# The public sector, why is it so bad!?!?!



## phil1147 (13 Feb 2008)

Why is it so difficult to deal with the public sector. I have been trying to get in touch with the VRO office in Tallaght and they never, ever, ever answer their phone. Its an absolute disgrace at this day and age for the public sector to treat there people with such disregard. 

I also emailed them last week, twice, with not so much as a reply. So, you cant phone or email them. You have to waste petrol and time, actually take a day off work just to ask them something. Its just not fair on anyone.

Now im thinking of writing them a big letter of complaint, but i know as well as everyone else that this letter will go straight into the bin, or at most, likely to be a feable response.

Public Sector is a disgrace. Why is this so, why is there such a laid back attitude working for the government and why isnt there management with the skills to shape up the workforce in an office and reduce all this relaxed attitude so stuff gets done, like answering the phones and replying to emails etc.


----------



## Welfarite (13 Feb 2008)

phil1147 said:


> Public Sector is a disgrace and most people working within it.


 
There are a lot of posters here, including myself, who will take great umbrage at such a sweeping statement


----------



## phil1147 (13 Feb 2008)

Right ok, maybe that was harsh but im just after getting off the phone trying to phone them again for nearly 10 mins then to be cut off... why should people living in a civilised country have to put up with this B.S. Its not fair not to mention our taxes are paying for a service.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Feb 2008)

Moved to _Letting Off Steam_. Read the posting guidelines before posting such rants in the regular forums again.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Feb 2008)

Welfarite said:


> There are a lot of posters here, including myself, who will take great umbrage at such a sweeping statement


I agree.


----------



## Green (13 Feb 2008)

Revenue is one of the better public sector organisations that we have. Its cost of adminstration versus its tax take is world class. There website has details of how you can make a complaint, if you feel annoyed with service or lack of it.

http://www.revenue.ie


----------



## MOB (13 Feb 2008)

"Its cost of adminstration versus its tax take is world class."

I would be interested in reading the stats on this.  Is there some readily accessible source?


----------



## ClubMan (13 Feb 2008)

[broken link removed] perhaps? (Don't think the 2007 report is out yet).



> Table 28: Cost of Administration as a Percentage of Gross Receipts
> 2006
> 0.77%
> 
> ...


----------



## MOB (13 Feb 2008)

Thanks for that.   

I was wondering, though, if there were any comparative data sets for various tax jurisdictions that one could conveniently read.  

I don't know if an average collection cost of 0.77% is good or not -tbh it just seems ok, but without comparables it is impossible to know. 

If you are comparing data produced by various tax authorities in different jurisdictions, you cannot be sure they have all compared like with like.  When YOBR mentioned that the figure was world class, I was rather hoping that there might be a relatively objective study somewhere out there which had endeavoured to make the comparisons.


----------



## ashambles (13 Feb 2008)

> Table 28: Cost of Administration as a Percentage of Gross Receipts
> 2006
> 0.77%
> 
> ...


That's a bit like the accounts section of a company clapping itself on the back for record receipts from sales of the company's new product.

These ratios are deceptive considering the increase in tax revenues during the periods involved. The '08 figure will be interesting considering the chances of a drop in revenue. 

At a quick calculation from '05 to '06 receipts increased by 15% but ratio of admin only dropped by about 5%, so they bumped up their costs by around 10% from about 320m to 350m.


----------



## redbhoy (13 Feb 2008)

I work in the public sector but wouldnt deal with the public too often. I agree with original poster though. Most public sector workers ive come across couldnt give a rats about the public and it is quite difficult to get a hold of some of them when you try ringing.


----------



## Welfarite (14 Feb 2008)

Part of the problem, in my experience, is the phone systems in place. Many departments/offices do not have an answering service in place or a system that tells you that staff are busy. Staff dealing with the visiting public are expected to field phone calls as well in all social welfare offices, for instance. These offices open to the public from 9.30 to 4.00 and most have constant traffic. Therefore phones ring and ring and staff cannot answer them. 

Furthermore, I know of one very busy office where the phone gives a ringing tone even when the extension is engaged, creating the false impression that the phone is ringing out ... and the impression that staff are sitting on their backsides doing nothing!! Complaining through the proper channels (every department has a complaints procedure) is the only way.


----------



## boris (14 Feb 2008)

That is quite true.  My wife works in Administration in the HSE and when I ring her direct line it rings out even though she is on the phone at the time.  Gives a bad impression.

I also know people in Customs that work in the VRO and they are flat out at this time of the year.  However their email system is not the best which is not good public service.  But being so busy at this time of the year might explain it.

Really think that the Revenue should allocate extra resources at this time of the year.


----------



## csirl (14 Feb 2008)

> Part of the problem, in my experience, is the phone systems in place. Many departments/offices do not have an answering service in place or a system that tells you that staff are busy.


 
Agree with this. May times when trying to ring some offices, you are ringing an individuals direct number. If that individual is busy or out of the office, the call does not pass onto another person.


----------



## rabbit (14 Feb 2008)

csirl said:


> Agree with this. May times when trying to ring some offices, you are ringing an individuals direct number. .


 
Not all the time.  Often when the phone rings out , the public sector staff are on coffee breaks or are too busy chatting about social events, than bothering to answer the phone.  I have seen it happen often enough.  Why should they bother - they get paid anyway.


----------



## csirl (14 Feb 2008)

> Not all the time. Often when the phone rings out , the public sector staff are on coffee breaks or are too busy chatting about social events, than bothering to answer the phone. I have seen it happen often enough. Why should they bother - they get paid anyway.


 
Could be true. But you still sometimes ring numbers to get a voice mail to the effect that the person is out of the office and wont be back until whenever - sometimes weeks if on summer hols.


----------



## demoivre (14 Feb 2008)

In *my *experience over the years the worst people, on balance, to try and contact by phone/return your call, are tradesmen (private sector), and by a comfortable margin at that.


----------



## rabbit (14 Feb 2008)

demoivre said:


> In *my *experience over the years the worst people, on balance, to try and contact by phone/return your call, are tradesmen (private sector), and by a comfortable margin at that.


 
Ye must be joking.   They would not last long in business if that was the case.   Maybe they could tell something from your message / tone of voice that you left ?    I have employed lots of tradesmen over the years and have always found them easy to contact, even though they often were working very hard.   They knew their living was depending on their work + reputation, and they had no sick pay, holiday pay or pension to fall back on either.


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2008)

rabbit said:


> Ye must be joking.   They would not last long in business if that was the case.   Maybe they could tell something from your message / tone of voice that you left ?    I have employed lots of tradesmen over the years and have always found them easy to contact, even though they often were working very hard.   They knew their living was depending on their work + reputation, and they had no sick pay, holiday pay or pension to fall back on either.


 Even if it was true you have the option of calling a different tradesperson. As far as I know there is only one HSE, one Dept. of education, Dept of foreign affairs etc so there's not much choice there. 
The other thing to remember is that the tradespersons are not public servants and their wages and pensions are not paid for with public money.


----------



## demoivre (15 Feb 2008)

rabbit said:


> Ye must be joking.   They would not last long in business if that was the case.   Maybe they could tell something from your message / tone of voice that you left ?    I have employed lots of tradesmen over the years and have always found them easy to contact, even though they often were working very hard.   They knew their living was depending on their work + reputation, and they had no sick pay, holiday pay or pension to fall back on either.



No I'm not joking at all - as I said it's been *my* experience. I have also found that the smaller the job the less likely they are to return your call or turn up at an agreed meeting. On the bigger jobs that they agree to undertake, they don't stay at it until complete - you end up chasing them to get the job done.


----------



## Purple (15 Feb 2008)

demoivre said:


> No I'm not joking at all - as I said it's been *my* experience. I have also found that the smaller the job the less likely they are to return your call or turn up at an agreed meeting. On the bigger jobs that they agree to undertake, they don't stay at it until complete - you end up chasing them to get the job done.


 But the people in question are not paid with public money and if they are consistently bad at their job they will go out of business. This is not the case with the public sector. No private sector business would function well where there was no real downside for working slowly, badly and/or inefficiently, and no real reward for doing the opposite. This is how the civil and public sector and so-called "commercial" semi-state sectors operate. That's why they are so bad. It's not just the fault of the people who work there or the unions or the management or the government. The fault is shared by all paties. Unfortunately the problem is bigger than any of them and without total support by all of them, and a good plan, things will not change. Because of the adversarial culture between management and unions in many of there cases, which is the fault of both parties, it is very unlikely to ever happen. 
What is required is good management and a willingness by the unions to let the managers manage without having to seek permission to do their job from the people they are supposed to be in charge of. At the moment the management skills are not there so it is understandable that the unions dig their heels in. Once that culture has been created (and by now it's not just created, it's institutionalised) it is very hard to get rid of it.


----------



## demoivre (15 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> But the people in question are not paid with public money and if they are consistently bad at their job they will go out of business. This is not the case with the public sector. No private sector business would function well where there was no real downside for working slowly, badly and/or inefficiently, and no real reward for doing the opposite. This is how the civil and public sector and so-called "commercial" semi-state sectors operate. That's why they are so bad. It's not just the fault of the people who work there or the unions or the management or the government. The fault is shared by all paties. Unfortunately the problem is bigger than any of them and without total support by all of them, and a good plan, things will not change. Because of the adversarial culture between management and unions in many of there cases, which is the fault of both parties, it is very unlikely to ever happen.
> What is required is good management and a willingness by the unions to let the managers manage without having to seek permission to do their job from the people they are supposed to be in charge of. At the moment the management skills are not there so it is understandable that the unions dig their heels in. Once that culture has been created (and by now it's not just created, it's institutionalised) it is very hard to get rid of it.



Agree with everything you say.


----------



## efm (15 Feb 2008)

I caught a snippet of "The Last Word" last night where Matt Cooper was talking to some trade unionsist (I think!) who was promoting a book about the success of the Irish economy - at one stage Matt Cooper suggested that while the economy had been successful there were a number of public services that weren't, or that could have been better, and that the public service trade unions were blocking progress (I'm paraphrasing) - quick as a flash the trade unionist retorted with "ahh now, that wasn't the unions fault, it was management's".

When you have that level of ingrained trade unionism and a management vs unions culture in an organisation there will never be adequate reform - so you have two options scrap it and start again or privatise as much as you can.


----------



## Welfarite (15 Feb 2008)

While it's all very well to say that "good management" is required in the civil service/public sector, one must remember that management have few sanctions against under-performing staff: they cannot sack them, they cannot dock wages, they cannot send them to Siberia. 

And staff have few incentives to work efficiently and harder: they don't get bonuses, they won't get promotions based on their work and they won't have wages increased for hard work.


----------



## Purple (15 Feb 2008)

Welfarite said:


> While it's all very well to say that "good management" is required in the civil service/public sector, one must remember that management have few sanctions against under-performing staff: they cannot sack them, they cannot dock wages, they cannot send them to Siberia.
> 
> And staff have few incentives to work efficiently and harder: they don't get bonuses, they won't get promotions based on their work and they won't have wages increased for hard work.


I agree. That's exactly the point I was making. Management also have no real incentive to work harder/ better and there is no real sanction if they don't.


----------



## Purple (15 Feb 2008)

My preference would be for the government to regulate rather than run public services such as transport and health. But they have shown a remarkable lack of competence whenever they have interfaced with the private sector over the last 15 years and the tax payer has had to pick up the pieces. So if the choice is to run things badly or regulate them badly I'd choose the former.
I do think that much of the problem comes from the attitude of the Irish people in general where we want a materialistic government to take care of us instead of taking care of themselves.
I heard the female member of the comedy duo on NewsTalk this morning bemoaning the fact that "They" didn't "put something in place" for "the community" when drink driving laws impacted on rural pubs. To me this typifies the cultural lack of personal responsibility we have.


----------



## Caveat (15 Feb 2008)

Welfarite said:


> And staff have few incentives to work efficiently and harder: they don't get bonuses, they won't get promotions based on their work and they won't have wages increased for hard work.


 
But a lot of people in the private sector don't get bonuses either, and nor will they necessarily have their wages increased for hard work. I frequently "work late" - just because the work needs done. I don't get any bonuses or other incentive for this.

I don't think public sector staff are excluded from promotions - if not work based, what is it based on? surely not just longevity of service?


----------



## z103 (15 Feb 2008)

Furthermore, those conditions described above ^^ will only serve to attract a certain calibre of individual (in general), exacerbating the situation.


----------



## Purple (15 Feb 2008)

Caveat said:


> But a lot of people in the private sector don't get bonuses either, and nor will they necessarily have their wages increased for hard work.  I frequently "work late" - just because the work needs done. I don't get any bonuses or other incentive for this.



Your incentive (like mine) is that you are more likely to still have a job next year if you work hard/ stay late. Job security is pretty much a given in the public sector or at least it is not tied to job performance.


----------



## Welfarite (15 Feb 2008)

Caveat said:


> But a lot of people in the private sector don't get bonuses either, and nor will they necessarily have their wages increased for hard work. I frequently "work late" - just because the work needs done. I don't get any bonuses or other incentive for this.
> 
> I don't think public sector staff are excluded from promotions - if not work based, what is it based on? surely not just longevity of service?


 

I bet you worked late to get the job done, so that your employer would get paid and you would also get paid! The point is no such primal incentive exists in the PS. ("Work late or else we might go out of business" I think not!)

And the point I ws making about promotions is that being the hardest worker does not mean you get promoted.  You still have to apply for a written terst, which, if you are successful in, lets you get to an interview, where your competencies are tested. 

And yes, some promotions are still based on longevity of service!


----------



## Caveat (15 Feb 2008)

Welfarite said:


> I bet you worked late to get the job done, so that your employer would get paid and you would also get paid! The point is no such primal incentive exists in the PS. ("Work late or else we might go out of business" I think not!)


 


> Your incentive (like mine) is that you are more likely to still have a job next year if you work hard/ stay late. Job security is pretty much a given in the public sector or at least it is not tied to job performance.


 (Purple)

Agree



> And the point I ws making about promotions is that being the hardest worker does not mean you get promoted. You still have to apply for a written terst, which, if you are successful in, lets you get to an interview, where your competencies are tested.


 
But do you not have to work hard to pass this test? and then to prepare for interview etc? I know it's not quite the same thing, but it still is an incentive/goal of sorts, based, broadly speaking on 'hard work'.



> And yes, some promotions are still based on longevity of service!


 
I'm saying nothing.


----------



## Welfarite (15 Feb 2008)

Caveat said:


> But do you not have to work hard to pass this test? and then to prepare for interview etc? I know it's not quite the same thing, but it still is an incentive/goal of sorts, based, broadly speaking on 'hard work'


 
Yes, but the person beside you who doesn't work as hard as you can do the test as well! and probably get it because they studied for it while you were working hard!


----------



## Staples (15 Feb 2008)

There are many elements of public services that are delivered well and efficiently and there are many elements that aren't.

Of those that aren't, there are elements that could be improved with the application of more effective forethought, planning and execution. There are other elements, however, that are genuinely difficult to provide properly even with the application of best management and organisational procedures.

It displays a poverty of thought, therefore, when it's suggested that a "private sector approach" would cure all public service delivery ills. The public generally only requires a public service intervention in cases where the private market doesn't offer a solution or offers a solution that isn't acceptable (e.g. expensive housing).

Added to that is the constantly-changing nature of the public's demands. Whereas these demands manifest themselves quite quickly in the private-sector because of the efficiency of the supply-demand model, public services can be difficult to withdraw once available (remember Seamus Brennan's attempts to remove certain social welfare schemes?) Trying to replace an existing service with a new one for which there is an apparent demand can be very difficult. 

In 2008, however, there is no justification for a public service organisation not being contactable by phone or e-mail and certainly i would encourage the making of complaints in these instances. But if you don't make a complaint, how can the people you're dealing with know there's a problem. What's the point in complaining on this forum where nobody has the power to address the problem you have?

The public sector is in a no-win situation. Resources are finite and yet everyone expects more services with less money. Yes, there are numerous examples of where efficiencies could be improved quite easily with sufficient will. But to suggest that the perfect delivery of public services across the board is easily achieveable is unrealistic to say the least.


----------



## RainyDay (15 Feb 2008)

efm said:


> I caught a snippet of "The Last Word" last night where Matt Cooper was talking to some trade unionsist (I think!) who was promoting a book about the success of the Irish economy - at one stage Matt Cooper suggested that while the economy had been successful there were a number of public services that weren't, or that could have been better, and that the public service trade unions were blocking progress (I'm paraphrasing) - quick as a flash the trade unionist retorted with "ahh now, that wasn't the unions fault, it was management's".
> 
> When you have that level of ingrained trade unionism and a management vs unions culture in an organisation there will never be adequate reform - so you have two options scrap it and start again or privatise as much as you can.


I heard the interview with Paul Sweeney from ICTU (who was clearly unhappy that Matt was focusing on stirring up trouble, rather than plugging the book), and I'm pretty sure that he was asked a more specific question when he gave that particular answer. I can't recall the question, and the  won't work for me.



Purple said:


> My preference would be for the government to regulate rather than run public services such as transport and health. But they have shown a remarkable lack of competence whenever they have interfaced with the private sector over the last 15 years and the tax payer has had to pick up the pieces. So if the choice is to run things badly or regulate them badly I'd choose the former.


I don't hear too many UK citizens singing the praises of their privatised/regulated hospitals/schools/transport systems.


----------



## Purple (16 Feb 2008)

RainyDay said:


> I don't hear too many UK citizens singing the praises of their privatised/regulated hospitals/schools/transport systems.


Either do I but I have heard nurses who moved back here from the NHS say thay we are 20-30 years behind them from a work practics and quality of service point of view.


----------



## z103 (16 Feb 2008)

> I don't hear too many UK citizens singing the praises of their privatised/regulated hospitals/schools/transport systems.


Are you implying that the Irish public transport system is better than the UK public transport system?


----------



## amtc (16 Feb 2008)

People here are assuming a lot. not all public sector jobs are the same.

I have a public sector job, that I was recruited specifically for (via an open ad). Five interviews later I was offered the job (3 years ago). I have quarterly reviews and performance related pay (15% bonus p.a.). I regularly work long hours and I have a very pressurised job. No-one else can do my job if I am not there. This week, for example although I have been off sick  with a very bad chest infection I have been on an average of three calls a day. I feel guilty for not being in work, and I know that next week will be a nightmare. 

My point is that not all public sector jobs are cushy numbers. BTW I get very well paid and I love my job but just wanted to make the point.


----------



## NOAH (16 Feb 2008)

amtc, your post sums up the public service exactly, any organisation that employs a person on a job no one else can do needs their heads examined, and anyone who goes off ill and works from home should be sacked.

And finally, anyone who thinks no one else can do their job should put their hand in a bucket of water .... No one is indispensable.

It's a fact that public servicie in Ireland leaves a lot to be desired and in many instances is no worse or better than other countries. The bit that sticks in the craw is when you read, no one can be sacked in the public service for poor performance and they continue to get pay increases. I am not surprised when others see such carry on and no doubt ask why should I put in extra efforrt and so on  We stiil keep reading, how rich we are, how far we have come, booming econony etc and still, we have no proper roadsigns, no numbering system in housing estates, no infrastructure, I could go on.  We are third world and until we realise that and make advances in an orderly manner and not spend all our efforts defending the indefensible we will not progress and society suffers.  

noah


----------



## amtc (16 Feb 2008)

of course no one is indispensable and when I said no-one else could do my job - of course someone could if they had sufficient experience and training but I don't know who could at the moment. (This is a senior management public sector job). The point that I was trying to make is that some of us public sector workers care about our jobs, and not to tar all of us with the same brush. as for taking calls at home whilst sick - if the ceo rings me, i'm hardly likely to hang up now am i?


----------



## Purple (16 Feb 2008)

NOAH said:


> anyone who goes off ill and works from home should be sacked.


 Why?


----------



## z103 (16 Feb 2008)

> Why?


I suppose because that if they're well enough to work, they should be in work.
Probably got a load of sick pay as well.



> (This is a senior management public sector job). The point that I was trying to make is that some of us public sector workers care about our jobs,


I don't think that's really in dispute. Who wouldn't love that job? - Are you on more than €50k?


----------



## Purple (16 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> I suppose because that if they're well enough to work, they should be in work.
> Probably got a load of sick pay as well.


I disagree. I think it is to be lauded that anyone is that committed and takes their responsibility seriously.


----------



## amtc (16 Feb 2008)

If you want to know details, yes I am. Double it. 

I also would love to be well enough to be in work, but having very little of a voice at the moment and needing to be within close proximity of a bathroom doesn't make that possible. Apologies for crudeness. However caring about my job means that I just can't let things go, my staff with no leadership and my colleagues with no support. If that was in the private sector no-one would bat an eyelid, my point being that there are people in the public sectorthat work as hard. And i'm not unusual.


----------



## Teabag (16 Feb 2008)

A friend of mine working in a well paid position in the public sector and he told me recently that he is thinking of quitting. I told him he was mad to leave the public sector in the current economic climate but he explained that he was really really bored. He said he does about 4/5 hours work in the whole week because there is so little to do. He says he gets excited when the phone rings or when he gets an email because it means he will have something to do and make the time go faster. He complained to his boss and was reassured on a few occasions that it would get busier soon but that was months ago and he feels his manager is annoyed with him for 'rocking the boat'. He has started coming in late and leaving early (I think he only has to do a 6.5 hour day anyway) and that is not like him. He said it is making him lazy in other aspects of his life. 

I think he's nuts - I'd love that job !


----------



## z103 (16 Feb 2008)

> If you want to know details, yes I am. Double it.


Any vacancies on the horizon?
I'm sick of working so hard for less than a third of what you're on (in the private sector). With little to no benefits.

Fair play to you.


----------



## amtc (16 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> Any vacancies on the horizon?
> I'm sick of working so hard for less than a third of what you're on (in the private sector). With little to no benefits.
> 
> Fair play to you.


 
Like I said earlier, my job was advertised in the Irish Times so anyone could've applied.


----------



## amtc (16 Feb 2008)

I love how this thread has gone from how I should be sacked to fair play!


----------



## z103 (16 Feb 2008)

> Any way how is it suddenly from i should be sacked to fair play to me!


Maybe you should re-read the thread. I never suggested you should be sacked. I only posted in response to purple, who queried why Noah thought you should be sacked.

Attention to detail is an important part of my job, which I'd better get back to (until I find something better)


----------



## amtc (16 Feb 2008)

And I didn't say it was you, did I? Attention to detail is an extremely important part of my job too. In fact one of the most important. My comment was simply an observation.

why not be more constructive and ask how to get a better paying job and/or one in the public sector? I actually have a job working for me at about 65k at the moment.


----------



## z103 (16 Feb 2008)

> And I ddn't say it was you, did I? Attention to detail is an extremely important part of my job too. In fact one of the most important.


You appear to have edited your post.



> As it happens, I am surfing this on my own time and my own broadband. Enjoy work!


I enjoy my job and I'm self-employed (also my own time & broadband). However, working for the public sector just seems far, far more lucrative.


----------



## amtc (16 Feb 2008)

Yeah, i did edit it. Down a bit! Didn't see the point in playing this out in the public arena.
One of my pet hates is public v private jobs as everyone thinks public jobs are not hard.
I didn't think about which I wanted, I just applied for the* job* I wanted. Which I got. Which I do very well.
I suppose I should add that I came from the private sector, and took my job for the career path rather than the cash.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Feb 2008)

phil1147 said:


> ....Public Sector is a disgrace. Why is this so, why is there such a laid back attitude working for the government and why isnt there management with the skills to shape up the workforce in an office and reduce all this relaxed attitude so stuff gets done, like answering the phones and replying to emails etc.



Such a sweeping generalisation makes little sense. You might as well say everyone in the private sector drives around in a new car, goes on 3 holidays a year and are raking in a pile of money. Actually maybe its because they are on holiday so much thats it so hard to get tradesmen. 

Theres all types of departments, and agencies, some good some bad. At the end of the day the Govt dictates to the Public sector, so you could say they lead by example. 

I've worked in both public and private, both as contractor and employee and I reckon you find all types in both sectors. I will say that the PS seems poorly managed with lots of areas understaffed (for a variety of reasons). add recruitment embargoes, and rates are better in the private sector there are areas that find it hard to attract replacement staff and are constantly backlogged as a result. On top of this the Unions can't see the wood for the tree and really impede progress in a lot of areas.


----------



## boris (18 Feb 2008)

Heard from a friend of mine over the weekend that one of the smaller Government Departments where she works has just imposed a six month ban on anyone taking holidays *even a day off*.  Tells me it's is due to staff shortages and work overload.

Say there will be a lot of short fuses in that office that the end of that embargo.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Feb 2008)

Well thats reasonable...


----------



## Guest127 (18 Feb 2008)

boris said:


> Heard from a friend of mine over the weekend that one of the smaller Government Departments where she works has just imposed a six month ban on anyone taking holidays *even a day off*. Tells me it's is due to staff shortages and work overload.
> 
> Say there will be a lot of short fuses in that office that the end of that embargo.


 
which only encourages staff to go off sick when they need the days off.


----------



## boris (18 Feb 2008)

Actually forgot to say that I was also told that the person that imposed the ban is taking two weeks off themselves.

RHIP - Rank has its priviledges

You are probably right on the sick leave aspect whether it is needed or not.


----------



## Welfarite (21 Feb 2008)

boris said:


> Heard from a friend of mine over the weekend that one of the smaller Government Departments where she works has just imposed a six month ban on anyone taking holidays *even a day off*. Tells me it's is due to staff shortages and work overload.


 
Is that legal? Sounds unworkable to me in any case. Where I work, blocks of leave must be "booked" at beginning of year and no more than 15-20% of staff can be off on blocks of leave at any given time.


----------



## CMCR (21 Feb 2008)

Welfarite said:


> Is that legal? Sounds unworkable to me in any case. Where I work, blocks of leave must be "booked" at beginning of year and no more than 15-20% of staff can be off on blocks of leave at any given time.


 
I agree - sounds unworkable to me too. While your employer determines the timing of your annual leave, they are obliged to take into consideration your work and personal requirements and should consult you or your union in advance. 

I would be surprised if any civil service union agreed to a blanket ban on annual leave for all staff for a 6 month period, especially during the summer period when children are off school or creches are closed and parents may have to take time off. I would be interested to know which Government Department this is. 

Also, Government Departments are not open on public holidays, so it is not true to say that staff are not being allowed even one day off!


----------



## ubiquitous (21 Feb 2008)

boris said:


> Heard from a friend of mine over the weekend that one of the smaller Government Departments where she works has just imposed a six month ban on anyone taking holidays *even a day off*.  Tells me it's is due to staff shortages and work overload.



I have heard of something similar being enforced on workers in a particular regional HSE/hospital administration office, a few years ago. A relative of my own worked there at the time. Basically the staff concerned were led to feel morally culpable for taking holidays, and refusing to work overtime, on the basis that patients would suffer/die if their admin work fell into arrears. 

These restrictions were lifted after a year or two, when the staff's patience wore out and they realised that they were being conned. I understood the whole episode to be a matter of a particular supervisor "bullying" extra hours out of staff rather than official HSE policy.


----------



## boris (21 Feb 2008)

Supposedly my friend was telling me in relation to the smaller Government Dept. that the Unions had got wind of this impending move, met management and agreed that this was not going to happen.

The key union official went on holidays and no sooner was their seat cold that the management went back on their word and brought it in.  They also issued all the relevant regulations to show that they could do it (or probably to confuse the issue)


----------



## cork (16 Mar 2008)

Public sector unions need to be taken on & defeated.

Crap public services in Ireland can be put down to consesus in social partnership.

I have worked in the public and private sector - in the public sector - nixers, expense claims etc are common place.

Compare the cost of transaction in such bodies with Aldi or Tesco.


----------



## Complainer (16 Mar 2008)

cork said:


> Public sector unions need to be taken on & defeated.


Yeah, let's get Thatcher over here to run the country. She did such a great job at creating a divided British society that they've been afraid to let the Tories back in for a generation after she got the boot.


cork said:


> Crap public services in Ireland can be put down to consesus in social partnership.


Wow, deep commentary. Got any basis for this conclusion? Would you care to explain how the 'crap public service' doesn't seem to have been a problem for the other social partners, including IBEC, SFA, farmers etc?


cork said:


> I have worked in the public and private sector - in the public sector - nixers, expense claims etc are common place.


I've worked in both too, and my experience is the opposite. If you do have any evidence of tax/welfare fraud through nixers or just plain old fraud through expense claims, please get this to the relevant authorities to ensure that it gets addressed.


cork said:


> Compare the cost of transaction in such bodies with Aldi or Tesco.


Why not compare apples with bicycles? You may not have noticed that the nature of the the transaction in public service environments is generally fairly different to Aldi or Tesco. Where there are high-volume customer service counter environments in the public service, the transaction is generally information based these days, as most of the money is done electronically. This comment reminds of Wilde's quote about people who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.


----------



## Purple (17 Mar 2008)

Complainer, are you happy with the level of service and value for money in the public and state sector?


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> Complainer, are you happy with the level of service and value for money in the public and state sector?



If answering that also consider are you happy  with the level of service and value for money in the private sector? When you get a plumber, buy a house, get your car fixed, buy an iPhone, go to a private dentist.


----------



## ajapale (17 Mar 2008)

.....buy an online ticket.....


----------



## Purple (17 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> If answering that also consider are you happy  with the level of service and value for money in the private sector? When you get a plumber, buy a house, get your car fixed, buy an iPhone, go to a private dentist.


All good points but you also have to take into account that in the private sector I have choice. This is not usually the case in the public sector.


----------



## Complainer (17 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> All good points but you also have to take into account that in the private sector I have choice. This is not usually the case in the public sector.


You've no choice about where you get your iPhone, as it happens 

In answer your 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' question, there is no straight answer. I'm not one for the divisive 'us and them' / 'public vs private' game. There is little to be gained (beyond partisan finger pointing) by creating such false divisions.

On the substantive issue of customer service, I find a huge disparity in the quality of customer services. I've seen some examples of super customer customer service in both the public and private sectors. In the public sector, Revenue Commissioners stand out from my experience (and indeed have been mentioned favorably here on AAM for swift processing of MED1 refunds). They have a strong customer service ethic, and they manage the customer experience in their large Dublin offices efficiently.  In the private sector, my experience with my own bank (NIB) has improved substantially since they assigned a personal banking manager. Having this named individual available at the end of an email address has ensured that issues get resolved promptly. 

I'm sure that neither of these organisations are perfect, and other posters may well have negative experiences with these organisations, but that's the nature of the beast. On the negative side, I have come to despair of my own local authority, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown. They have repeatedly shown incompetence, ignorance, obnoxiousness and many other nasty traits. On the private sector side, I've had my battles with M&S, NTR/Eazy Pass, American Express/BOI, Microsoft, Mercer et al, as detailed on my [broken link removed]. 

I find that many organisations pay lip service to customer services. In the public sector, the Dept of an Taoiseach operate the  initiative, but this doesn't have a huge impact on the ground. They might run a conference every year or two, or publish some , but it isn't getting the kind of ongoing, regular attention and commitment. I understand that it is hard to focus on customer service with all the other pressures of increasing demand, increasing complexity, recruitment embargoes etc, but it really does deserve better.

Similarly in the private sector, it is often an afterthought. Product and service offerings are handed over to the customer service team, but the CS team are rarely involved in designing the products or services. Many major customer service snafus could be avoided if the goys from Morketing went slumming in the CS dept before the product or service was released, instead of beating them up afterwards.


----------



## rabbit (18 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> I've seen some examples of super customer customer service in both the public and private sectors.


 
Big deal.    Because so many people work in both sectors of course everyone has.   The original question remains - "The public sector, why is it so bad!?!?!"     Probably something to do with lack of accountability, lack of incentive, and the fact so few if any people have ever lost their job in the public sector over anything, no matter how pathetic the boo-boos.   The "I'm all right Joe " attitude from well paid public servants, who have guaranteed safe jobs, with holidays, sick pay, pensions etc- and a salary higher than the ordinary taxpayer who supports them - just adds insult in injury.


----------



## Complainer (18 Mar 2008)

rabbit said:


> The original question remains - "The public sector, why is it so bad!?!?!"


Sorry you missed the point in my detailed answer. I'll try it another way. 

The question is misleading. The public sector isn't 'so bad'. Some parts are good, and some parts are bad, just like the private sector. 

But seeing as your posts seem more focused on political point scoring than actually understanding cause and effect, I'll drop out here and leave you to rant away on your own time.


----------



## Purple (18 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> Sorry you missed the point in my detailed answer. I'll try it another way.
> 
> The question is misleading. The public sector isn't 'so bad'. Some parts are good, and some parts are bad, just like the private sector.
> 
> But seeing as your posts seem more focused on political point scoring than actually understanding cause and effect, I'll drop out here and leave you to rant away on your own time.


Are you suggesting that on a macro level the public/state sector is as efficient as the private sector?
Since the private sector is more exposed to market forces I would think that this is not the case but I am interested in your opinion on the matter.


----------



## Staples (18 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that on a macro level the public/state sector is as efficient as the private sector?
> Since the private sector is more exposed to market forces I would think that this is not the case but I am interested in your opinion on the matter.


 
Are you reasonably suggesting that the public sector CAN be as efficient as the market sector?  A market-based approach to the delivery of public services wouldn't provide for a very just society, however "efficient" this might be.

As a precursor to any further debate, it might be worth bearing this in mind.

I made a couple of other points in a post about a month ago which might be worth repeating now.

_There are many elements of public services that are delivered well and efficiently and there are many elements that aren't.

Of those that aren't, there are elements that could be improved with the application of more effective forethought, planning and execution. There are other elements, however, that are genuinely difficult to provide properly even with the application of best management and organisational procedures.

It displays a poverty of thought, therefore, when it's suggested that a "private sector approach" would cure all public service delivery ills. The public generally only requires a public service intervention in cases where the private market doesn't offer a solution or offers a solution that isn't acceptable (e.g. expensive housing).

Added to that is the constantly-changing nature of the public's demands. Whereas these demands manifest themselves quite quickly in the private-sector because of the efficiency of the supply-demand model, public services can be difficult to withdraw once available (remember Seamus Brennan's attempts to remove certain social welfare schemes?) Trying to replace an existing service with a new one for which there is an apparent demand can be very difficult. 

In 2008, however, there is no justification for a public service organisation not being contactable by phone or e-mail and certainly i would encourage the making of complaints in these instances. But if you don't make a complaint, how can the people you're dealing with know there's a problem. What's the point in complaining on this forum where nobody has the power to address the problem you have?

The public sector is in a no-win situation. Resources are finite and yet everyone expects more services with less money. Yes, there are numerous examples of where efficiencies could be improved quite easily with sufficient will. But to suggest that the perfect delivery of public services across the board is easily achieveable is unrealistic to say the least._


----------



## werner (18 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> Agree with this. May times when trying to ring some offices, you are ringing an individuals direct number. If that individual is busy or out of the office, the call does not pass onto another person.


 
Some of my friends work in a Social welfare office, in fact most of their phones operate on a "hunting line" that is if you directly dial an individual and if their phone is engaged it automatically rolls onto the next available phone, unfortunatley many phones are unmanned when the civil servant is directly dealing (e.g. at the counter) with a member of the public. I believe they found they were in a double bind when they used voice mail as (they claim) not have enough staff to simultaneously deal with 

1. Phone Callers
2. Callers at the counter
3. Query letters
4. Responding to voice mail ( item 4 was dropped to deal with 1,2,3)

I don't condone agree or disagree with the above just some info for you to digest.


----------



## csirl (18 Mar 2008)

I've worked in both the public and private sectors over the years and have a few observations.

There seems to be a direct relationship between underperformance in the public sector and politically appointed management/staff.

I am generalising here, but those public sector organisations who's management and in some cases employees are appointed by councillors, politicians etc. tend to be a lot worse performing than the non-policitically appointed positions where the employees are forbidden from being members of policital parties.

Here's a list of some of the worst performers:

HSE - political.
Local Authorities - political
Dublin Transport - political

Whereas better performers e.g. Revenue, are non-political.

The reason for this is that the poor political public service bodies are run by friends of senior politicians and staffed as favours by supporters of political parties who got the job because of who they know rather than their ability. In the end of the day, if the best person doesnt get the job, then the job isnt going to be done as well. Sometimes there isnt even a genuine job available for a relative of a supporter - they are created. These organisations are little more than slush funds to enable policital parties to give out smarties to their supporters. 

A big failing of all sectors of the public service is the randomness at which people get appointed to positions. Generally whoever is next on the recruitment/promotion list gets whatever position at that level is available. Not much thought is given to the education, experience and skills of the individuals. An individuals have virtually no say in the matter. You get a lot of bad fits - which are not a reflection on the individuals who would possibly trive in a different position.


----------



## Purple (18 Mar 2008)

Good post and good points csirl


----------



## Complainer (18 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that on a macro level the public/state sector is as efficient as the private sector?
> Since the private sector is more exposed to market forces I would think that this is not the case but I am interested in your opinion on the matter.



Again, I think this is the wrong question. Efficiency on its own is not a good measure. I'd hazard a guess that the 3rd Reich was very efficient (see Godwins Law).

It might be worth checking out the survey results from 2003 about public attitudes to the public sector. I could have sworn that there was a more recent survey, but I can't find it now. Anyway, check out the results summarised on p 4 & 5 of  and detailed in .


> A survey late last year found that 79% of the general public are satisfied or very satisfied with the service they receive from civil servants.





csirl said:


> I am generalising here, but those public sector organisations who's management and in some cases employees are appointed by councillors, politicians etc. tend to be a lot worse performing than the non-policitically appointed positions where the employees are forbidden from being members of policital parties.
> 
> Here's a list of some of the worst performers:
> 
> ...


Isn't it a long, ong time since there were political appointees in anything but board level in any of these organisations?


----------



## Purple (18 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> Again, I think this is the wrong question. Efficiency on its own is not a good measure. I'd hazard a guess that the 3rd Reich was very efficient (see Godwins Law).


Actually the 3rd Reich was not on a full war footing 'till late in the war, unlike the UK for example. But anyway, I do not think that the public sector should be run like the private sector in as much as it should not be expected to make a profit but it should be run in a way that maximises the returns from tax payers’ money. It should also put the customer (the general public) first and not the people who work there. There are basic rules that should apply to the public and private sector.


----------



## diarmuidc (18 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> If answering that also consider are you happy  with the level of service and value for money in the private sector? When you get a plumber, buy a house, get your car fixed, buy an iPhone, go to a private dentist.


Well then I will take my custom elsewhere if I feel I don't get good value in the private sector. Can I stop paying my taxes if I feel the public sector is wasting my money?


----------



## Complainer (18 Mar 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> Well then I will take my custom elsewhere if I feel I don't get good value in the private sector. Can I stop paying my taxes if I feel the public sector is wasting my money?


You can certainly vote for change every five years or so, which is probably similar in effectiveness to 1 AIB account holder switching their account.


----------



## Purple (19 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> You can certainly vote for change every five years or so, which is probably similar in effectiveness to 1 AIB account holder switching their account.


 The bottom line is that for the customer is that they have greater control over the services they consume from the private sector but that choice is very limited (if at all) for services consumed from the public sector. By the way I am not suggesting that everything be privatised I am just pointing out that the point made by diarmuidc is valid. The bottom line is that while some private sector businesses may be as bad or worse than anything in the public sector these businesses are not funded by tax payers money and are not the sole provider of public services to those tax payers. Therefore comparisons are not relevant.

I am open to being persuaded otherwise but in my opinion the lack of management accountability and in turn their lack of real sanction over their subordinates in a major factor in why the public sector under performs. Political interference, lack of incentives and de-motivational work practices also factor. I do not subscribe to the "public/ civil servants are lazy" view; people are people no matter where they work. I blame weak government, weak management and unions that have too much power (unions having too little power is also a bad thing). I do think that the culture of underperformance is changing and management structures are improving but there is still a long way to go. My opinions are formed based on friends who work in the public sector and others who deal with them regularly, as well as my dealings with state agencies and general media reporting so I accept that they are anecdotal.


----------



## diarmuidc (19 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> You can certainly vote for change every five years or so, which is probably similar in effectiveness to 1 AIB account holder switching their account.


"similar in effectiveness" Are you joking? I don't believe I have to actually spell this out

Secnario1. I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I am not unhappy with new bank => problem solved

Scenario2. I am unhappy with my public service => I vote for FG/whoever => FF are reelected (Bertie is a nice guy or some other reason), nothing changes => I am still unhappy with my public service => problem remains


----------



## csirl (19 Mar 2008)

> Isn't it a long, ong time since there were political appointees in anything but board level in any of these organisations?


 
All the current heads were politically appointed.

DTO people are appointed directly by the Minister for Transport.
Brendan Drumm was politically appointed to HSE - he's not a former civil servant.
Local Authorities are run by councillors.


----------



## csirl (19 Mar 2008)

One thing people calling for privatisation should bear in mind is the form of privatisation. You need to have competition. You need to have competitive tendering & you need to be able to dismiss for poor performance. There is nothing worse than a private sector monopoly performing a public service with zero possibility of losing its contract.

We see this in the health sector. A&E in this country is operated by private sector organisations who, through clever politics, have managed to get themselves permanent public service contracts. Remember that the vast majority of hospitals in Ireland delivering public services are privately owned (usually by religious groups). Their employees are not public servants. They are private sector employees delivering a public service.


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> All good points but you also have to take into account that in the private sector I have choice. This is not usually the case in the public sector.



I have very little choice about where I can get quality broadband and a reasonable price. I'm still looking for a decent mechanic or garage.



Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that on a macro level the public/state sector is as efficient as the private sector?
> Since the private sector is more exposed to market forces I would think that this is not the case but I am interested in your opinion on the matter.



You could argue that market forces where demand exceeds supply, or there is a monopoly that you don't get good value. Especially in Ireland where so many services and products are artificially poorer value compared to other markets.


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Mar 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> "similar in effectiveness" Are you joking? I don't believe I have to actually spell this out
> 
> Secnario1. I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I am not unhappy with new bank => problem solved
> 
> Scenario2. I am unhappy with my public service => I vote for FG/whoever => FF are reelected (Bertie is a nice guy or some other reason), nothing changes => I am still unhappy with my public service => problem remains





Purple said:


> ....
> 
> I am open to being persuaded otherwise but in my opinion the lack of management accountability and in turn their lack of real sanction over their subordinates in a major factor in why the public sector under performs. Political interference, lack of incentives and de-motivational work practices also factor. I do not subscribe to the "public/ civil servants are lazy" view; people are people no matter where they work. I blame weak government, weak management and unions that have too much power (unions having too little power is also a bad thing). I do think that the culture of underperformance is changing and management structures are improving but there is still a long way to go. ...



IMO what you are saying here is that the public sector is driven by Govt policy and in turn by political will. The problem comes from the top down. The problems of no culpability and no desire to effect change is really coming from the top down. 

I think it would be more useful to look at why some Public services are better than others, rather then unrelated comparisons between public/private sectors.


----------



## Complainer (19 Mar 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> "similar in effectiveness" Are you joking? I don't believe I have to actually spell this out
> 
> Secnario1. I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I am not unhappy with new bank => problem solved
> 
> Scenario2. I am unhappy with my public service => I vote for FG/whoever => FF are reelected (Bertie is a nice guy or some other reason), nothing changes => I am still unhappy with my public service => problem remains


Scenario 3 - I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I find my new bank is pretty much the same as my old bank => problem remains.

Many consumers of private sector services find themselves in Scenario 3 on a regular basis.



Purple said:


> I do not subscribe to the "public/ civil servants are lazy" view; people are people no matter where they work. I blame weak government, weak management and unions that have too much power (unions having too little power is also a bad thing).



There seams to be a bit of a paradox here. You say that 'people are people no matter where they work' and yet you attribute a broad set of personal weaknesses (weak management, unions exercising too much power) to one group of people for no apparent reason other than some anecdotal experiences.



csirl said:


> All the current heads were politically appointed.
> 
> DTO people are appointed directly by the Minister for Transport.
> Brendan Drumm was politically appointed to HSE - he's not a former civil servant.
> Local Authorities are run by councillors.


DTO Board Members may well be appointed directly by the Minister, but the executives responsible for the day-to-day operation are not political appointees. Similarly in the HSE, while Drumm was appointed by the Minister, I'm pretty sure that every one of the other 100,000+ employees are not political appointees. In the case of local authorities, most councillors will tell you that the county manager and the Directors actually run the authority, not the councillors. The last FF/PD government further emasculated the councillors by putting the controversial power to set waste charges in the hands of the County Manager, not the councillors.


----------



## csirl (20 Mar 2008)

> DTO Board Members may well be appointed directly by the Minister, but the executives responsible for the day-to-day operation are not political appointees. Similarly in the HSE, while Drumm was appointed by the Minister, I'm pretty sure that every one of the other 100,000+ employees are not political appointees. In the case of local authorities, most councillors will tell you that the county manager and the Directors actually run the authority, not the councillors. The last FF/PD government further emasculated the councillors by putting the controversial power to set waste charges in the hands of the County Manager, not the councillors.


 
Hiring in these organisations is generally done directly rather that via the Civil Service Commission and using less strict recruitment methods than the Commission. The result is that a lot of the management and staff are politically connected to the local branch of whatever party was in power when they were hired. People working in these organisations are not barred from political activity, whereas civil servants are. The result is a lot are party members. The clincher for me is that when the HSE was set up, civil servants who's functions were given to the HSE were BANNED from moving with the jobs and civil servants were banned from applying for many of the  jobs that were advertised. Why did the HSE do this? Why did they ban non-politicial civil servants from working for them?


----------



## diarmuidc (20 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> Scenario 3 - I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I find my new bank is pretty much the same as my old bank => problem remains.


You should have done your homework on bank 2 before you gave them your business. However don't despair. Rinse and repeat for bank 3. (except do your homework correctly this time. It's not hard with access to the internet these days)

At this stage in the with the voting you would probably be 20 years older and still paying for an inefficient public service


----------



## Purple (20 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> I think it would be more useful to look at why some Public services are better than others, rather then unrelated comparisons between public/private sectors.


Good point.


----------



## Purple (20 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> There seams to be a bit of a paradox here. You say that 'people are people no matter where they work' and yet you attribute a broad set of personal weaknesses (weak management, unions exercising too much power) to one group of people for no apparent reason other than some anecdotal experiences.


 
Organisations have a culture and that culture, to a great extent, dictates how the people within that organisation work. Weak management allows an inefficient culture to exist by not penalising bad work and not rewarding good work and unions stop that weak management from changing to a customer focused culture. 
Perhaps the public sector bodies that do function well have better management? In the end bad service, bad performance and bad industrial relations are usually down to bad management (systems), not bad people under them. The unions are only at fault in that they stymie change.


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Mar 2008)

From what I've seen, the battles between Unions and Management are often about breaking the union  and nothing else. Often the customers and even profits are sacrificed in order to score points over the union or to score points on the corporate ladder. So I can see why Unions get entrenched in those kind of environments. That said the unions often do themselves no favours by resisting useful change. I have had situations where the staff has to plead with their union to accept changes that would make their life easier, but the Union wouldn't accept them. Thats daft. But like you can have a bad manager you can have bad union reps too. Good and bad everywhere.


----------



## Complainer (20 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> Hiring in these organisations is generally done directly rather that via the Civil Service Commission and using less strict recruitment methods than the Commission. The result is that a lot of the management and staff are politically connected to the local branch of whatever party was in power when they were hired. People working in these organisations are not barred from political activity, whereas civil servants are. The result is a lot are party members. The clincher for me is that when the HSE was set up, civil servants who's functions were given to the HSE were BANNED from moving with the jobs and civil servants were banned from applying for many of the  jobs that were advertised. Why did the HSE do this? Why did they ban non-politicial civil servants from working for them?


You're talking rubbish, certainly in the case of local authorities. I've sat on local authority interview boards, and there is absolutely no political angle. Interview boards will include people from outside organisations, who have no vested interest, and just pick the best person for the job. 

If you look at the way county managers and local authority directors 'job-hop' from one authority to a neighbouring one, you will see that your claim of political interference falls apart. I don't have a whole lot of experience on HSE recruitement, though I do know a couple of people who came in from outside the organisation into senior positions in recent years, again with no political interference.



diarmuidc said:


> You should have done your homework on bank 2 before you gave them your business. However don't despair. Rinse and repeat for bank 3. (except do your homework correctly this time. It's not hard with access to the internet these days)
> 
> At this stage in the with the voting you would probably be 20 years older and still paying for an inefficient public service


Indeed, in theory it may well be possible to pick a better bank. However, most people just dont bother their backsides doing this kind of research. In fact, the vast majority won't bother moving their business at all - they'll just whinge about their existing bank. Inertia is a powerful force. My own experience is that service from many providers is often largely dependant on individual relationships, and when that individual moves on or leaves or gets promoted, the service deteriorates.



Purple said:


> Organisations have a culture and that culture, to a great extent, dictates how the people within that organisation work. Weak management allows an inefficient culture to exist by not penalising bad work and not rewarding good work and unions stop that weak management from changing to a customer focused culture.




That's not rocket science, and senior people in the public sector are well used to the challenges of dealing with public sector culture. These are (for the most part) hardworking, dedicated, committed, smart people - and I don't accept your broad unsupported criticisms.


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> ...My own experience is that service from many providers is often largely dependant on individual relationships, and when that individual moves on or leaves or gets promoted, the service deteriorates....



I agree and I think that applies across private and public sectors.


----------



## becky (20 Mar 2008)

I work in the HSE and can confirm we use the same criteria as the Public Appoinment Service - we are not less strict.

The post that Prof got was actually advertised twice and failed to attract the right candidate - head hunters were use I believe on both occasions. Prof Drum was not a civil servant but he was a public servant working as a consultant paediatrician - a post I believe he will revert to when his current contract is up.

You mentioned that most hopsitals are private - this is no longer true. In the recent past - they use to be funded by the DoH and much to their dismay now receive their funding from the local HSE. While they are not public/civil servants they enjoy the same perks. In the past they often received more resouces than the local health board hospital. I know my equal in the 'voluntarty hospital' is a grade higher then me with more staff in her department. There are 10 times more personnel on our payroll. When people speak about the hugh health budget it should be noted that these hospitals spend it as well. 

Why the DoH staff were not allowed to transfer to the HSE - I 'm guessing here but I'm sure this is a major IR issue. A similar senarior with the HSE's CWO and the Dept of SW SWO's is ongoing. CWO's who are suppose to transfer to the Social Welfare are being told they will not be allowed to apply for promotions in the Dept of SW for 5 years even though they do the same job.


----------



## Purple (22 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> That's not rocket science, and senior people in the public sector are well used to the challenges of dealing with public sector culture. These are (for the most part) hardworking, dedicated, committed, smart people - and I don't accept your broad unsupported criticisms.



I get the impression that you are generally happy with the public sector and the value for money that it delivers. Is this correct? Since you do not offer your own views on the subject I have to draw my own conclusions. That's the thing about discussion forums; the idea is that you offer your own opinions at the same time and possible as a counter to, other posters opinions.


----------



## aircobra19 (22 Mar 2008)

Why? You can play devils advocate. No reason you have to give your own opinion.


----------



## Purple (22 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Why? You can play devils advocate. No reason you have to give your own opinion.


 True, but it adds little and is annoying. It also smacks of moral superiority.


----------



## Complainer (23 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> I get the impression that you are generally happy with the public sector and the value for money that it delivers. Is this correct? Since you do not offer your own views on the subject I have to draw my own conclusions. That's the thing about discussion forums; the idea is that you offer your own opinions at the same time and possible as a counter to, other posters opinions.


I've given my views pretty clearly in this post.


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> I've given my views pretty clearly in this post.



Right, I've re-read that post... I still don't know if you are happy, in a general sense, with the value for money we get from the public service.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> I've given my views pretty clearly in this post.





Purple said:


> Right, I've re-read that post... I still don't know if you are happy, in a general sense, with the value for money we get from the public service.



I think I'd be the same boat as serial complainer.
There is a wide difference of quality service between the various different departments. Some are great and some are appalling beyond belief.
I don't think its possible to discuss the whole of the public service in such simple terms as The public service, why is it so bad!?!?!
I've just finished the books, "Yes Minister!", and, "Yes Prime Minister!", they are a real eyeopener about the workings of public and civil service (e.g. if you want to have cuts in the public service you have to employ extra people to have it implemented)
I believe we have a reasonably good public service, but its not perfect
Regarding DLRCC I totally agree about them they are woeful beyond comprehension, I've met some wonderful people in there but my god I've met some abolute thicks there as well. I think I'll be starting a thread about them soon about their enforcement department.


----------



## aircobra19 (23 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> True, but it adds little and is annoying. It also smacks of moral superiority.



How does it do that? Usually the idea is to see both sides. 

Quite a few posters have suggested to you that its not as simple or as black and white as you're suggesting. You seem to want to pin people down on one side or the other when that isn't peoples opinion at all. Why do you want to do that.


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> How does it do that? Usually the idea is to see both sides.


 Usually it is but if I represent one side and other posters only post about my posts how is the other side being seen?



aircobra19 said:


> Quite a few posters have suggested to you that its not as simple or as black and white as you're suggesting. You seem to want to pin people down on one side or the other when that isn't peoples opinion at all. Why do you want to do that.


 There are very few things in life that I see as black and white. It is quite possible to form an overall view of the public service without applying that view to everyone that works within it; just like you just did about DRCC. I simply asked others here what their overall opinion was. I did not ask them any black or white questions.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Mar 2008)

Purple it was me who posted about DLRCC
Try reading the posts in future.


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2008)

S.L.F said:


> Purple it was me who posted about DLRCC
> Try reading the posts in future.



My apologies but the general point stands.


----------



## aircobra19 (23 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> Usually it is but if I represent one side and other posters only post about my posts how is the other side being seen?



I would say the devils advocate is generally about taking the other side for the purpose of testing the argument. So I don't understand what you mean by only one side being seen. 



Purple said:


> There are very few things in life that I see as black and white. It is quite possible to form an overall view of the public service without applying that view to everyone that works within it; just like you just did about DRCC. I simply asked others here what their overall opinion was. I did not ask them any black or white questions.



My point was you don't have to post your own opinion to have a discussion, you can post from the other point of view as you might in a debate. You seem to think you can't proceed unless someone pins their colours to a wall. In my experience thats usually an attempt to attack the poster rather than the issue at hand. I could take the example of O2 selling the Apple iPhone, or broadband access in Ireland, and generalise that the private sector is uncompetitive. Not a very useful sweeping generalisation IMO. If you are going to declare sweeping generalisation as a valid from of assessment there's not going to much else to discuss.

BTW. Whats the DRCC.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Mar 2008)

I don't believe you fully appreciate the whole picture.
You are talking about a huge organisation.
Guards, hospital staff, fire brigade, civil service, teachers, prison staff, county council workers.
These were just off the top of my head, as far as I know you could be looking at up to 200,000 people
You can't fit them all into a small bracket of yes they are all great or no they are all crap there are too many different ways to answer.
Get the book Yes Minister it explains it all very well, then 2 seconds when you are on the next chapter you are confused again.


----------



## S.L.F (23 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Whats the DRCC.



Don't
Read
Computer
Chat


----------



## Purple (24 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> I would say the devils advocate is generally about taking the other side for the purpose of testing the argument. So I don't understand what you mean by only one side being seen.


 I don't see the counter view; I just see posters asking questions about my view. It's not even devil’s advocate.



aircobra19 said:


> My point was you don't have to post your own opinion to have a discussion, you can post from the other point of view as you might in a debate. You seem to think you can't proceed unless someone pins their colours to a wall. In my experience thats usually an attempt to attack the poster rather than the issue at hand. I could take the example of O2 selling the Apple iPhone, or broadband access in Ireland, and generalise that the private sector is uncompetitive. Not a very useful sweeping generalisation IMO. If you are going to declare sweeping generalisation as a valid from of assessment there's not going to much else to discuss.



I'm not asking anyone to pin their colours to the mast, I'm asking them to contribute something constructive to the thread. Deconstructing my opinions is not being constructive.
It is valid to offer the opinion that O2 are a well run company but question their deal with Apple or that Eircom are generally bad but good at X and Y. It is valid to say that the government is good at X or Y but generally failed to maximise the opportunities of the last 15 years.

You get the idea?


----------



## aircobra19 (24 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> I don't see the counter view; I just see posters asking questions about my view. It's not even devil’s advocate.



How did the 18 posts before your first one in this thread, ask questions about your view? 



Purple said:


> I'm not asking anyone to pin their colours to the mast, I'm asking them to contribute something constructive to the thread. Deconstructing my opinions is not being constructive.
> It is valid to offer the opinion that O2 are a well run company but question their deal with Apple or that Eircom are generally bad but good at X and Y. It is valid to say that the government is good at X or Y but generally failed to maximise the opportunities of the last 15 years.
> 
> You get the idea?



Thats exactly what you are not doing by such a sweeping generalisation, and lumping all of the public sector together. 

If you want comparisions of value for money, why not compare O2 with their offerings in other countries, ditto car insurance, broadband etc. Its not called rip off ireland for nothing. Who is happy with the value of money of the private sector? 

What metrics should be applied, and what comparisions are valid? Personally I think its the wrong question. Do we get value for money from our politicians would be more apt.


----------



## room305 (24 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> If you want comparisions of value for money, why not compare O2 with their offerings in other countries, ditto car insurance, broadband etc.


 
This is only valid if you are prepared to adjust for purchasing power parity. Otherwise what is achieved by sitting around moaning about the fact you can buy a bottle of beer and a meal in Kuala Lumpur for under €3? Even if O2 do charge comparably more than their (adjusted) offerings in other countries, and they can do so without losing customers, then why wouldn't they? Anything less would be a dereliction of duty by the management to their shareholders.

Also, if you run such comparisons on the cost of public service delivery in Ireland against other countries we generally fare quite badly.


----------



## Complainer (24 Mar 2008)

room305 said:


> Also, if you run such comparisons on the cost of public service delivery in Ireland against other countries we generally fare quite badly.


Any examples?


----------



## room305 (24 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> Any examples?


 
The €180M proposed budget to upgrade 7.5km of track from Clonsilla to Pace leaps to mind. In France they built a brand new 300km high-speed rail track between Paris and Metz for under €3.5 billion.

So it costs the French €11.6M to put down a kilometre of new track, but it costs CIE €24M per kilometre to upgrade an existing line? Since they already own the land, the high price of land in this country cannot account for such a dramatic difference.

I'm sure there are lots of other examples out there. However, I wonder are there any examples of the public sector providing a high quality international standard of service in way that can be considered value-for-money?


----------



## jmayo (24 Mar 2008)

We have had successive governments that have pandered to public sector unions.
They have created a system where no matter how inefficient, non performing or inept the service is, no one is responsible and nothing is done to remedy the situation bar hiring an expensive external consultant and commissioning a report that is shevled after the storm has died down.

It has now reached a stage where the vast majority of people in the private sector see public sector workers/civil servants as people:  
a) who cannot be fired or sanctioned no matter how much they cock up (PPARS, Health misdiagnosis, Garda corruption, LUAS overruns)   
b) who are entitled to large pension benefits in comparison to most private sector workers,
c) who will not accept change, no matter how small, without first receiving compensation (train drivers on numerous occassions).
d) who can get promotion and pay rises not based on how they do their jobs but on longevity (lady promoted after failure to show relevant minister documentation on Aer Lingus, or was it cover up ?)
e) who are subject to benchmarking that never seems to show any increases  in productivity or benefit for the general public and where they are now probably getting bigger pay increases than the supposed comparable unsafe private sector workers.

The pity is, as mentioned in other posts, there are no incentives for anyone that does give a damm about their jobs, since they will do equally as well or eqaully as badly as their coworkers who don't give two ****s about us the taxpayers or their customers.

Sadly privatising some of these institutions has not solved these issues as anyone that has dealt with Eircom would testify.
The only advantage in this case is we can take our business elsewhere, but how can we do that with most of our public services.

Truly how inadequate, inefficient and costly our public sector/sevice is will become apparant when the economy nosedives and there  aren't the large tax takes available to keep the whole mess afloat.


----------



## amtc (25 Mar 2008)

The problem about this is that everyone has a view that ALL public servants get ALL public perks. 

I work for a public sector organisation.
I applied for my job through the national press. FIVE interviews.
I don't belong to a union, nor do lots of my colleagues.
I don't get benchmarking. 

I work hard, and take work home regularly. Today I am on a day off ad spent two hours on a conference call.
I do have an annual appraisal against targets, and I get a bonus and pay review accordingly, but nothing's guaranteed.

It does bug me when I see colleagues talking about 'allowed sick leave' etc. but NOT ALL of us are the same. Having said that, having come from the private sector I earn more than them, but I started off on a fixed term contract.


----------



## csirl (26 Mar 2008)

> You mentioned that most hopsitals are private - this is no longer true.


 
I disageee. Look in the Dublin area.

Beaumont, St. James, St. Vincents, Mater & Tallaght are all privately owned hospitals - mostly by religious orders.

To prove a point, name me a major hospital in Ireland that is NOT privately owned?


----------



## csirl (26 Mar 2008)

> If you look at the way county managers and local authority directors 'job-hop' from one authority to a neighbouring one, you will see that your claim of political interference falls apart. I don't have a whole lot of experience on HSE recruitement, though I do know a couple of people who came in from outside the organisation into senior positions in recent years, again with no political interference.


 
Job hopping is not an indication of lack of political interference, in fact it could be the opposite - indication that people who are connected will be facilitated in their careers. 

You have to remember that the old health boards were comprised of local councillors. If thats not political interference, I dont know what is. Everything flows from the top. 

The local area where I am from has produced a couple of major political figures. There are neighbours of mine who are and have been on various "boards" of publically funded organisations, including in the health and local services sector, who's only qualifications for the jobs were that they were connected with certain political figures. No qualifications, no experience in the sector. 

The foot soldiers in many organisations will be recruited in the normal way, but they have little say in anything. Its how the Board and CEO or Chair is appointed is the important thing. And they usually have a major say in the appointment of all senior management.


----------



## S.L.F (26 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> Everything flows from the top.



This is not correct.

In every broth scum always rise to the top.


----------



## Complainer (26 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> Job hopping is not an indication of lack of political interference, in fact it could be the opposite - indication that people who are connected will be facilitated in their careers.



You would need to show that their career path coincided with the trend of political control in the relevant councils, e.g. an FF-connected county manager would only get jobs where FF control the council. This is just fantasy land.



csirl said:


> You have to remember that the old health boards were comprised of local councillors. If thats not political interference, I dont know what is. Everything flows from the top.


You have to remember that the old health boards don't exist any more, hence my 'long, long time' question.



csirl said:


> The local area where I am from has produced a couple of major political figures. There are neighbours of mine who are and have been on various "boards" of publically funded organisations, including in the health and local services sector, who's only qualifications for the jobs were that they were connected with certain political figures. No qualifications, no experience in the sector.


There are indeed many issues with political appointees to the boards of state bodies. But that's a very different issue to your earlier claims of political interference in recruitment of full-time employees.




csirl said:


> The foot soldiers in many organisations will be recruited in the normal way, but they have little say in anything. Its how the Board and CEO or Chair is appointed is the important thing. And they usually have a major say in the appointment of all senior management.


 
 THat's a fair distance away from your original claim of 'public sector organisations who's management and in some cases employees are appointed by councillors, politicians etc'. You still haven't named one organisation where employees are appointed by councillors or politicians.


----------



## csirl (27 Mar 2008)

> You have to remember that the old health boards don't exist any more, hence my 'long, long time' question.


 
Hardly a long time - old Health Boards are only recently abolished and the vast vast majority of the people are still in the HSE.




> THat's a fair distance away from your original claim of 'public sector organisations who's management and in some cases employees are appointed by councillors, politicians etc'. You still haven't named one organisation where employees are appointed by councillors or politicians.


 
I stand over my original claim. I personally know people in these positions in organisations, so I'm not going to name people and organisations on a public forum. As a general rule, the policitally appointed Board will hire a CEO and senior management of people generally connected with them - supporters of their party. This senior management then interviews the candidates for the middle management jobs, quite often hiring people known to them or having people who are connected to the local political branch - no paper record of this, the management simply say that they hired the candidate they liked. The senior and middle management are full time employees. Generally they do not use the civil service commission but prefer to directly hire themselves.

Questions you have to ask is why political activity is NOT banned in these organisations in much the same way as it is for civil servants? Having done some work in public sector recruitment myself a few years ago, I have very serious doubts about the probity of the recruitment process in some public sector organisations - the lack of structured interviews, lack of use of properly trained interview staff, the advertisement of some posts. Ask anyone in the public service about the legend of the "Irish Times Interview".

If you want evidence, then you should take a close look at the staff make-up of many quangos. You will find that a high proportion of people are related to one another - much higher % than you would expect by chance if open unbiased recruitment. You will also find that an extraordinary % of employees are either members or former members of political parties or have family members who are very active in political circles.


----------



## aircobra19 (27 Mar 2008)

Can't say I've ever seen in this political influence in recruitment in the public sector agencies I've worked for.  But then I'm not at the CEO and senior management level. However I will say from what I've experienced, as Govt policy and directions for ministers/depts directly control what the agencies do, to the point where you might have to instantly drop one project to start another, or move your family across the country (decentralization). Not entirely unexpected, there is a far higher interest in politics, and knowledge of politics than I've seen in the public sector. The higher than average membership of unions would also be a factor, as union activities are very often political.


----------



## Teabag (27 Mar 2008)

jmayo said:


> It has now reached a stage where the vast majority of people in the private sector see public sector workers/civil servants as people:
> a) who cannot be fired or sanctioned no matter how much they cock up (PPARS, Health misdiagnosis, Garda corruption, LUAS overruns)



Is this true ? Do people get fired in the public service for poor work ? I've always wondered that.


----------



## csirl (27 Mar 2008)

> Is this true ? Do people get fired in the public service for poor work ? I've always wondered that.


 
Very few do, though some public sector organisations have become more proactive in recent years.

Another similar question might be do private contractors delivering public services ever get fired when they dont perform their contracts? There is a huge issue of lack of contract management in the public service.


----------



## Complainer (27 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> I stand over my original claim. I personally know people in these positions in organisations, so I'm not going to name people and organisations on a public forum. As a general rule, the policitally appointed Board will hire a CEO and senior management of people generally connected with them - supporters of their party. This senior management then interviews the candidates for the middle management jobs, quite often hiring people known to them or having people who are connected to the local political branch - no paper record of this, the management simply say that they hired the candidate they liked. The senior and middle management are full time employees. Generally they do not use the civil service commission but prefer to directly hire themselves.
> 
> Questions you have to ask is why political activity is NOT banned in these organisations in much the same way as it is for civil servants? Having done some work in public sector recruitment myself a few years ago, I have very serious doubts about the probity of the recruitment process in some public sector organisations - the lack of structured interviews, lack of use of properly trained interview staff, the advertisement of some posts. Ask anyone in the public service about the legend of the "Irish Times Interview".
> 
> If you want evidence, then you should take a close look at the staff make-up of many quangos. You will find that a high proportion of people are related to one another - much higher % than you would expect by chance if open unbiased recruitment. You will also find that an extraordinary % of employees are either members or former members of political parties or have family members who are very active in political circles.



This is a mixture of exaggeration, outdated practices and pure fiction.

The only factual piece in your post is the existence of a politically appointed board. But no board gets to jump in and pick a CEO at the drop of a hat. They will inherit a CEO who may well have 5-7 years left to run in his contract. The CEO may well outlive the politically appointed board. Of course, in some cases, the CEO's term will end, and the board will get to appoint a new CEO. Similarly, that CEO will not get to appoint a new management team at the drop of a hat. The CEO will inherit a management team who will almost certainly be on permanent contracts. So the only opportunity for political appointments would come as members of the management team retire or move to new positions. The same logic applies to middle management roles, and other opportunities down the line. The opportunities for politically influenced appointments are much fewer and farther between that your post would imply.

Your claim of 'the management simply say that they hired the candidate they liked' shows that you know little about current recruitment processes in the public sector. First of all, any interview board will include at least one external member, usually selected by the HR department. So if your claim of conspiratorial political appointments is to be believed, it now not only includes the internal members of the interview board and the HR department, but it also includes the external member of the interview board. The outcome of any recruitment process is subject to an appeals/complaints process involving an independent review. So now the conspiracy needs to extend further to cover the independent reviewer as well.

In my experience, interview staff are generally very well trained, if only to protect the organisation from claims of discrimination or bias. I would love to see some solid data to support your claims of family and/or political connections.


----------



## csirl (28 Mar 2008)

> In my experience, interview staff are generally very well trained,


 
I have sat on a number of public service interview boards over the years and, while it is true that those in some organisations are well trained, some I've been with have left a lot to be desired. The last interview board I sat on was approx. 3 years ago, so its not that long ago. I found that a good proportion of the internal people on some of the boards did not have any formal training, were not familiar with public service guidelines and tended to take into account things from outside the interview. Sometimes a candidate would give a good interview, but during the assessment discussions, it becomes clear that the internals have something against the candidate. I've also seen situations whereby the internals mark a particular candidate much higher than their interview performance merits and justify it with comments like ".....I know candidate X.....I think s/he just had a bad day and gave a poor interview...". The worst thing I ever came across was one interview board where the internal interviewers had notes on all the candidates - based on canvassed feedback - on the table while interviewing the candidates. Needless to say the resulting panel look very different to the performance of the candidates. I have complained about this stuff, but its difficult to prove. The only record of a candidates performance is often a few lines of paraphrasing of what the candidate says in an assessment box along with some bland comments by the board. Without tape recordings or any other proof, how is any candidate to know how s/he did relative to the others?

My experience was that the type of competitions with loads of candidates, large panels, multiple boards tend to be the fairest. Those where the candidates all work in a small organisation and all know each other tend to be the worst.


----------



## becky (28 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> I disageee. Look in the Dublin area.
> 
> Beaumont, St. James, St. Vincents, Mater & Tallaght are all privately owned hospitals - mostly by religious orders.
> 
> To prove a point, name me a major hospital in Ireland that is NOT privately owned?


 

csirl - try and remeber the hospitals outside the pale.  University College Hospitals- Cork and Galway. General Hospitals Limerick, Waterford, Tullamore, Cavan etc etc.   All the hospitals you quoted above receive their monies from the HSE.  I'm sure they have a board of managment which may consist of a few nuns.


----------



## csirl (28 Mar 2008)

The point I'm getting at is that, though privately owned, these hospitals have never tendered for the State contracts they have and those that perform badly are never penalised under the contracts. They also operate a kind of cartel. Its only a matter of time before one of the newly built private hospital operators complains about the breach of procurement and competition rules.

Its a bit of a pet hate of mine that the worst public service in the country is delivered by a private sector monopoly cartel that has not fairly tendered for the business. Either we have public hospitals that are owned by the public service or private operators who've won the business by competitive tender. No private organisation should have a "right" to receive guaranteed business and payment from the taxpayer, particularly with such lowsy service. And nobody has the "right" to be enriched at taxpayers expense - these hospitals have been built and paid for largely by the taxpayers. Hospitals are assets with capital value to the owner.


----------



## Staples (29 Mar 2008)

Teabag said:


> Is this true ? Do people get fired in the public service for poor work ? I've always wondered that.


 
They mightn't get sacked as easily as this guy but that's not necessarily a bad thing.


http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=78312

You might not like the standards the public service works to but at least they have some standards.


----------



## Complainer (29 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> I have sat on a number of public service interview boards over the years and, while it is true that those in some organisations are well trained, some I've been with have left a lot to be desired. The last interview board I sat on was approx. 3 years ago, so its not that long ago. I found that a good proportion of the internal people on some of the boards did not have any formal training, were not familiar with public service guidelines and tended to take into account things from outside the interview. Sometimes a candidate would give a good interview, but during the assessment discussions, it becomes clear that the internals have something against the candidate. I've also seen situations whereby the internals mark a particular candidate much higher than their interview performance merits and justify it with comments like ".....I know candidate X.....I think s/he just had a bad day and gave a poor interview...". The worst thing I ever came across was one interview board where the internal interviewers had notes on all the candidates - based on canvassed feedback - on the table while interviewing the candidates. Needless to say the resulting panel look very different to the performance of the candidates. I have complained about this stuff, but its difficult to prove. The only record of a candidates performance is often a few lines of paraphrasing of what the candidate says in an assessment box along with some bland comments by the board. Without tape recordings or any other proof, how is any candidate to know how s/he did relative to the others?


It is very dissapointing to think that this kind of stuff would be still going on. This is where the role of the external member becomes hugely important. Were you able to keep the other panel members 'on track' and ensure that the interview result was based on the interview? Were you able to give feedback to the HR department about the weaknesses in the process.


csirl said:


> The point I'm getting at is that, though privately owned, these hospitals have never tendered for the State contracts they have and those that perform badly are never penalised under the contracts. They also operate a kind of cartel. Its only a matter of time before one of the newly built private hospital operators complains about the breach of procurement and competition rules.


I share your concern about this. Why wait for one of the private operators to complain? Why not make a complaint yourself?


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2008)

Complainer said:


> I share your concern about this. Why wait for one of the private operators to complain? Why not make a complaint yourself?


With all due respect if ministers and governments can't change things what chance does a member of the public have?


----------



## aircobra19 (31 Mar 2008)

Anyone have examples of reform of the Public Sector in other countries and how it was achieved.


----------



## Green (31 Mar 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Anyone have examples of reform of the Public Sector in other countries and how it was achieved.


 
The postal service in New Zealand...political will...


----------



## liaconn (31 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> I have sat on a number of public service interview boards over the years and, while it is true that those in some organisations are well trained, some I've been with have left a lot to be desired. The last interview board I sat on was approx. 3 years ago, so its not that long ago. I found that a good proportion of the internal people on some of the boards did not have any formal training, were not familiar with public service guidelines and tended to take into account things from outside the interview. Sometimes a candidate would give a good interview, but during the assessment discussions, it becomes clear that the internals have something against the candidate. I've also seen situations whereby the internals mark a particular candidate much higher than their interview performance merits and justify it with comments like ".....I know candidate X.....I think s/he just had a bad day and gave a poor interview...". The worst thing I ever came across was one interview board where the internal interviewers had notes on all the candidates - based on canvassed feedback - on the table while interviewing the candidates. Needless to say the resulting panel look very different to the performance of the candidates. I have complained about this stuff, but its difficult to prove. The only record of a candidates performance is often a few lines of paraphrasing of what the candidate says in an assessment box along with some bland comments by the board. Without tape recordings or any other proof, how is any candidate to know how s/he did relative to the others?
> 
> My experience was that the type of competitions with loads of candidates, large panels, multiple boards tend to be the fairest. Those where the candidates all work in a small organisation and all know each other tend to be the worst.


 
I would agree with the above comments. Interviews conducted by the PAS tend to be far superior to those conducted internally by individual Departments. In my own Department, Boards tend to consist of people of an appropriate grade who just happen to be free for the week or two around the interview dates. These people are often untrained and receive a quick crash course when they agree to sit on the Board. Their suitability, following the course, does not seem to be assessed. This can result in uneven Boards, inadequate interviews etc. Prior to a recent round of interviews, one of the interviewers stood in front of one of his staff, flicking through the application forms, naming names and saying things like 'yes, I'd say he'll do well'! This kind of unprofessionalism really shouldn't be accepted.


----------



## Staples (31 Mar 2008)

liaconn said:


> Interviews conducted by the PAS tend to be far superior to those conducted internally by individual Departments.


 
I would agree with this 100%.


----------



## ajapale (31 Mar 2008)

YOBR said:


> The postal service in New Zealand...political will...


 
Interesting, can you provide any links? Your post seems to have been cut short!


----------



## Complainer (31 Mar 2008)

Purple said:


> With all due respect if ministers and governments can't change things what chance does a member of the public have?


Is this the 'Homer Simpson' school of political activism, i.e. 'Can't someone else do it'?


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> Is this the 'Homer Simpson' school of political activism, i.e. 'Can't someone else do it'?


No, but thanks for the insult.
I don't subscribe to the "Write a letter and everything will be fine" school of activism. I pay my public representatives to represent me in government and at local level, as I don't have the time or the skills to do it myself. If I don't like what they are doing, or trying to do, I vote for someone else. It's called representative democracy.


----------



## aircobra19 (1 Apr 2008)

YOBR said:


> The postal service in New Zealand...political will...



Looks interesting. 
[broken link removed]

I agree with you its all about political will.


----------

