Public Sector Cuts by Organisation/Department rather than across the board

johnnyskeleton · 30-08-2010 11:07PM #1

I wonder...

If instead of making global decisions on public sector pay e.g. 5% up to x amount, 10% up to y etc, would the government have been better off requiring each organisation/department to make it's own pay cuts in order to meet targets?

For example, they could say to the Gardai that they have to cut costs in total by 10% (or whatever) this year, and then the Commissioner looks at what he can do. Among the options are for everyone to take a hit, or only the top brass taking a hit, or cutting overtime, letting some gardai retire or quit, reducing court time, savings on additional services, deciding themselves which stations not to use etc. If they don't impose cuts such as to meet their budget, they simply run out of money at the end of the year.

It would also mean that the cuts could be proportionate to their relative usefulness. The Gardai, health and education areas would be the more useful, while quangos, general civil service etc would be less useful.

It could also mean that there would be an incentive for the army to sell off unnecessary equipment or not buy additional equipment etc.

Some of the benefits would be:
1) there would be less chance of a united front of public sector workers vs government;
2) some departments would show genuine efforts to become more efficient;
3) some departments would show themselves to be not really useful at all (and thus greater cuts can be made in those areas);
4) if frontline services were cut and the public have a backlash against it, the department would be less able to simply blame the government;
5) the government couldn't be pressurised into the croke park deal;
6) in looking at staff wages, departments might be inclined to look at other people who can do the job better for cheaper;
7) if any department is not playing ball (e.g. passport office refusing to do their job) it would be easier for the government to highlight them as being a bad department, fire them, and replace them with low cost efficient workers than it would be if their industrial action is part of a much wider industrial action.

There are also downsides, such as the government wouldn't be seen internationally as cutting costs immediately, some departments might not play ball at all while others chose to keep their pay the same while jettisoning every other non-wage expense (i.e. you can see a surgeon but we have no drugs or surgical equipment to perform the operation).

But overall, would it not have made a lot more sense to spend a few hours deciding which areas to cut from rather than simply a blanket cut and then spending months trying to recover from it.

So where am I going wrong? Not saying it would be a great idea, but would probably allow greater cuts with less fuss over the next few years. Of course, now it is far too late to do anything about it.

Bits_n_Bobs · 01-09-2010 10:53AM

Great idea, but you're kind of missing the whole lack of managers that make management decisions across the public sector. Actually - the lack of managers that make any decisions.

dan_d · 02-09-2010 08:25AM

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Great idea, but you're kind of missing the whole lack of managers that make management decisions across the public sector. Actually - the lack of managers that make any decisions.

I would have said that the problem is there are too many managers - too many chiefs and not enough indians.It's all very well to be a "manager" but you actually need something tangible to manage. And decisions still don't get made.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I quite like johnnyskeleton's idea.

The_Honeybadger · 02-09-2010 10:16AM

If this were to happen what you would probably get is every service pared back and every corner cut before any unnecessary staff would be let go or any wages reduced. The path of least resistance would be followed, it's human nature. I'm not sure it would be in the public interest to be honest, but departments should definately have a say in where they think cuts should be made and money saved, just not the final say IMO. In my work I have dealings with a few state agencies, their budgets have been cut back massively, and what you now have is zombie agencies who have plenty of staff but no money to put them doing anything productive. For example what could staff at the NRA be doing now, there are hardly any new road projects coming on stream, this sort of thing is going on right across many departments and semi states, staffing levels and wages would be the last thing to be touched in most cases, letting services fall apart if necessary.

Welease · 02-09-2010 10:34AM

I doubt the unions would allow this to happen.. Thier power comes from their collective bargaining/threats.. splintering departments and creating conflicting priorities would not help their cause.

Tipp Man · 02-09-2010 10:37AM

Of course this is the obvious solution and in any world other than the public sector this is exactly how it would be done

but as said above the unions won't go for it - these fu##ers are running this country - running it and ruining it

Of course there is no incentive either to do it, why bother when the status quo can be maintained and everybody keeps there cushy little number, with their nice monthly salary and their guaranteed pension - without the possibility of redundancy these people will never shape up

20Cent · 02-09-2010 11:14AM

Already happening. IT's have been instructed to reduce staffing levels by 6%. Operating budgets reduced and take more students.

Head The Wall · 02-09-2010 12:07PM

20Cent wrote: »

Already happening. IT's have been instructed to reduce staffing levels by 6%. Operating budgets reduced and take more students.

No permenant staff being let go though, only contract and temps

Tipp Man · 02-09-2010 12:18PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

No permenant staff being let go though, only contract and temps

Coupled with a reduction in services/facilities provided

ardmacha · 02-09-2010 12:54PM

Of course there should be cuts tailored to the section of the public service. There are huge differences in efficiency across the public sector, some parts have had competant management over the years and a positive appoach. These are relatively efficient and there is no huge scope for efficiencies without reducing the services provided. Other sections have been incompetantly managed for years and there is plenty of room for efficiencies, but there is zero chance of the incompetant management identifying these. Perversely, much of the reduced cosrts in the public sector have some from sectors that were not overspending in the first place, because these sector can implement efficiencies.

Without some basis for assessing the performance of different sectors, the government is sailing in a fog.

fishcalledpaddy · 02-09-2010 01:58PM

how about this for efficiency ? taken today south mall cork

20Cent · 02-09-2010 02:14PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

No permenant staff being let go though, only contract and temps

Still doing it though.

johnnyskeleton · 04-09-2010 11:56AM

mickeyk wrote: »

If this were to happen what you would probably get is every service pared back and every corner cut before any unnecessary staff would be let go or any wages reduced. The path of least resistance would be followed, it's human nature. I'm not sure it would be in the public interest to be honest, but departments should definately have a say in where they think cuts should be made and money saved, just not the final say IMO. In my work I have dealings with a few state agencies, their budgets have been cut back massively, and what you now have is zombie agencies who have plenty of staff but no money to put them doing anything productive. For example what could staff at the NRA be doing now, there are hardly any new road projects coming on stream, this sort of thing is going on right across many departments and semi states, staffing levels and wages would be the last thing to be touched in most cases, letting services fall apart if necessary.

Part of my idea is that such agencies could be cut out altogether. For example, it would force politicians to say "we are spending 50m on the Road Safety Authority, do we really need this?". Don't get me wrong, the RSA has done sterling work, but the work it does now is of limited value (e.g. suggesting restricted plates for new drivers) and is it really more important than, say the Gardai?

Plus, I was thinking that rather than tell an agency "give us this amount of savings" they say "we're paying you X, what do we get for X and what could you give us for Y?" If all they could give for Y was a zombie agency, then cut the whole thing out.

When it comes to agencies employing professionals, their wages often don't refect the market reality, so a lawyer/accountant/surveyor employed by the State will often earn more than their private sector equivalent. Moreover, with the loss of jobs in private professions, they could probably hire someone better to do the job for cheaper or in the alternative offer the person currently there a chance to work harder for less pay.

In private companies, sometimes management will tell the staff that they cannot continue at their current level of expense and ask the staff to decide whether to take a paycut or to have layoffs or both. In many firms the staff come together and agree the paycut, in one firm I know the senior managers all took large paycuts so that the more junior staff didn't have to. This bargaining power could arise if departmental budgets are cut rather than wages across the board being cut by the same amount, but at present public sector workers see their employer as having an unlimited pool of resources. If they were forced to look at their localised funding and realise that if they don't meet their targets the whole department would be axed, they might be incentivised to meet their targets.

The_Honeybadger · 05-09-2010 01:00PM

@ Johnnyskeleton I agree with what you say above, but you have ignored the elephant in the room, how do you propose the unions be dealt with in all this, they won't stand for multiple sections of departments and agencies being shut down, they won't stand for any more cuts to pay or benefits, and certainly not redundancies. I think almost everybody, including many good PS staff would love to see sweeping changes in how public services are delivered, streamlining them and making them more efficient, however I doubt the unions would assist in implementing measures that will make their membership shrink, or make their members less well off in any way. By the time you'd get any new measures past them they'd be so watered down that they wouldn't be worth doing. They have the government over a barrel and they won't relinquish that power easily, you have put forward an interesting idea that would certainly be worth looking at but how do you see the unions reacting to it?

noodler · 05-09-2010 03:49PM

PS wages are still far too high in this country.

Something will have to be done sooner or later over the PS pensions, the levy didn't address this sufficiently unfortunately. Ticking timebomb.

That said, it would have been much fairer to cut different rates for different departments rather than this across the board lark.

Like one poster above said though that would have implications for the bargaining process.

300,000 people employed (no real loss of employment for full-time workers) and we still get threatened with the loss of service argument. The inefficiencies in our systems are absolutely gaping.

Public Sector Cuts by Organisation/Department rather than across the board

Comments