Public Service Attitudes.

[Complainer]

for jaysus sake complainer - if you have multiple agencies doing the same job, there's clearly scope to amalgamate them and save money on duplication - case in point - the IDA and shannon development. same function, 2 agencies. now if we could only achieve the holy grail of downsizing the redundant employees of such a merger we'd be a lot better off.

Indeed, there are some cases where there may be overlap and duplication, as per Shannon Dev & IDA. I know SFA about Shannon Dev & IDA. I'm sure there is an argument there about the benefits of regional focus, but I have no idea of the validity of this arguement. Likewise, the people who come out with simplistic solutions know SFA about what is happening in these situations. They really should restrict themselves to talking about those subjects that they know a little bit about.

Aside from the 'obvious syngergies' associated with closing one of them such as duplication of printed materials, duplication of websites, translation of materials etc etc.

So instead of two medium-sized annual reports, you get one big annual report. And instead of two medium-sized websites, you get one big website, saving what - the cost of one domain registration? The savings available on these admin things are incidental - integration only makes sense where there are synergies available around the core functions of the organisations.

I'd actually agree in the examples. However, I wouldn't say it is a universal situation across the entire PS/CS. There will always be synergies tha can be integrated without loss of identity or roll.

I'm sure there are some cases like this, and I'm sure that they are already under consideration and review. The public sector does not need random posters on bulletin boards to tell it how to optimise its office space. It has professionals in place doing just that already.

Why do we even have a department of health when we have the HSE?

Because (in very broad terms), the Dept deals with policy and the HSE deals with implementation.

Why couldn't the department of health have done exactly the same thing themselves? Why was a new body set up?

Because the Dept of Health did not have a team of experts in Tobacco Control available to put a dedicated focus on this particular issue over a number of years.

Are we saying that everytime we want to introduce a new policy, we need to set up a new body to implement it.

Yes, that's it - you've got it in one.

The reality is that in some cases, it makes sense to set up a new body. In some cases, it doesn't. IMHO, the removal of smoke from workplaces is well worth the small price involved in setting up the new organisation.

Complainer, I seem to recall you saying things like this on a number of occasions but I don't remember you ever expanding on it (maybe I'm mistaken)

Could you give us all an idea of the many things that need improvement in the public sector in your view?

No, I won't. The atmosphere here on AAM is overwhelmingly and consistently negative towards public services. Here we have posters coming out with absolute rubbish about 'useless quangos and politically connected staff' with nothing to back it up, and these claims are left unchallenged and untested, except by the few stubborn fools like myself who try to bring some reality to the debate. I'll sow my seeds for improvement in fertile ground, not in the dry, barren fields of AAM.

 

[galleyslave]

And instead of two medium-sized websites, you get one big website, saving what - the cost of one domain registration?

thats just silly.theres a lot more to a website than a domain registration and to dismiss them as incremental is crazy. 2 sets of IT workers on technical grade 4's at least (thats 40k min each) working on 2 websites saying broadly the same thing. 2 lots of servers, 2 lots of software licenses, 2 lots of everything else associated with a website

hmmm..."They really should restrict themselves to talking about those subjects that they know a little bit about."

 

[Sunny]

Because the Dept of Health did not have a team of experts in Tobacco Control available to put a dedicated focus on this particular issue over a number of years.


.

And these people are experts in tobacco control??

[broken link removed]

And by the way I am not doubting their good intentions or hard work.

 

[Complainer]

And these people are experts in tobacco control??

[broken link removed]

Well, I'd say they know a bit more about it than you or me, but they are the board members who meet once a month to set and direct the strategy. The real experts are the staff.

thats just silly.theres a lot more to a website than a domain registration and to dismiss them as incremental is crazy. 2 sets of IT workers on technical grade 4's at least (thats 40k min each) working on 2 websites saying broadly the same thing. 2 lots of servers, 2 lots of software licenses, 2 lots of everything else associated with a website

hmmm..."They really should restrict themselves to talking about those subjects that they know a little bit about."

No public body has web servers. Public bodies (like most organisations) buy hosting services from hosting providers. These may well be using shared services hosting via CMOD, or LGCSB or Dept Justice already, so the benefits available will be minimal. Few small to medium public bodies have any dedicated IT staff, let alone dedicated webmasters. For those who have dedicated webmasters, the amount of content going on the website isn't going to change, so the amount of work involved is largely the same. You might manage to make some saving on software licencing, provided you take on the extra work of converting all the content from one system to the other - so really, where is the saving.

 

[Sunny]

Well, I'd say they know a bit more about it than you or me, but they are the board members who meet once a month to set and direct the strategy. The real experts are the staff.



.

But if the real experts are the staff, why doesn't the Department of Health hire them directly to implement the policy instead in setting up an whole new agency with a seperate board and all the related expenses and administration.

 

[Howitzer]

No, I won't. The atmosphere here on AAM is overwhelmingly and consistently negative towards public services. Here we have posters coming out with absolute rubbish about 'useless quangos and politically connected staff' with nothing to back it up, and these claims are left unchallenged and untested, except by the few stubborn fools like myself who try to bring some reality to the debate. I'll sow my seeds for improvement in fertile ground, not in the dry, barren fields of AAM.

Hold on a second there sunshine. You asked for examples - examples were given. Even when you narrowed the criteria further examples were still found. It's not my job to jump every time you push a button.

Many of the points raised have been self evident and WELL documented. If you choose to ignore them that's your perogative but don't go mouthing off that black is white.

Maybe you've lived in a hole all your life, with your eyes closed sticking berries up your nose but these things are obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

 

[galleyslave]

No public body has web servers. Public bodies (like most organisations) buy hosting services from hosting providers. These may well be using shared services hosting via CMOD, or LGCSB or Dept Justice already, so the benefits available will be minimal. Few small to medium public bodies have any dedicated IT staff, let alone dedicated webmasters. For those who have dedicated webmasters, the amount of content going on the website isn't going to change, so the amount of work involved is largely the same. You might manage to make some saving on software licencing, provided you take on the extra work of converting all the content from one system to the other - so really, where is the saving.

so if they don't have them, they have to be bought and paid for, so the argument boils down to the same issue - costs. I've come to the conclusion you are arguing for the sake of it and have a great line in distorting the issue.... so, enough

 

[Complainer]

Hold on a second there sunshine. You asked for examples - examples were given. Even when you narrowed the criteria further examples were still found. It's not my job to jump every time you push a button.

Many of the points raised have been self evident and WELL documented. If you choose to ignore them that's your perogative but don't go mouthing off that black is white.

Maybe you've lived in a hole all your life, with your eyes closed sticking berries up your nose but these things are obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

Nice. Got any specifics there to go with that rant, or is it just more of the same?

The only half-decent examples given on this thread are;

1) 1 FAS employee with FF connections (and I'd be quite happy to fire that guy anyway, regardless of his connections)
2) IDA/Shannon Dev - possibility of some savings through merger, though no-one really knows enough to have a real idea of what's going on.

so if they don't have them, they have to be bought and paid for, so the argument boils down to the same issue -

The issue is that where you have two parties buying hosted bandwidth, you don't achieve savings by merging. The bandwidth will be the same before and after the merger, by and large, because you have the same website content and the same customers. You have one big website instead of two medium ones, and the bandwidth will be the same.

I've come to the conclusion you are arguing for the sake of it and have a great line in distorting the issue.... so, enough

Sorry that the facts get in the way of your grand master plan. They are so inconvenient.

 

[shnaek]

Because (in very broad terms), the Dept deals with policy and the HSE deals with implementation.

Which is something that sounds good but evidently isn't working at all. Like "Irish Democracy"! Maybe we should just throw our hands up and hand over the running of the country to the Germans...

 

[galleyslave]

bah, we'd spend all our day sorting our rubbish and waiting at the traffic lights

 

[shnaek]

But we'd also be brewing some more great beers

 

[galleyslave]

but we'd have some weird customs - I don't think I could hack seeing naked irish bodies on the phoenix park on a sunny day for instance

 

[Complainer]

Which is something that sounds good but evidently isn't working at all.

Absolutely agree - the HSE is completely dysfunctional. However, that doesn't mean that the solution is to disband the HSE and take everyone back into Dept Health. That is one of many possible solutions, but I'm amazed and amused at the armchair experts here on AAM who are prepared to pontificate about simplistic solutions.

My own personal view is that another structural change (such is disbanding the HSE) will result in focus on structure rather than services. But I don't claim to be the world's leading expert on structuring of health services.

 

[Sunny]

Sitting there defending everything without offering any constructive ideas of your own isn't much better .......

 

[VOR]

That is one of many possible solutions, but I'm amazed and amused at the armchair experts here on AAM who are prepared to pontificate about simplistic solutions.

Complainer, we need your thoughts over here
[broken link removed]

Private Sector free zone. I'm just here to listen (for once)

 

[shnaek]

Absolutely agree - the HSE is completely dysfunctional. However, that doesn't mean that the solution is to disband the HSE and take everyone back into Dept Health. That is one of many possible solutions, but I'm amazed and amused at the armchair experts here on AAM who are prepared to pontificate about simplistic solutions.

My own personal view is that another structural change (such is disbanding the HSE) will result in focus on structure rather than services. But I don't claim to be the world's leading expert on structuring of health services.

True. A mess was made changing to the HSE from the health boards. No point in repeating that. What is frustrating is nearly 100 years of independence and it's farther away from a good health service that we're getting!

 

[DonDub]

Mods, any chance you could change the title of this thread to 'yet another excuse to bash the public service'.

I don't want to bash public servants - I blame our political class for the mess we are in. For decades, they have failed to properly manage or modernise the structures of this state. It was inevitable therefore that the state sector would end up in a mess i.e. overmanned, poorly managed, inefficient and too expensive.
Many of the 'sins' in the public sector have featured in private sector organisations - however, private businesses will go bust if they fail to live within their means. So, those that change and adapt (often through painful means) have a reasonable chance of survival. Those that consistently make poor decisions typically hit the wall.
It is clear that the public sector in Ireland has no in-built controls - poor political, managerial, employee decisions have no real consequences. Overlay unions who are free to argue issues to death, and you have a recipe for disaster.
So, while individual public servants are not to 'blame', and it would be great for the politicians to get what they deserve, it is unreasonable and immoral to expect private sector workers to pay more to fund a state sector that is bloated, inefficient and unaffordable. Why for example should a worker with no pension, who is exposed to forced redundancy, pay extra taxes to protect employees who are paid more, who have fantastic pensions, and who are not exposed to forced redundancy.
This is not PS bashing, its reality......

 

[Purple]

I don't want to bash public servants - I blame our political class for the mess we are in. For decades, they have failed to properly manage or modernise the structures of this state. It was inevitable therefore that the state sector would end up in a mess i.e. overmanned, poorly managed, inefficient and too expensive.
Many of the 'sins' in the public sector have featured in private sector organisations - however, private businesses will go bust if they fail to live within their means. So, those that change and adapt (often through painful means) have a reasonable chance of survival. Those that consistently make poor decisions typically hit the wall.
It is clear that the public sector in Ireland has no in-built controls - poor political, managerial, employee decisions have no real consequences. Overlay unions who are free to argue issues to death, and you have a recipe for recipe for disaster.
So, while individual public servants are not to 'blame', and it would be great for the politicians to get what they deserve, it is unreasonable and immoral to expect private sector workers to pay more to fund a state sector that is bloated, inefficient and unaffordable. Why for example should a worker with no pension, who is exposed to forced redundancy, pay extra taxes to protect employees who are paid more, who have fantastic pensions, and who are not exposed to forced redundancy.
This is not PS bashing, its reality......

Excellent post.

 

[Complainer]

overmanned, poorly managed, inefficient and too expensive....the public sector in Ireland has no in-built controls - poor political, managerial, employee decisions have no real consequences. ....a state sector that is bloated, inefficient and unaffordable.

I don't suppose there is any chance of any evidence/backup/comparitive data/explanation for any of these claims? Is that too much to expect?

 

[S.L.F]

I don't suppose there is any chance of any evidence/backup/comparitive data/explanation for any of these claims? Is that too much to expect?

Complainer you have to realise he doesn't need evidence, he 'knows' besides he read it in the indo so it must be true.