenever they need something important done...

axel rose wrote: »

In the 10 years I have been in the public service any sick leave over 3 days required a doctors cert. Believe me its followed up. Why would any manager want to be disrespected in this way?

Over three days! Are you nuts? Any sick leave should require a doctor's note full stop. Can you imagine how many civil servants or indeed any public sector employees call in sick during a given week? How much money is wasted by all those days and man-hours adding up?

Anyways, I hope you're enjoying your paid maternity leave. I trust the benefit's you're getting are comparable or even better than your private sector equivalent.

axel rose · 19-10-2008 11:20PM

paddy check your contract....three days of consistant sick leave requires a doctors cert. If you know that your workmates are pulling the proverbial I suggest that you do something about it.

Whats your issue with mat leave? Should I refuse it?

I pointed out an inefficiency.....relief staff in my work place are better for my clients and the tax payer. Ms Harney has stopped hiring relief staff, what exactly do you expect me to do about it? Actually as a public servant when are you gonna stop your bitching and change things in your workplace? How have you changed the 'system'? what area do you work in?

Capt'n Midnight · 19-10-2008 11:23PM

luckat wrote:

Or the old business where the ESB open a road and mend the wires, then the gas company comes in and does the same, then the council for the waterworks, then the council again to put ramps in.

iirc in the UK they announce road works in advance, utility companies have a few months to do do any work before resurfacing and then they are only allowed emergency work in the next five years

PaddyofNine · 19-10-2008 11:29PM

axel rose wrote: »

paddy check your contract....three days of consistant sick leave requires a doctors cert.

Thanks for the tip. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the pulling 1-2 day sick leave is endemic to the entire public sector, supervisors included. Reporting anyone would serve little except piss off everyone I work with. Incidentally I'm sure if you read your contract, it'd have something to say about your alleged working 25 hour shifts with no breaks.

axel rose wrote: »

Whats your issue with mat leave? Should I refuse it?

Of course - you should take any and enjoy any maternity leave given. I'm merely pointing out that some people are very quick to vociferously defend the civil services or public sector, while failing to acknowledge the great benefits they enjoy - said maternity leave being one of them.

As for me stopping my "bitching" (i.e. winning an argument) and changing aspects of the public sector, I don't intend on running for office anytime soon (although THERE'S a job with good benefits), and I'm sure you realise by now it's not an organisation receptive to change.

axel rose · 19-10-2008 11:45PM

PaddyofNine wrote: »

Thanks for the tip. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the pulling 1-2 day sick leave is endemic to the entire public sector, supervisors included. Reporting anyone would serve little except piss off everyone I work with. Incidentally I'm sure if you read your contract, it'd have something to say about your alleged working 25 hour shifts with no breaks.

Of course - you should take any and enjoy any maternity leave given. I'm merely pointing out that some people are very quick to vociferously defend the civil services or public sector, while failing to acknowledge the great benefits they enjoy - said maternity leave being one of them.

As for me stopping my "bitching" (i.e. winning an argument) and changing aspects of the public sector, I don't intend on running for office anytime soon (although THERE'S a job with good benefits), and I'm sure you realise by now it's not an organisation receptive to change.

By all means read my contract. At one point I went to work without knowing when my shift would end. some contracts in the public service have these conditions and its not that unusual. generally we are allowed 8 hours sleep within this 25 hour peroid but I might get that 8 hours maybe 2 in every 5 shifts. My contract states that I stay as long as my manager deems necessary. Now its rare but in a crisis I dont get to go home at all. ( and no I know Im not unique).
As for sick leave all I can give is my experience...(as can you) at times over the years people have taken the p but for the most part they are really sick.

Nah I didnt think you were bitching as in winning....I just thought you were bitching..... as opposed to BITCHIN

portomar · 19-10-2008 11:52PM

axel rose wrote: »

Whats your issue with mat leave? Should I refuse it?

no, this is my core point on this issue, of course you should take it. my company has NO paid maternity leave, most companies are going that way, and i will never, unfortunately, work in a company that would offer me that (if i was female tha is) but because the government is toothless, i will spend my life funding your generous entitlements

axel rose · 20-10-2008 12:41AM

so is the problem the fact that the government wont force the private to protect the employee as much as their own employees or that the public sector is inefficient.
Are the publics sectors inefficiencies due to policies or due to the individual who happens to pick up the phone? Do you see my point?

BostonB · 20-10-2008 02:26AM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The difference is that inefficient private sector companies go out of business or otherwise get eaten, and this happens all the time. The only people I've ever heard denying that are public sector workers, who never worked a day for a private company in their lives. Inefficiency in the public sector just means the balance comes out of yours and my pockets, they can't go bust.

Its a complete falacy that inefficient private sector companies go out of business. Look at PC World, Dell, NTL/UPC, Eircom, Main Car dealers, IBB, 3, the list is endless. The public sector I have experienced isn't night and day different from the private sector and I've worked longer in the private than the public. You only hear that from people who've not worked there, or had very limited experience of it. How efficient a place is comes down the to people working there, and mainly how well its managed.

BostonB · 20-10-2008 02:40AM

portomar wrote: »

no, this is my core point on this issue, of course you should take it. my company has NO paid maternity leave, most companies are going that way, and i will never, unfortunately, work in a company that would offer me that (if i was female tha is) but because the government is toothless, i will spend my life funding your generous entitlements

Most of the places I've worked in the private sector had paid maternity leave, and indeed most of the same "entitlements" you get in the public sector. Do you want no one to have these "entitlements". Public sector workers pay tax the same as you. Do you think public sector jobs, should be stripped of all entitlements? Low paid, high paid, all the same? Do you want no jobs to have entitlements, like paid maternity leave?

Should people on maternity leave, have to survive on the minimum like the dole. How about no dole? Is that what you want?

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 20-10-2008 08:18AM

BostonB wrote: »

Its a complete falacy that inefficient private sector companies go out of business. Look at PC World, Dell, NTL/UPC, Eircom, Main Car dealers, IBB, 3, the list is endless. The public sector I have experienced isn't night and day different from the private sector and I've worked longer in the private than the public. You only hear that from people who've not worked there, or had very limited experience of it. How efficient a place is comes down the to people working there, and mainly how well its managed.

You're confusing poor customer service with inefficiency.

Inefficiencies in the public and private sector

Comments