Benefits of Public Sector over Private Sector

AndrewJRenko · 11-07-2020 9:28am

Itchianus wrote: »

A couple of years ago, one particular civil service entitity articulated an explicit target of achieving gender balance at the PO grade by 2020 (at a time when it was 36% female), which arithmetically was going to require that at least 70% of the 30-odd expected appointments in the intervening period would need to be female. (At the time, the representation at AP grade was about 46% female, which is relevant as this is the primary pool from which appointments were filled.)

As it transpired, due to female PO's retiring, getting A-Sec or transferring out in the intervening period, it would ultimately require about 85% of PO positions to go to women. But, against all statistical likelihood, that's exactly what happened, and they have been able to happily report on their accomplishment.

It's a remarkable thing. If the opposite were the case, and over a 3-5 year period 85% of a substantial number of appointments were male, there would be absolute uproar and consternation, and rightly so. There'd be all sorts of reviews, introspection and soul searching to establish why / how the organisation can't attract an appropriate quantity of high calibre female candidates, or why the female candidates are underperforming in the process. Apparently though, that is only a concern when the seesaw is tilted a particular direction.

The really interesting thing will be seeing what happens next. Balance has been achieved now, in fact there's a majority of females in both the AP and PO grades. So there's no apparent reason that the trend in appointments should change; apparently there's nothing to see here in terms of the outcome of the last 5-10 years of appointments which arose at a time when 30-45% of the candidate pool obtained 75% of the positions.

Of course, pointing out things like this, just gets you labelled a misogynist.

Which body was this? There's no need for being shy. You haven't said that you're an employee in this public body. There is no breach of confidentiality.

So which body are you talking about?

doc22 · 11-07-2020 10:02am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which body was this? There's no need for being shy. You haven't said that you're an employee in this public body. There is no breach of confidentiality.

So which body are you talking about?

One body I'm going to guess by username ThumbTaxed is Revenue?

barneystinson · 11-07-2020 3:46pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which body was this? There's no need for being shy. You haven't said that you're an employee in this public body. There is no breach of confidentiality.

So which body are you talking about?

Based on the numbers the previous poster put up, it sounds like Revenue alright. Their recently published annual report indicates they reached 50/50 at PO last year.

In 2017, they ran a generic PO competition for positions in Dublin and 10 were panelled, 9 women and 1 man. There was certainly raised eyebrows over that outcome at the time, the man in question being jokingly referred to as the token male!

Most of the more recent PO positions have been filled by standalone Open competitions to fill a specific vacancy. A panel is created for each post but there's only ever likely to be one appointment. The vast majority of those in the last few years have been topped by a woman.

There's usually a man or two somewhere in these panels, but AFAIK from the beginning of 2019 up to the middle of this year there's been about 17-18 PO's appointed, of which 2 were men. That's consistent with the trend the previous poster was citing going back to 2017.

I don't really know what to make of it tbh, on the one hand it's hard to see how it could really just be a happy coincidence but on the other hand there's lots of high calibre people, regardless of gender, getting these jobs.

addaword · 12-07-2020 8:46am

Deleted User wrote: »

Stop trying to present the private sector as infallible. We have strong employment laws here it's not easy to get rid of staff.

I di not think he or she or anyone else was trying to "present the private sector as infallible." Whatever else it is, it is very fallible. Over the years millions of people have found themselves out of a job from private sector enterprises that failed. In most small and medium enterprises, who are competing against each other and where the weakest go to the wall, there is little room for free loaders. One reason why the absenteeism rate is much lower in the private sector than in the public sector, for example.

barneystinson · 12-07-2020 8:49am

addaword wrote: »

I di not think he or she or anyone else was trying to "present the private sector as infallible." Whatever else it is, it is very fallible. Over the years millions of people have found themselves out of a job from private sector enterprises that failed. In most small and medium enterprises, who are competing against each other and where the weakest go to the wall, there is little room for free loaders. One reason why the absenteeism rate is much lower in the private sector than in the public sector, for example.

Ah welcome back Addaword, been off steeling yourself ahead of another round of your favourite game, Nonsense and Rebuttal, where you always go first

Pkiernan · 12-07-2020 8:52am

Sinzo wrote: »

EXACTLY... point well made.. or

Have you ever tried to get a plumber?
After 3 different candidates you get one who answers.
Says hes not available til next week. Week passes and no contact. Call again. He apologised for not getting back. Very busy. Said he can fit me in at the end of the week.

Calls to house. Fixes a pin hole in ballcock in attic and replaces a syphon in one of the toilets. Cool 150 euro for the privilege...

Yes, the private sector is so efficient and such value for money...

But the hard working tax payer isn't forced to pay your no good plumber. You get to choose to use him ot not.

We are forced to pay for an under utilised army of inefficient jobsworths however.

Also, I bet your plumber doesn't get 30 holidays, 11 public holidays and 40 "I feel a bit sick" days either....

kippy · 12-07-2020 9:27am

Pkiernan wrote: »

But the hard working tax payer isn't forced to pay your no good plumber. You get to choose to use him ot not.

We are forced to pay for an under utilised army of inefficient jobsworths however.

Also, I bet your plumber doesn't get 30 holidays, 11 public holidays and 40 "I feel a bit sick" days either....

Thirty days holidays in the public sector is not standard.
Very few people in the public sector take 40 days sick and if they do they are certified and subject to pay impacting maximums.

The point was about efficiency. There's plenty inefficiency everywhere.

SouthWesterly · 12-07-2020 9:39am

Pkiernan wrote: »

But the hard working tax payer isn't forced to pay your no good plumber. You get to choose to use him ot not.

We are forced to pay for an under utilised army of inefficient jobsworths however.

Also, I bet your plumber doesn't get 30 holidays, 11 public holidays and 40 "I feel a bit sick" days either....

I don't get 30 days holidays. Everyone gets public holidays. I also don't get 40 data sick. Not been sick since my boss sent me home when I came in after having an accident, 3 years ago. And that was only a couple of days.

AndrewJRenko · 12-07-2020 10:12am

Pkiernan wrote: »

But the hard working tax payer isn't forced to pay your no good plumber. You get to choose to use him ot not.

We are forced to pay for an under utilised army of inefficient jobsworths however.

Also, I bet your plumber doesn't get 30 holidays, 11 public holidays and 40 "I feel a bit sick" days either....

Public holidays have nothing to do with public/private sector. All employees get 11 public holidays, or get paid premium rates if they have to work.

addaword wrote: »

I di not think he or she or anyone else was trying to "present the private sector as infallible." Whatever else it is, it is very fallible. Over the years millions of people have found themselves out of a job from private sector enterprises that failed. In most small and medium enterprises, who are competing against each other and where the weakest go to the wall, there is little room for free loaders. One reason why the absenteeism rate is much lower in the private sector than in the public sector, for example.

And many people lost their jobs in the public sector in recession times. Loads of fixed term contracts were not renewed. Loads of retirees were not replaced. Remember the embargo - the blunt instrument that prevented recruitment regardless of need.

You've been informed repeatedly about the different methods of counting sick leave in public and private sector, so I don't know why you keep banging that drum. It's not unusual to expect that someone like a primary teacher, in close physical contact with 25 coughing and snotty kids would have higher sick leave than perhaps someone in an insurance company or someone on a building site.

doc22 wrote: »

One body I'm going to guess by username ThumbTaxed is Revenue?

Couldn't be Revenue based on the comments shown above and a quick analysis of

https://whodoeswhat.gov.ie/root/revenue/

They haven't achieved gender balance at PO level.

addaword · 12-07-2020 10:45am

SouthWesterly wrote: »

. Everyone gets public holidays. I also don't get 40 data sick. Not been sick since my boss sent me home when I came in after having an accident, 3 years ago. And that was only a couple of days.

No, no everyone gets public holidays and plenty of sickies. And we are talking about the public sector generally, not you or anyone specifically.

12-07-2020 11:19am

Pkiernan wrote: »

But the hard working tax payer isn't forced to pay your no good plumber. You get to choose to use him ot not.

We are forced to pay for an under utilised army of inefficient jobsworths however.

Also, I bet your plumber doesn't get 30 holidays, 11 public holidays and 40 "I feel a bit sick" days either....

What's wrong with decent holiday entitlement.

It amuses me how willing some people are to be exploited. I suppose you love your miserable 20 days annual leave while you make some corporation rich. And they would sack you at the drop of a hat if it suited them.

Btw its 7 uncertified sick days in two years.

thomasdylan · 12-07-2020 11:31am

Sick rates in the civil service are more than double those of the private sector.

Sick days in the PS are falling but there is definitely a culture of absenteeism in some areas.

Treppen · 12-07-2020 11:37am

thomasdylan wrote: »

Sick rates in the civil service are more than double those of the private sector.

Sick days in the PS are falling but there is definitely a culture of absenteeism in some areas.

There's definitely a culture of absenteeism in what areas?

There's definitely a culture of not showing up in any tradesmen I've ever used though. "Ya I'll be over Monday at 8am ya ya bye bye bye bye".

Treppen · 12-07-2020 11:40am

Pkiernan wrote: »

But the hard working tax payer isn't forced to pay your no good plumber. You get to choose to use him ot not.

We are forced to pay for an under utilised army of inefficient jobsworths however.

Also, I bet your plumber doesn't get 30 holidays, 11 public holidays and 40 "I feel a bit sick" days either....

The faith in tradesmen here is beyond belief.

thomasdylan · 12-07-2020 11:44am

Treppen wrote: »

There's definitely a culture of absenteeism in what areas?

There's definitely a culture of not showing up in any tradesmen I've ever used though. "Ya I'll be over Monday at 8am ya ya bye bye bye bye".

Some parts of the civil service. Central Statistics Office, Department of Social Protection.

There have been loads of steps to reduce absenteeism in the Public Sector of the past few years, it's been a long identified problem.

AndrewJRenko · 12-07-2020 12:47pm

thomasdylan wrote: »

Some parts of the civil service. Central Statistics Office, Department of Social Protection.
.

Source please?

thomasdylan wrote: »

Sick rates in the civil service are more than double those of the private sector.

Were they counted using the same methodology, particularly around counting of weekend days?

thomasdylan · 12-07-2020 12:58pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Source please?

Were they counted using the same methodology, particularly around counting of weekend days?

Here's civil service stats on absenteeism.
https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/3728/041218175808-e17e93991c7f4722ab47c4d29deaaa3c.pdf#page=1

Extremely high in some areas with wide variations. It's good to see the breakdown because people will try and argue that front-liners in hopsitals etc. skew sick leave when this isn't really the case. Admin in the HSE take more sick leave than physios, doctors, SLT, OT and pharmacists.

I don't think they were counted using the same methods. Even allowing for this PS absenteeism levels are higher.

PS absenteeism has long been identified as an issue with steps taken to combat this. It has reduced, particularly after 2014 but every year when the reports are published it is still recognised as being too high.

barneystinson · 12-07-2020 1:31pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Couldn't be Revenue based on the comments shown above and a quick analysis of

https://whodoeswhat.gov.ie/root/revenue/

They haven't achieved gender balance at PO level.

Not sure if you've missed my post, they definitely have. Look at their annual report for 2019, which states that 50% of PO's are female as of the end of 2019 (page 48)
https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/press-office/annual-report/index.aspx

So far in 2020, AFAIK there's been 6 PO appointments, all female, so it's currently at about 52/53%.

That link doesn't go below Assistant Sec level unless I'm missing something on the phone here.

AndrewJRenko · 12-07-2020 1:43pm

barneystinson wrote: »

Not sure if you've missed my post, they definitely have. Look at their annual report for 2019, which states that 50% of PO's are female as of the end of 2019 (page 48)
https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/press-office/annual-report/index.aspx

So far in 2020, AFAIK there's been 6 PO appointments, all female, so it's currently at about 52/53%.

That link doesn't go below Assistant Sec level unless I'm missing something on the phone here.

The site goes to PO level, and I'm seeing 46% female as of this morning.

12-07-2020 2:05pm

thomasdylan wrote: »

Here's civil service stats on absenteeism.
https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/3728/041218175808-e17e93991c7f4722ab47c4d29deaaa3c.pdf#page=1

Admin in the HSE take more sick leave than physios, doctors, SLT, OT and pharmacists.
h.

Vast majority of admin staff in HSE are women. So it wont be touched.

mlem123 · 12-07-2020 2:54pm

thomasdylan wrote: »

Here's civil service stats on absenteeism.
https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/3728/041218175808-e17e93991c7f4722ab47c4d29deaaa3c.pdf#page=1

Extremely high in some areas with wide variations. It's good to see the breakdown because people will try and argue that front-liners in hopsitals etc. skew sick leave when this isn't really the case. Admin in the HSE take more sick leave than physios, doctors, SLT, OT and pharmacists.

I don't think they were counted using the same methods. Even allowing for this PS absenteeism levels are higher.

PS absenteeism has long been identified as an issue with steps taken to combat this. It has reduced, particularly after 2014 but every year when the reports are published it is still recognised as being too high.

I can't see where on what you linked to say that admin take higher leave than others?

Tork · 12-07-2020 3:09pm

What's the age profile of the people taking the sick leave? As people get older, the chances of them taking extended leave because of serious illness increases. Cancer, heart problems etc. Seeing as people only get 7 days uncertified leave, sick certs cost money.

barneystinson · 12-07-2020 3:22pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The site goes to PO level, and I'm seeing 46% female as of this morning.

I've just spent 15 minutes with pen & paper going through it, and it's 61 women and 57 men, out of a total of 118, along with 5 vacancies listed.

Now that that's been sorted to a granular level, what do you reckon; it stands at 17 out of the last 19 PO appointments being female.

I try not to be a cynic but I think it stretches credibility a bit, even allowing that I'd fully expect there to be a slight majority of women over men. I hadn't really noticed it up until late last year, and would have dismissed grumbling I'd heard as sour grapes etc... but when there was muttering going on about there having been about 9 in a row women I looked at it and started to think this does look a bit off. Now, from what someone posted previously, it seems that it could be something like 26 out of 30 over a 3-year period.

thomasdylan · 12-07-2020 4:18pm

mlem123 wrote: »

I can't see where on what you linked to say that admin take higher leave than others?

Each HSE group publishes monthly sick leave reports with absenteeism grouped up by employment category.

Here's some reports:

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/our-workforce/workforce-reporting/rcsi-hospital-group-absenteeism-report-july-2019.pdf

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/our-workforce/workforce-reporting/cho-4-absenteeism-report-may-2019.pdf

Results are fairly consistent across all the hospitals.

Sir Guy who smiles · 12-07-2020 7:07pm

thomasdylan wrote: »

Each HSE group publishes monthly sick leave reports with absenteeism grouped up by employment category.

Here's some reports:

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/our-workforce/workforce-reporting/rcsi-hospital-group-absenteeism-report-july-2019.pdf

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/our-workforce/workforce-reporting/cho-4-absenteeism-report-may-2019.pdf

Results are fairly consistent across all the hospitals.

"Management and admin" are not the category taking the most leave according to those figures? "Patient and client care "are. "Management and admin "are slightly ahead of "nursing and midwifery "at some times and slightly behind at others.

thomasdylan · 12-07-2020 8:17pm

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

"Management and admin" are not the category taking the most leave according to those figures? "Patient and client care "are. "Management and admin "are slightly ahead of "nursing and midwifery "at some times and slightly behind at others.

Yes, and thats what I said. Admin take more sick leave than OT, Physio, SLT (health and social care professionals) and more than doctors (about three times as much).

AndrewJRenko · 12-07-2020 8:26pm

barneystinson wrote: »

I've just spent 15 minutes with pen & paper going through it, and it's 61 women and 57 men, out of a total of 118, along with 5 vacancies listed.

Now that that's been sorted to a granular level, what do you reckon; it stands at 17 out of the last 19 PO appointments being female.

I try not to be a cynic but I think it stretches credibility a bit, even allowing that I'd fully expect there to be a slight majority of women over men. I hadn't really noticed it up until late last year, and would have dismissed grumbling I'd heard as sour grapes etc... but when there was muttering going on about there having been about 9 in a row women I looked at it and started to think this does look a bit off. Now, from what someone posted previously, it seems that it could be something like 26 out of 30 over a 3-year period.

I spent 10 minutes this morning with a spreadsheet, and got 64 women out of 139 posts (including the Commissioner and Asec posts) - 46% female.

AndrewJRenko · 12-07-2020 8:29pm

thomasdylan wrote: »

Here's civil service stats on absenteeism.
https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/3728/041218175808-e17e93991c7f4722ab47c4d29deaaa3c.pdf#page=1

Extremely high in some areas with wide variations. It's good to see the breakdown because people will try and argue that front-liners in hopsitals etc. skew sick leave when this isn't really the case. Admin in the HSE take more sick leave than physios, doctors, SLT, OT and pharmacists.

I don't think they were counted using the same methods. Even allowing for this PS absenteeism levels are higher.

PS absenteeism has long been identified as an issue with steps taken to combat this. It has reduced, particularly after 2014 but every year when the reports are published it is still recognised as being too high.

Isn't it great to have all the stats in public. Let's see the similar stats for AIB and Microsoft and Clayton Hotels and we can do an interesting comparison.

Not a huge surprise to see Gardai and Prison Service among the highest levels.

It would also be interesting to compare age profiles of the organisations involved.

barneystinson · 12-07-2020 8:45pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I spent 10 minutes this morning with a spreadsheet, and got 64 women out of 139 posts (including the Commissioner and Asec posts) - 46% female.

That's nice, not what I or any other poster that I'm aware of referred to but good to know.

If you want to include the MAC though, 4 of the last 5 Assistant Sec appointments have been women, 3/3 since beginning of 2019, so that brings the running total at PO and above in the last 18 months to 20/22 female.

And the running total at PO and above since the start of 2017, to well above 80% female, from somewhere in the mid-30's of appointments.

Have you actually got an opinion on this? I'd love if someone could win me over to me how this trend could naturally just happen, that somehow there's practically no men knocking the door down and staking a claim to the senior jobs, in an organisation that has hundreds of highly qualified and experienced people of both genders from AP level upwards. It's been making me feel uncomfortable everytime I think about it, since I actually realised the scale of the thing.

AndrewJRenko · 12-07-2020 9:23pm

barneystinson wrote: »

That's nice, not what I or any other poster that I'm aware of referred to but good to know.

If you want to include the MAC though, 4 of the last 5 Assistant Sec appointments have been women, 3/3 since beginning of 2019, so that brings the running total at PO and above in the last 18 months to 20/22 female.

And the running total at PO and above since the start of 2017, to well above 80% female, from somewhere in the mid-30's of appointments.

Have you actually got an opinion on this? I'd love if someone could win me over to me how this trend could naturally just happen, that somehow there's practically no men knocking the door down and staking a claim to the senior jobs, in an organisation that has hundreds of highly qualified and experienced people of both genders from AP level upwards. It's been making me feel uncomfortable everytime I think about it, since I actually realised the scale of the thing.

Did you feel uncomfortable for the previous 50 years when it was just the lads who were being promoted, or is it just when it comes to the ladies that you get uncomfortable?

Benefits of Public Sector over Private Sector

Comments