I never agreed with Benchmarking but in these times, I would like to see the Public Sector properly Benchmarked Down just like the Private Sector. We have already had Pay Freeze, 10% Pay Reduction, Layoffs, Forced Holidays (unpaid if you have none left), and we all fly Budget Airlines and stay in cheap hotels while on business. Our mileage allowance for using our own cars for company business is less than half the rate of the Public Sector. Expense Reports are examined with a fine tooth comb. Equipment purchases require VP approval. We should survive the storm like we have done before, only because we operate a prudent business model.
Public sector bashing-anyone else sick of it?
- Thread starter grahamo
- Start date
- Status
Because it's quicker than saying 'private sector' and 'public sector' and PS for both would be confusing, and because elsewhere on the site it seems to be an abbreviation in common usage.
Were you really that interested?
But why did you pick PS for public service and not PS for private sector ? Why choose not to abbreviate one over the other ?
S
S.L.F
Guest
Ron Burgundy
Registered User
- Messages
- 752
Well said, if flexi time and banked time are so good why don't these people come work in the public service. They spend all day on the internet already so are prime targets
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
No confrontation necessary. I'll front the FOI requests. I'm just looking for your commitment to foot the bill when your wild claims are exposed as fiction. But perhaps you're not really that confident about the accuracy of your claims...
S
S.L.F
Guest
They spend all day on the internet already so are prime targets
That's not entirely fair!!!
They must do some work....I mean...they are paid aren't they!
Z
z104
Guest
My taxes would be better used paying for a public servant to be doing nothing on the dole than nothing at work earning multiples of the dole.
Z
z104
Guest
Well said, if flexi time and banked time are so good why don't these people come work in the public service. They spend all day on the internet already so are prime targets
Where do I apply or do you still need to have pull?
S
S.L.F
Guest
I have no interest in making any kind of 'deal' with you re FOI etc.
Complainer, this is getting ridiculous.
First you say:
And then you suddenly start referring to 'wild claims'. Bit of an attitude change?!
And I presume you read this?
Quote from Richard Bruton:
...there seemed to be a belief in some sections of the public service that sick days were "there to be taken".
"That attitude is one that just isn't acceptable, we can no longer afford it and it's vital to protect scarce taxpayers' money," he said.
I'm sorry I can't take you seriously on this. Topic closed for me.
I know you're deeply prejudiced against public servants, and I'm sure it'll do no good to point it out, but there is no question of having "pull" to get a job. Recruitment competitions, whether for a panel or for a specified job, are completely independently run for all but a very few very low paid jobs (postroom / reception). In the civil service, there's a battery of aptitude-type assessments, interviews and presentations; in the broader public service it does vary somewhat between organisations (for example, schools recruit teachers directly in most circumstances, local authorities go through very similar processes to the civil service).
You don't get a job offer based on "pull", and in fact it's almost always (perhaps outright always) the case that canvassing disqualifies. You get a job based on the same criteria most large organisations use: your qualifications, track record, aptitude, experience, and interview performance.
Here we go again! For the umpteenth time some sections of the Public sector make enough money to run the department/cover costs etc. Your tax isn't needed where I work!
I don't know anyone in my section that 'does nothing at work'
A lot of public sector expenditure goes on purchasing goods and services from the overpriced private sector. Thus helping keep a lot of the private sector in employment. Does that mean my taxes are paying for you?
Sorry to sound like I'm generalising but it does seem there is a lot of it going on here.
Ron Burgundy
Registered User
- Messages
- 752
I've never reported anyone for anything in my life. If someone has what is wrong with that? Not to get personal Complainer I believe that you are a very hard working civil servant. They actually exist, I've met them too. They are so hard working, honest and sincere they don't realise what is going on around them (I'm being serious not sarcastic). I personally know some of what goes on and I absolutely know how powerful the unions are, oftentimes preventing good people in the civil service from speaking out and complaining about what is going on. They have ways and means of stopping people getting promoted and having people live in misery. Whistleblowers are persona non gratia in the state system. This will never change but that's the way it is so until that changes I have no problem bashing the public sector or any other sector where I perceive something to be wrong. I also have no problem praising those who speak out and I admire many civil servants, I know really hardworking teachers and Gardai etc for example and others but I also know there are plenty of people who screw the system.
C
Chocks away
Guest
Bravo Bronte! Well done.
And there, in one post is the nub of the whole thread. Well done Bronte!
I haven't read anyone saying that ALL public servants are lazy, good-for-nothing sods....but the reaction of public servants to (1st or 2nd hand) accounts of such behaviour is disproportionate and reminds me of the phrase "methinks they protest too much".
Those people DO exist and need to be booted en masse. Remove the dead wood and the bill will be reduced. Then consolidate ridiculous overstaffing where multiple sections do the same job slightly differently.
If there is opposition to this by the unions then they are not interested in productivity and value for money as they claim during 'partnership' talks, but to protect their own little empire whereby they are practically the power behind the throne as regards employment decisions in Ireland...this from a conglomerate of multiple unions who together only represent 20% or 25% (I think) of the workforce in Ireland.
I've been thinking about this because you make an interesting point here. I would observe that there are just a few posters (very few, to be fair) who do appear to generalise across the entirety of the public service. No, I'm not going looking for quotes to back it up - I admit they're a small minority!
But you're right: quite a number of us are defensive. In my case - and I can speak only for myself - it's not that I think the civil or public service is perfect. My experience within the civil service has been that there are certain systemic problems. Thing is, they're nothing to do with bank time, or sick days, or obstructive unions - they're very significantly to do with managing assignments badly so people are placed in work to which they are just not suited. You may have someone at mid-level who is very good at, say, managing a large team of people doing routine work - but is placed as gofer and admin back-up for a small technical team. Or a person who's great on policy development put in a grant processing area even though they're border-line innumerate. Or a person who's good at dealing with the public, but is placed in a role where they have to write a lot even though they're plain bad at it.
All of them have actual real skills that we need, but are placed in roles where they are very nearly doomed to underperform - and much of that in the name of a "generalist" civil service where people are supposed to be able to turn their hands to any kind of work. Some people can, but many more can't.
There are people who are consistent non-performers in any role: yes, they are a drain.
There are others whose talents and abilities are not properly used: they too are a drain, but importantly it is not actually their fault and may not be for lack of effort (even though it's inevitably demotivating to be placed in a role you're completely unsuited to).
This is something that needs to be managed better for all our sakes. If we identify where people's greatest skills and aptitudes lie and assign them accordingly, then and only then can we identify the real deadwood - the people who can't be bothered or think they have no more than a sinecure.
So that's why I get defensive: because I think the wrong issues are being identified as "the problem with the public service".
But then, I'm not temperamentally suited to the kind of HR role I'd need to effect major change, so what can you do...
See above!
I agree with you that in an organisation as large as the public sector, then there will be square pegs in round holes...people who are not good enough to do THEIR job.
But if that's the case, they need to be transferred pronto or let go!!!
The reluctance of any union to allow forced transfers (ref: decentralisation) is a problem with part one of that option. If you're bad at your job and won't transfer 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100 miles well then the alternative is forced layoffs, on a case by case basis as some of them will have been better at the job they were in than others so giving 10 weeks redundancy across the board is a golden handshake to those who don't deserve it.
Also, and this has to be acknowledged, If I'm crap at my techie office job, I can't complain if I'm told to go, with the line "but I'm a great orator so it's your fault for putting me in this position in the first place". Aptitude tests are used in the civil service to determine peoples suitability at a job originally.
Also, people generally 'know' if they're rubbish at their job, unless they're totally deluded, in which case they shouldn't be there, so why have they not applied for a transfer to a position to which they think they would be better suited? Complacency? Laziness? Giving up a cushy number where they can get away with poor performance? Close to home and put that above doing a job to be proud of?
Regardless of all these possibilities, it would take a hard-ass to ruthlessly cut people out of their position in order to rectify these issues, and does the public sector have enough of them that will ignore personal relationships and look at the scenario with the 'bigger picture' in mind ?
I doubt it, but I don't know.
But if that's the case, they need to be transferred pronto or let go!!!
The reluctance of any union to allow forced transfers (ref: decentralisation) is a problem with part one of that option. If you're bad at your job and won't transfer 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100 miles well then the alternative is forced layoffs, on a case by case basis as some of them will have been better at the job they were in than others so giving 10 weeks redundancy across the board is a golden handshake to those who don't deserve it.
Also, and this has to be acknowledged, If I'm crap at my techie office job, I can't complain if I'm told to go, with the line "but I'm a great orator so it's your fault for putting me in this position in the first place". Aptitude tests are used in the civil service to determine peoples suitability at a job originally.
Also, people generally 'know' if they're rubbish at their job, unless they're totally deluded, in which case they shouldn't be there, so why have they not applied for a transfer to a position to which they think they would be better suited? Complacency? Laziness? Giving up a cushy number where they can get away with poor performance? Close to home and put that above doing a job to be proud of?
Regardless of all these possibilities, it would take a hard-ass to ruthlessly cut people out of their position in order to rectify these issues, and does the public sector have enough of them that will ignore personal relationships and look at the scenario with the 'bigger picture' in mind ?
I doubt it, but I don't know.
Transferred, yes I agree (as I think is obvious); let go - not until a reasonable effort has been made at identifying and utilitising strengths. Quite aside from the fact that most of the organisations making up the civil and public service are large and broad enough to encompass and require a wide range of skills, you'd face a barrage of unfair dismissal claims if reasonable efforts were not made.
I doubt we'll fully agree on the decentralisation thing! I transferred to avoid it, and my job has since moved. I was rather good at it, of course, so naturally you're not finger-pointing my way.
So that's what they're for!
Seriously, this is something which is horribly under-used. Aptitude tests are not used by Departments in assigining new / existing / promoted staff. I don't think they're even given the data. So Joe Bloggs, who's brilliant with numbers isn't put in the payroll area with the complex numerical data they have to deal with; with his only-just-passed the analytical competence test, he's put in an area working on policy. And Mary Jones, who's got a degree in public administration and three years as policy development officer in an NGO but goes blank when faced with numbers more than 10, gets put in payroll.
Swap Joe and Mary; hey presto, the whole organisation works better.
There's room to move, rather than just fire, a lot of people and to raise standards just by strategic assignment.
Maybe some of the above, maybe really hopes that if they try really hard that's all that can be asked (even if they're still just not good), maybe afraid to rock the boat, afraid of being seen to be a trouble-maker / unable to cope (some of which latter, regrettably, are justified). Lots of reasons, not all of which necessarily reflect badly on the person.
I honestly don't think you even need to be ruthless - at least not very, and at least not yet*. A lot of managers know where their staff's strengths lie, and, if asked for an assessment of what type of assignment will suit both the person and benefit the organisation, would happily give it.
We're going to lose a lot of people through attrition (retirements, other leavers not replaced, etc) and non-renewal of contracts over the coming years. Most of us will have to take up additional workload / responsibilities, and it'll be in all our interest to see more efficient use of resources, especially including staff. If carefully presented, I could imagine a high level of buy-in to a scheme which tagged people's strengths for use in reassignments.
Whether it can or will be done is of course another question.
* Ruthlessness may well be justified for long-term underperformers after reasonable efforts have been made to fit them to roles for which they should be better suited.
- Status