# Benchmarking payments will sink economy, STOP now!



## PoorPensioners (10 Jul 2003)

Looks like we will all suffer because of the billion wasted in benchmarking payments, to people who have no productivity metrics - 'job-for-life' r's are ruining our future .. anyone agree ?


----------



## JBM (10 Jul 2003)

*Benchmarking payments will sink economy, STOP now*

I think the Benchmarking process should be reviewed. I work in the private sector and salaries being offered to new employees have fallen from previous unsustainable levels.  Some employees have had a cut in salaries in light of the current economic environment.  No pensions and no job security  ( obiviously within legal constraints).  These factors do not appear to have been considered in matching salaries.  Also, Parental leave and other leave, whilst it must be given is frowned upon in certain private companies.  

I am not saying that public servants are not entitled to wage increases but feel that the inflexibility of the benchmarking process combined with its lack of transparency is wrong.

Private sector salaries are more responsive to the economic climate.  I understand that it appears unfair that public secto miss out in a boom and this should be resolved but equally if the boom becomes a downturn cuts in salary should occur.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (11 Jul 2003)

*Re: Benchmarking payments will sink economy, STOP now*

Of course I agree. Why should people get paid more just because they are with an organisation for a certain length of time? - this breeds mediocrity and bad value for money.


----------



## SP (11 Jul 2003)

*a much better idea*

Why don't we cancel the pay increases under Sustaining Progress - this will cost us a lot more.


----------



## sluice44 (12 Jul 2003)

*Job Losses*

Diageo (Guinness),Tayto and Oran PreCast Concrete announced approx 400 job losses today.

How many public sector jobs were lost this week?  

A report in today's Irish Times told about two Gardai in Tallaght who threatened a male suspect with potential rape in Mountjoy prison and also made very incorrect remarks about his solicitor.  The solicitor complained.  The two Gardai were fined two weeks wages and kept their jobs.  A Garda spokesman said the matter was now closed.

To all in private sector employment, single out a co-worker next week and do something similar to that outlined above.  How long would you last in your job?

Job security is worth a lot of money.  Also, they're on a payscale - they get a payrise each year just for staying alive.  If they stay alive long enough, they get promoted, based on their seniority.  The public 'servants' didn't deserve their recent payrise.

Sluice


----------



## Repaymentator (13 Jul 2003)

*Re: Job Losses*

Yes, the government  should suspend benchmarking. Let them go on strike. Where are they going to go? The private sector. Ha! Civil servants should not have pay parity with their less secure private sector counterparts. Secure employment is a great asset, it allows for long term planning with a steady income. I'm considering trying to transfer into the civil service after a decade or two of good private sector pay. At that stage of my life I'll want out of the rat race and a nice moderately paying civil service job where I'll use all the available holiday time would suit just fine.


----------



## CM (14 Jul 2003)

*..*

It's too easy to engage in public servant bashing, but as taxpayers, we are within our rights to ask where all the big increases in health spend, for example, went over the past five years when service improvements seem to have been marginal.

Few reasonable people would object to seeing healthy pay rises for the civil service, if this were linked to some improvement in productivity, but it cannot be justified when everyone else is tightening their belts. 

Time for this government to call a halt to the folly of Benchmarking.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (14 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

If wages in the private sector are being reduced, shouldn't this also be reflected in bench marking?


----------



## rainyday (14 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

I too think that the 'public service' bashing is a little too easy. So here's my cheap shot;

Q) How many people work in the public service?
A) About half of them!

Ba-dum tish

But seriously folks, there is no doubt that the lack of transparency in the benchmarking process is a real problem. None of us know the rationale for the increases that were agreed, and the cynics amongst us may suspect that there was no real rationale, unless we see the supporting data.

It also strikes me that almost all of these partnership agreements are out of date as soon as they are agreed. In the late-90's when the economy was booming, the unions were complaining that the miserly increases they had negotiation were been overtaken by inflation. Now, the private sector are complaining the public sector is overtaking them. 

Perhaps future agreements could be expressed in relation to an agreed standard, e.g. CSO inflation rate + 1% to avoid this problem.

It's not true to say that those in the public service can't/won't jump ship into private companies. The pharmaceutical companies are delighted to pick of the cream of trained nurses as sales rep's (give 'em a company car and a 9-5 routine, and they are happy as a pig in ....). The accounting firms are happy to cream off the best of the tax inspectors to be gamekeepers turned poachers. The IT consultancies are happy to cream off the best of the well-trained IT staff to let them sell into the private sector at huge rates.

In the health service in particular, I would expect that our currently devestated health service would look more like Baghdad's hospitals, had the recent rounds of increases not helped to retain current staff.


----------



## darag (14 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

Regarding the "cream" jumping the public sector ship.  Surely
the unions can take most of the credit for this by insisting
on a Marxist approach to wages and salaries.  It is impossible
to pay the best or the most required in the public sector any
more because all the wasters will be up in arms demanding
commensurate rises.  It is impossible to pay nurses more
(obviously the pay isn't enough given that it seems it is
impossible to recruit them) without the teachers and guards
going up in arms demanding more even though there are queues of people trying to become teachers and guards.


----------



## rainyday (14 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

Hi Darag - I suppose you could blame the unions for asking for those parity increases. Or you could take the 'Catch-22' view and say that they would be 'damn fools' not to ask - which I guess puts responsibility back on those who sanction the increases?

I'd agree that the absence of (and resistance to) performance-related pay in the public service is a real problem - perhaps this should be used as a pre-condition to future increases.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (15 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

I would suggest that everytime that there are layoffs in the private sector, that these should be matched in the public sector. (By percentage)


----------



## ClubMan (15 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

By that reasoning we should probably match layoffs in, say, the IT/tech sector and those in, say, the farming sector for example. :rolleyes


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (15 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

Clubman, that wouldn't make sense.

The reason I'm suggesting matching private with public layoffs is that it would keep the tax burden the same. It would also more fairly match pay and conditions between the two sectors. Isn't this what it's meant to be about?


----------



## darag (15 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

I suppose you're right Clubman.  But how was anyone to
know how things would turn out when the tech workers
started their now infamous struggle for parity with the
farmers only a few short years ago.

Benchmarking is nothing short of usury on the part of
the public sector.  It's not even funny that
benchmarking was justified to deliver "parity" with the
private sector given that it only seems to justify
transferring massive benefits in pay to to the unionised
public sector.  So you get all the benefits of pay
levels set during a boom without any of the downsides of
working in the private sector.

Then people are surprised that our social services,
health and infrastructure are so poor given the spending
while public sector workers gobble from the trough of
government money.  Every now and again, a head lifts
from the trough for air and indignantly demands MORE,
MORE!!  Among the rest of us looking on at this feeding
frenzy wondering what's going to happen when the trough
becomes empty, many are made feel guilty for pointing
out how disgusting it looks having been programed from a
young age to believe that public sector workers are all
altruistic saints who put aside their ambitions to work
for the improving our society.


----------



## RealWorld (22 Jul 2003)

*Benifits*

No only do they want more pay, they get up to 5 year career breaks, family friendly hours, subsidised food in some cases, they claim expenses at every opportunity and from the people I know there  - they have a culture of what else can we get ? (without breaking a sweat!). They are adept at finding out what benifits they are entitled too, I think the job-for-life is really the problem, I know if my performance was not monitored and I was getting a pay increase I wouldn't see any point in being more 'productive'. There are a few good ones in there I'm sure under pressure 'not to work too hard' as I heard one fellow say.. 'or you'll get us all in trouble'. I think their slogan is 'Keeping expectations low, and doing nicely thank you!'.


----------



## Curvy (22 Jul 2003)

*Benifits*

-Many Companies offer career breaks, it not exclusive to the public sector.
-Subsidised canteens are the norm in any private company that gives a damn about their employees (I've worked for a few) 
-Family friendly hours are surely a good thing, and don't cost any money, you still work the full week. I can 't see any local crazy  person running in the next election on a "Keep the family apart" ticket. 
-Any company will pay employee expenses where they are incurred e.g. mileage for work related journeys etc. nothing unusual there. 
-Being adept at finding out what benefits you are entitle too is common sense, if you're entitled to something and you want it, take it. Its not illegal.
As a public servant I'm not going to refuse my benchmarking award but I think you should know its pretty small, I definitely won't be able to afford anything more than I was before. This is because different sections of the public service are getting different awards, depending on what the benchmarking body considered to be the difference between their current salary scale and that of the private sector. 
Also I take great exception to any suggestion that my work is not monitored, it is and I am a s sackable as any other worker, more so because I'm not in any Union, an never will be. I have a professional attitude towards my work and I always ensure that my job gets done properly and I don't "take it easy". No one has ever told me to and if they did I'd want to know why.
The "People you know in there" Are they living in luxury homes and driving expensive cars? Do their clothes come form Armani? I doubt it. Clerical officers earn a living wage and little more. By what ever means its come about, I think they deserve a pay rise.
And there is no such thing a as job for life. Anyone who thinks there is is a fool. We are all responsible for our financial independence, which is why sites like this are vital to intelligent and supportive discussions. I'll be happy to give my point of view through out this debate, but remember it is a financial debate and not a public servant bashing shop.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Jul 2003)

*Re: Benifits*

_Curvy_ - I think that this topic is a lost cause to balanced discussion so, like me, you might simply choose to steer clear of it (other than now) rather than get upset or attempt rebuttals of some of the points! :| 

By the way - I'm not a public servant myself.


----------



## Curvy (22 Jul 2003)

*Re: Benifits*

Methinks you're right CM. I appreciate how frustrating the issue must be to a lot of tax payers and that's why I sought to balance the debate a little. I think this site is a godsend to people concerned for their financial independence and should be used as such. Keep up the good work.


----------



## MOB (22 Jul 2003)

*Expenses incurred*

"Any company will pay employee expenses where they are incurred e.g. mileage for work related journeys etc. nothing unusual there."

The crucial words here are "where they are incurred".  The system of paying expenses in the state sector does not always require evidence of expenses incurred - for example, if you are away from your office for a half day, there is a "subsistence" payment - and whether you spent it on subsisting or not is entirely your own business; if you are away overnight, there is an overnight allowance and so on.  Most state sector employees regard it as normal (and right) to try to clear a profit on these payments.  If curvy doesn't know at least some state sector employees who get to claim overnight expenses while staying with parents/friends, she has her head in the clouds.   This system therefore incentivises state employees to "incur" the expenses.   In the private sector, an employer getes to shout stop every now and again - in the public sector, these expenses are viewed as entitlements, and if you tried to change them, there would be war.

I don't blame state sector employees for maximising their "entitlements".  I would do the same thing in their position.  I just think that a system which  rewards this mindset is a bad system.


----------



## Curvy (22 Jul 2003)

*Expenses incurred*

Most companies have a set rate for mileage etc which they update each year, ditto for sustenance allowances, overnight allowances etc. American companies are particularly good for this. I know through personal experience.

I have to be honest here, you don't seem to know a whole lot about the public service benefits. I can assure you that compared to any good company, there's no huge difference. The only benefit I have I here that I haven't had in other companies (private, Irish and US) is flexi time, which is no big deal and is being introduced in many companies now as its a good idea. Other stuff which we have spoken about in the preceding posts are becoming the norm in any good company. I worked for a US company in the west which forbade unions but still have better benefits that the Public Service. I know there are many companies which treat their workers badly but these should be pulled up rather than trying to pull the rest down.

Can we get back to talking about benchmarking please? My personal masseur is due in as soon as I've finished my report on comfy chairs so I don't know who much time I can spend talking to you outsiders...


----------



## rainyday (22 Jul 2003)

*Re: Expenses incurred*

I agree with Curvy that many of the benefits mentioned by others (flexitime, career breaks, subsistence allowances) are available in the private sector too, though practices vary from company to company. I think the real issues that differentiate private sector & public sector are;

- job security [One public service HR manager said to me 'unless they run up & kick the minister in the crotch, they really can't be fired']
- strong defined benefits pension [while not unique to public service, these are become rarer in the private sector]
- performance measurement


----------



## ClubMan (22 Jul 2003)

*Re: Expenses incurred*

*- performance measurement*

As far as I know most, if not all, public service departments and organisations now employ the  to assess and measure individual performance.


----------



## Curvy (22 Jul 2003)

*Re: Expenses incurred*

CM is correct. This system require employees to clearly define their role profile and duties and have these agreed to by their line manager. Deviate from these and it comes up in review. Its part of the social partnership agreement that this system is implemented and therefore the pay rises etc can be stopped in individual cases if an employee is a lazy git. And rightly so. 

As regards the pension, its a good pension with fairly big contributions from the employees, so no free lunch there either, although it has to be said that its a good deal.

I still don't buy the job security thing. I've been in the job for less than a year so I'm still thinking like a private sector employee. Its more secure but nothing in life is completely secure and its a foolish person who believes that they can bank on a job for life. Like any other job, if you screw up you get to know about it, so screw up continuously and you'll soon be seeking other employment. 

So back to the debate, are benchmarking payments justified? Some of them are pretty big but I haven't crunched the numbers re Private Vs Public pay rates. I'm sure some of the payments may actually show parity, particularly in the lower paid positions (and some of them are quite low) and I'm sure some of them are out by a mile. I'm sure benchmarking will be used to explain away all the country's woes at some stage, along with the SSIAs, but there a huge factors besides these that are keeping the 80/20 rule enforced.


----------



## Tommy (23 Jul 2003)

*Re: Expenses incurred*



> ...its a foolish person who believes that they can bank on a job for life




Well if that's the case, there are a lot of 'foolish people' in State companies, at least judging by the fact that compensation for loss of 'jobs for life' (or whatever name they put on it) has been demanded by public sector unions on behalf of their members whenever redundancies (and/or even privatisation plans) have been mooted or implemented in Bord na Mona, TEAM Aer Lingus and most recently Aer Rianta.




> So back to the debate, are benchmarking payments justified? Some of them are pretty big but I haven't crunched the numbers re Private Vs Public pay rates.



Problem is, neither have the Benchmarking Body, or if they have, they have refuse to disclose the grounds on which they calculated the various awards - which leaves us all pretty much in the dark as to how justified or otherwise the awards were.


----------



## RippedOft (23 Jul 2003)

*our money*

Seeing as its ALL our money, should it not be transparent and published ? Also, how do we know the sector performed any better than last year - there are plenty of indexes (benchmarks) of the private sector ?


----------



## rainyday (23 Jul 2003)

*Re: Expenses incurred*

Hi Curvy - I think they key issue is whether 'merit' pay awards and/or bonuses are truly based on improved performance or 'above & beyond' performance. Anecdotal evidence would tell me that this is not the case. Do you have any interesting stories 'from the inside' or is there any empirical evidence on this point.

Similarly, how many people are fired from the public service each year? I'd love to be able to compare this to the private sector. Again, anecdotal evidence tells me that it is an extremely rare event for someone to be fired in the public service.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Jul 2003)

*Re: Expenses incurred*

*I think they key issue is whether 'merit' pay awards and/or bonuses are truly based on improved performance or 'above & beyond' performance. Anecdotal evidence would tell me that this is not the case. Do you have any interesting stories 'from the inside' or is there any empirical evidence on this point*

That query could equally be turned around and directed at private sector appraisal schemes. In my c. 15 years working as a software engineer in a variety of different companies my experience has been that appraisal procedures (where they are actually put in place and executed) are generally a pointless exercise with no real bearing on people's work, behaviour, salary reviews etc.


----------



## Repo (23 Jul 2003)

*performance*

I have worked in 4 different multinationals and my salary was directly related to my performance review, not only that - peers also reviewed my work and had some input to my performance report. I always has goals going forward and milestones to meet. There were set and reviewed, and rated  below,meeting or exeeding expectation. So, my experience of the private sector has been you earn your money - its the real world and that's the way it should be. If you lag behind, fail to deal with an issue, lack initaitive or dissappoint a customer - then you are 'out'. Are public sector customers happy with the product and value for money..  ? personally I would out source the whole thing !


----------



## dr dr (23 Jul 2003)

*benchmarking*

Repo

How would you performance rate a nurse working in a public hospital? What criteria would you like to see applied.


----------



## Repo (23 Jul 2003)

*..*

I'm not a doctor etc., but it would be in the best interest of the nurse is they could gauge their performance, even for the sake of improving in your profession, in the health system I believe it is the management/existing structures of spending that has performace and value for money issues..


----------



## rainyday (23 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

Hi Dr Dr - How does the nurse manager know whether the nurse has done a good job today or a bad job today?


----------



## Tommy (23 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

I'm not an expert on quality assurance processes and procedures but there are ways in which performance can be measured and assessed quite fairly and efficiently in what are termed the "caring professions" and indeed all employments

For example, for nurses...
- reviews of standards of record-keeping e.g. documentation maintained on each hospital patient, medicines given out, notes provided for doctor's or consultant's attention etc
- reviews of incident reports that are compiled each time a serious incident occurs
- establishing and reviewing standards of technical training, inservice and professional development courses undertaken to update the nurse's professional skills etc 

For teachers...
- reviews of teachers journal records outlining the course content covered on each day/week/term with each class
- review of records of complaints/incidents kept by the teacher on an ongoing basis
- training and courses etc as above.

The theory of quality assurance is that if a system is set up to monitor and record all relevant events and actions by the professional (which is needed anyway these days to protect against any potential litigation) it should in itself guarantee that a certain minimum level standard of professionalism is being followed at all times. Failures or deviations from the standard will generally reflect weakenesses or actual under-performance.


----------



## rainyday (23 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

Here's another crazy idea - Why not rate teachers/nurses/doctors/gardai based on feedback from their students/patients/patients/crime victims respectively?


----------



## Tommy (23 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

Feedback from "customers" (defined in the widest possible way) is an integral part of most if not all performance measurement systems.


----------



## this is fun (23 Jul 2003)

*.....*

Don't forgot to include, the Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Ministers, TDs senators, DPP, judges, social workers, librarians, dentists, physiotherapists, pharmacists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, consultants, pathologists etc...........


----------



## Privatesectorworker (24 Jul 2003)

*Feedback mechanisms*



> Don't forgot to include, the Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Ministers, TDs senators . .



Don't we feedback on these guys at least once every five years, through an election ?

The public sector unions will fight any element of change, such as performance measurement, tooth and nail, just look at SIPTU's reaction to changes in Aer Rianta or CIE.

There is little point talking about getting value from the civil service, when the Government will just capitulate to the union lobby.


----------



## Couldntgetausername (5 Aug 2003)

*Little Point*

It's not just the government that capitulated. Weren't IBEC involved as well? They're now crying for someone to close the doors but the BMarking horse is well an truly gone.

C.


----------



## PP (5 Aug 2003)

*Stressed out*

As a friend of mine put it "We're paying top dollar for a bunch of people to sit around drinking tea, doing their aerobics or on career breaks...", How often have you seen a stressed out person at you local county council..?


----------



## Murt10 (6 Aug 2003)

*Stressed out*

"We're paying top dollar for a bunch of people ......on career breaks..."

By definition your not paying anything at all to someone on a career break


----------



## PP (6 Aug 2003)

*..*

You are paying for a temp to take over their role, training them in and the cost of recruiting them ... its does not happen for free - our tax pays for it.


----------



## tedd (6 Aug 2003)

*Re: ..*

Comparison of the levels of service provided by public vs private sector workers is an interesting one. 

I have been less than impressed recently by the standard of customer service in a number of  private sector areas. I'm referring specifically to restaurants, shops & phone "help" lines for my credit card. I would say good things about the phone service from both Vodafone and AIB recently. 

Despite criticisms of the public sector, the most pleasant business phone interaction I have had recently was with a member of Dublin Corporation when I phoned to pay my bin charges. He was pleasant, helpful, efficient and gave "added value" by checking the system to make sure I would get my tax relief on the payment. 

Even when consumers are willing to talk with their feet by leaving poor private service providers, there doesn't appear to be an appreciable improvement in services. I don't understand why that is.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (7 Aug 2003)

*.*



> Even when consumers are willing to talk with their feet by leaving poor private service providers, there doesn't appear to be an appreciable improvement in services. I don't understand why that is.



I suspect it's the sheep like qualities of the average Joe. You might be willing to find an alternative, but a lot of people would find it difficult to complain and take action.

I seem to spend my life in some disagreement or other with these large companies...

*Eircon Phonewatch:* Have found an alternative after being messed around for three years. Still waiting for a form to be sent out so that I can claim a refund. (they should have sent it out over a month ago - sick of ringing them, calls never returned).

*AIB/Bank of Ireland*They seem set on outdoing each other in red tape, general bad service and bureaucracy. I've long since parted company with these banks, but unfortunately still have to lodge the odd cheque to the BoI. Every time I go into the branch they have new rules... (cheques must be lodged every second Wednesday at the third counter, but should be verified first by the fifth counter...)

*Esat BT* Insist on charging me double for their broadband service. I've given up with them. (and obviously not paid them anything) My brother is still in dispute with them over another issue. It's gone on for over two years...

*Apple* I've found that it's near impossible to actually buy an Apple Mac. I tried buying a reconditioned one (see different thread) but failed miserably. I then tried an Irish dealer. A week later they informed me that Apple had put the machines into remission (or something). I then tried ordering again from Apple. I sent them a cheque nearly three weeks ago. They still haven't started processing my order.

I'm sure that there are others. (My mind tries to block them out!) 

I can't imagine the problem is with me. I also do dealings with other (small) companies, and have had great service. Maybe it's as soon as a company installs those phone call queuing systems that they get rid of customer service.


----------



## Privatesectorworker (7 Aug 2003)

*Back to Benchmarking basics*

The big difference between the quality of service between the public sector and private sector is though, that employees in the private sector firms you name aren't automatically getting a huge pay rise because they turn up for work each day, flexis and sick days permitting.

There is no incentive at all for the civil service to become more focussed on its customers. One poster mentioned excellent service from a council in Dublin: this is precisely the sort of thing that should be rewarded, but that particular clerk's manager is precluded from offering him / her a special reward because of strictures imposed under benchmarking and other such arranagements.

Time to stop the folly of benchmarking now ! Will none of our politicos listen to this cry from the rest of us taxpayers who have to pay for all this ???


----------



## Farce (11 Aug 2003)

*Farce !*

via indo.

Teachers won't quit overstaffed schools 


ONE-in-four post-primary schools re-opening next month will be officially over-staffed, new figures reveal. 

Schools will have around 250 "surplus" teachers working at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of more than €10m-a-year. 

The teachers are over and above the official quota, based on the number of pupils allowed for the schools by the Department of Education and Science. 

Many schools now have declining enrolments. But attempts to move the surplus teachers to other schools under a Redeployment Scheme are proving unsuccessful. 

Once teachers are officially staffed, they cannot be made redundant even when pupil numbers are dropping. 

The Irish Independent has learned that only one teacher is being compulsorily reassigned to another school this year while four others have volunteered to move elsewhere. 

The Department's figures show that 120 secondary schools, including two fee-paying and eight community/comprehensive schools, are overstaffed. 

Ten schools will have at least five teachers too many, details released under the Freedom of Information Act show. 

The over-quota fee-paying schools are Notre Dame des Massions in Dublin, which had been threatened with closure, and Pembroke school. 




The Department said the surplus amounted to 6.75pc of the total number of teachers allocated to the 120 schools in question. But its figure was disputed by school managers who claimed it was only 1.6pc. 

The two sides also differed over why so few teachers are being redeployed. The managers said it was not always possible to match teachers who are over quota with the required vacancy in another school. 

But the Department said the real reason was due to the last-in first-out clause in the redeployment agreement between the secondary school managers and the ASTI. 

The fact that the most junior teacher is considered for redeployment contributed to the difficulty of matching over-quota teachers with subject needs in other schools, the Department said. 

The Irish Independent understands that Education Minister Noel Dempsey is anxious to get a more efficient redeployment system throughout the entire post-primary sector - community/comprehensive, vocational and voluntary schools. 

The principal of one Dublin community school admitted on radio recently he has teachers he does not need but they cannot be moved elsewhere. 

This is because at present there is no redeployment scheme for the community/comprehensive school sector. 

There is a scheme for vocational teachers but they can be redeployed only within their VEC area and not to other types of schools. 

The scheme that exists for voluntary schools works on the basis of last in-first out. 

Teachers can only be forced to redeploy within a 30-mile radius. 

However, schools argue successfully that they need their most junior teachers for particular subjects and they avoid redeployment. 

ASTI deputy general secretary John White said the real issue was not the pupil-teacher ratio but class sizes. International comparisons had shown that Ireland had larger classes than most other developed countries in the OECD. Far from schools losing teachers they should be get getting more, he said. 

A report commissioned by the Department - the McGuinness report - had recommended that an additional 1,200 teachers be appointed to our schools. Instead of implementing this report, the Department was cutting back wherever it could and schools were losing 300 so-called 'concessionary' posts this year. He said these posts are necessary to meet shortages of teachers in specialist subjects. 

School managers said the redeployment scheme had only a limited impact on the situation as it was not always possible to match teachers who were over quota in one school with the required vacancy in another school. 

George O'Callaghan, secretary of the school management body JMB said schools would still remain short of teachers to provide specialist subjects in the curriculum. 

He said this shortage would lead to a curtailment in the service provided to pupils and parents. 

Mr O'Callaghan claimed figures for over-quota teachers were inflated because they included essential personnel such as Deputy Principals, Career Guidance Counsellors and Remedial teachers in certain schools.


----------



## shnaek (14 Aug 2003)

*Naas hospital*

What about the casualty unit in Naas hospital which won't open unless they get 1.something million euro from the government (ie. us). That seems like an awful lot of money to me for getting up and walking a few yards into a new building. What exactly is the problem here? Is it public service attitude again?


----------



## tedd (14 Aug 2003)

*Re: Naas hospital*

Frequently money is made available for capital developments, without money being made available for running costs of the new development. I wonder if this is the story here?


----------

