# HSE Hire Ban removal?



## polo1 (6 Dec 2007)

Anyone know if the HSE will lift their ban on recruitment now that the gov have increased spending for next year?


----------



## kennyFTB (6 Dec 2007)

Hey,

Can't say for definite whether ban will be lifted or not but I did hear Mary Harney say that extra money was being provided for recuitment this year so I hope that means yes


----------



## beautfan (6 Dec 2007)

There has been very little money allocated.  There are hugh number of women working in the HSE who receive full pay (less sociale welfare) when out on maternity leave, thus when they are replaced the HSE is effectively paying almost 2 salaries for almost 10 months, when bank holidays and holidays are taken into account.


----------



## aircobra19 (6 Dec 2007)

beautfan said:


> There has been very little money allocated.  There are hugh number of women working in the HSE who receive full pay (less sociale welfare) when out on maternity leave, thus when they are replaced the HSE is effectively paying almost 2 salaries for almost 10 months, when bank holidays and holidays are taken into account.



Whats your point?


----------



## Flymask (6 Dec 2007)

beautfan said:


> There are hugh number of women working in the HSE who receive full pay (less sociale welfare) when out on maternity leave, thus when they are replaced the HSE is effectively paying almost 2 salaries for almost 10 months, when bank holidays and holidays are taken into account.



And this has _what_ exactly to do with the original post???


----------



## beautfan (6 Dec 2007)

Sorry whether the recruitment ban will be lifted will have nothing to do with the extra money allocated.


----------



## aircobra19 (6 Dec 2007)

Why?


----------



## Satanta (6 Dec 2007)

beautfan said:


> Sorry whether the recruitment ban will be lifted will have nothing to do with the extra money allocated.


 Of course it will.

The question is, is the extra money allocated enough for them to lift the recruitment ban fully or will they thread carefully and hold off on any change.

Having heard MH's comments last night, it seemed as if she was hinting that the ban will be lifted, but never actually said it.


----------



## polo1 (6 Dec 2007)

I am hoping it will be. A friends sister was all set to relocate and had sold up home etc in UK and was ready to move but waiting for contract to be issued from HSE. They had offered the job but was waiting on her registration (which took 6 months with an bord altranais) and in the end the HSE slapped on the ban.. She is now in limbo with no home and no job with 3 children and an offer on her house here in Ireland. Luckily her husband still has his job.... Her new manager is crying out for staff and is still holding the post for her.... So lets just hope it happens sooner rather than later...

Thanks for all you replies...


----------



## kennyFTB (6 Dec 2007)

I hope it will be lifted as well. My job depends on it as well. Don't think people actually realise the affect it has had unless you work in the HSE


----------



## irishlinks (6 Dec 2007)

Is it a full ban? I have seen job vacancies on the HSE website all during the "ban"- admittedly not as many as usual - but vacancies nevertheless. Are some jobs not covered by the ban - or are they not going to appoint until the ban is over? 
www.careersinhealthcare.ie


----------



## gipimann (6 Dec 2007)

The HSE continued to advertise for staff, and held interviews, but are unable to complete the recruitment process while the ban is in place.


----------



## kennyFTB (22 Dec 2007)

HSE ban will be lifted as of New Year's Eve. Saw it on news this evening.


----------



## mrsk (12 Jun 2008)

I doubt it. Working for the HSE for almost 10 years. This is the worst I've seen it. Maybe letting temporary staff go. Contracts aren't going to be renewed. 
It's going to get worse before it gets better. 
For instance recent reports show that there are 48,000 more people signing on the dole. 
If each one of these persons is the sole breadwinner for typical family of 4 you may be looking at almost 200,000 people added to the Medical Card lists. 
If a person is entitled to a medical card they should get them unfortunately this comes from the HSE budget. 
How realistically can this be budgetted for at the start of the year. 

Does the Dept of Social Welfare have a budget set at the start of the year and run out midway through the year. Again if the 48,000 people are entitled to benefits the Dept should pay them and seek additional resources. 

If the Dept of Finance or Social Welfare funded demand led schemes directly instead of passing the buck to the HSE the HSE may come within budget each year.


----------



## kennyFTB (12 Jun 2008)

Hi Mrsk,

Just in relation to my previous post. Posted that at the end of last year having read a news report that recruitment ban would be lifted. Six months on and what you are saying has actually happened in my workplace i.e. Temp staff being let go, contracts not being renewed. Have worked in the HSE for 5 years myself.


----------



## Mpsox (13 Jun 2008)

Confused here, the HSE are adament that there is no ban on recruitment, rather  greater cost control and when I picked up yesterdays Indo, there was pages of recrutiment ads for doctors/nurses etc. Accept they may be recruting far fewer people, but is it actually a ban?


----------



## Simeon (13 Jun 2008)

Ban was lifted on Jan 1st.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

There is no ban on recruitment. There is a ceiling on the staff numbers which cannot be breached. In an organisation employing 5% of the total workforce of the country this is entirely reasonable.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> There is no ban on recruitment. There is a ceiling on the staff numbers which cannot be breached. In an organisation employing 5% of the total workforce of the country this is entirely reasonable.


 
I have a friend a eye doctor. When one of his collegues goes on maternity leave she is not replaced. Another reliable source tells me that when a physio/occupational theripist leaves or goes on maternity leave she/he is not replaced. the same two sources tell me every day of services being streched due to staff shortages.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> I have a friend a eye doctor. When one of his collegues goes on maternity leave she is not replaced. Another reliable source tells me that when a physio/occupational theripist leaves or goes on maternity leave she/he is not replaced. the same two sources tell me every day of services being streched due to staff shortages.


I work in an organisation of 80 people. When one of us goes on leave (of any sort) we are not replaced. We just work harder/longer to get the work done.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> I work in an organisation of 80 people. When one of us goes on leave (of any sort) we are not replaced. We just work harder/longer to get the work done.


 
I simpley dont believe that in an organisation where key people are needed in key positions they are not replaced? That does not make any business sence. Lets take a hospital for example, there is 3 or four pediatriticians 2 go on maternity leave. Are you seriously telling me, and now be honest and fair here, that the other two should take up the slack????????? Or perhaps you want a dentist to come in from another department to give them a dig out (ouch). Please.

When will people in the private sector realise that their is essentially something very different about working with people in a caring profession than working in the private sector where one may make widgets etc.


----------



## becky (13 Jun 2008)

The ban has been lifted but strict recruitment controls are in place so a lot of mat leaves are not being replaced, summer leave. 

Junior doctors are recruited every 6 months so what's been advertised is replacements for those moving on to other jobs.

Not all areas get summer leave, in my own dept of 6 we cross cover. However, in a reception area that must be manned from 8am to 8pm its not possible for the existing staff to pick up all the vacant shifts for 10 months which is how a long a mat last these days.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> perhaps you want a dentist to come in from another department to give them a dig out (ouch). Please.
> 
> When will people in the private sector realise that their is essentially something very different about working with people in a caring profession than working in the private sector where one may make widgets etc.


 
The first statement is ridiculous. Why cant the other two take up the thirds workload? The fact is public sector work ethos does not allow for the same produtivity as private sector and that is why health care is headed for privitisation. I would be in the same situation as Purple mentioned. For example, If a colleague is I could be called on to take up their work as well as carry on with my own. If this was done in a hospital for example, there would be uproar. Nurses forced to work an extra hour few hours etc. If I have to work extra hours i get on with it, like many many others in private sector. It is civil service in-efficiency at its best with the HSE in that regard.

When will people within the caring proffession stop spinning the old line about the more staff available the better health system will get. The HSE in-efficiency had to stop and a hard line a was taken.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Its a simple mathamatical equation. In 8 hours in the day a doctor can see lets say 32 patients. there are 4 doctors seeing 128 patients a day. take away 2 doctors that means 2 doctors are left to see 128 patients. This mean that patients get less time worse service etc. On the one hand you can argue doctors are being more "efficent" on the other patients loose.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Its a simple mathamatical equation. In 8 hours in the day a doctor can see lets say 32 patients. there are 4 doctors seeing 128 patients a day. take away 2 doctors that means 2 doctors are left to see 128 patients. This mean that patients get less time worse service etc. On the one hand you can argue doctors are being more "efficent" on the other patients loose.


 
Or a sensible solution can be adapted. Doctors work longer hours a practical scheduling system is enforced. Your mathematics are convenient for your argument.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Working time directive comes into play. And as well as that most junior doctors are up to thier eyeballs in it today. no amount of shifting of schedules will help if there is too little doctors etc to see patients.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Working time directive comes into play.


 
Perfect example. Might have to work longer, crack out the plackards we're on strike.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

your solution is to exploit people make then wrk 60-70 hours a week. Sorry just because there is complete mugs in the private sector who allows themselves to be eploited than that does not mean that this has to be the case in the public sector.

And the working time directive applies to the private sector as far as i know.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> your solution is to exploit people make then wrk 60-70 hours a week. Sorry just because there is complete mugs in the private sector who allows themselves to be eploited than that does not mean that this has to be the case in the public sector.


 
Exploitation or a hard work ethos knowing that putting in the work will provide rewards down the line?

Plenty of people work 60-70 hours a week. If public sector work practices been brought in line wth private sector eficiency and costs would be soon brought in to line. As soon as public sector has to be taken task on continuos overspending its a problem. Its a hard line that is unfortunate for those on the front lines but after years of in-efficiency and overspending it had to be done. What do you expect; keep going with more promises that spending will be reduced gradually only to find ourselves another ten years down the line staring at the same red numbers?


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

bullbars said:


> Exploitation or a hard work ethos knowing that putting in the work will provide rewards down the line?
> 
> Plenty of people work 60-70 hours a week. If public sector work practices been brought in line wth private sector eficiency and costs would be soon brought in to line. As soon as public sector has to be taken task on continuos overspending its a problem. Its a hard line that is unfortunate for those on the front lines but after years of in-efficiency and overspending it had to be done. What do you expect; keep going with more promises that spending will be reduced gradually only to find ourselves another ten years down the line staring at the same red numbers?


 
Exploitation, as far as I am concerned unless there are getting very well paid for it.

Its not those on the font line who are loosing out. Its patients.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Its not those on the font line who are loosing out. Its patients.




I'd take the protestations of front line staff seriously if nurses were not looking for an even shorter working week, if the standard working week was 39 hours, if annual leave was set at the statutory minimum and absentee levels in the HSE were not the highest in the country.

When our receptionist is out one the phones are diverted to the main office and whomever is free at that moment picks up the phone. We put a notice on the door asking people to ring the bell for access. 
All groups coordinate and plan so that holidays are covered by existing staff.
That's what happens in a business that competes openly with the rest of the world.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Exploitation, as far as I am concerned unless there are getting very well paid for it.


 
More than likely are getting well paid. Hard work = Reward. Your salary is a reward for the value of the work you have done. Its not an entitlement for filling a role. Again another problem within public sector V private sector.



television said:


> Its not those on the font line who are loosing out. Its patients.


 
That old chestnut. They dont seem too concerned when threatening industrial action. Increase in work hours and efficiency are more beneficial to patients than the current situation. There is no-one to blame but the HSE themselves.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> I'd take the protestations of front line staff seriously if nurses were not looking for an even shorter working week, if the standard working week was 39 hours, if annual leave was set at the statutory minimum and absentee levels in the HSE were not the highest in the country.


 
Fair point, although Nurses were left pretty sickened after benchmarking (pun intended)



Purple said:


> When our receptionist is out one the phones are diverted to the main office and whomever is free at that moment picks up the phone. We put a notice on the door asking people to ring the bell for access.
> 
> All groups coordinate and plan so that holidays are covered by existing staff.
> That's what happens in a business that competes openly with the rest of the world.


[/quote]

Ok so if a Nurse is out get a clearner in to see patients. health care is a complicated activity, it requires an approach that is not easly broken down into private sector soundbites about productivity/efficency.
What happens in private industry is not necessarly best for good health care.


----------



## becky (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> I'd take the protestations of front line staff seriously if nurses were not looking for an even shorter working week, if the standard working week was 39 hours, if annual leave was set at the statutory minimum and absentee levels in the HSE were not the highest in the country.
> 
> When our receptionist is out one the phones are diverted to the main office and whomever is free at that moment picks up the phone. We put a notice on the door asking people to ring the bell for access.
> All groups coordinate and plan so that holidays are covered by existing staff.
> That's what happens in a business that competes openly with the rest of the world.


 
Well made points as usual.  However, putting a notice or diverting the phone at the main reception of a hospital or a busy OPD clinic is not an option.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

> it requires an approach that is not easly broken down into private sector soundbites about productivity/efficency.
> What happens in private industry is not necessarly best for good health care.


 
They've had long enough to adopt change but didn't so this is the result. It is of course about productivity/efficency or lack there-of. What would you suggest keep pumping money into a severly leaking vessel?


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

bullbars said:


> More than likely are getting well paid. Hard work = Reward. Your salary is a reward for the value of the work you have done. Its not an entitlement for filling a role. Again another problem within public sector V private sector.


 
Dont aggree I know plenty of people in the private sector who work hard for 40 hours and then are expectted to put in 10 or more hours for nothing. 




bullbars said:


> That old chestnut. They dont seem too concerned when threatening industrial action. Increase in work hours and efficiency are more beneficial to patients than the current situation. There is no-one to blame but the HSE themselves.


 
Recent industrial action by IMPACT was about staff cut backs. not for the increase in pay. It is because most of these union members are seeing sever cuts on the ground that is effecting patients. 

The vast majority of people who are empolyed as health professionals do so because of a sence of vocation. they get into health care because they care about people, about making sick people better, because they want to give back to society, its not for money or to get cosy state jobs.

There is exteme flustration that there is cuts to front line services. And by the way the last industriakl action undertaken by IMPACT was done during lunch time.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

becky said:


> Well made points as usual. However, putting a notice or diverting the phone at the main reception of a hospital or a busy OPD clinic is not an option.


 
Its an example of how private sector workers increase their work loads in times of need not down tools and make demands.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Let me give you an example of how talk about productivity and efficency can be seen as a complete nonsence. Productivity for a heart surgen is to do as many heart transplants and for a orthopedic surgen do as many hips as possible. However in hospitals all over the country these people are being punished by the HSC for doing to many proceedures because they are going over budget. A friend of mine tells me that a surgon he knows has been put onleave for 2 months because the HSC has refused to spend any more money on operations for the next number of months in one particular area. NOw thats crazy. And its not because of doctors or nurses. And on the ground they are seeing this and the flustration is huge.

And the complete unbelievablity of this it that the people who are forced to wait for there proceedure are sent on the treatment purchases fund where it costs even more that it otherwise would to treat them in the first place. You tell me the sence in that????


----------



## becky (13 Jun 2008)

bullbars said:


> Its an example of how private sector workers increase their work loads in times of need not down tools and make demands.


 
Yes I know but in lots of areas in the HSE, leave is planned, people cross cover, divert phones and work longer than contracted hours.  I'm making the point that some solutions can't apply to the all areas in the HSE.  The hosp reception open 12 hours a days 7 days a week need a certain amount of staff to cover all the shifts and I think expecting people to work extra for no money money all the time is a weak one no matter how much sense it makes.

I work an average of 45 hours a week and do another 3 or 4 hrs at home.  My contracted hours are 33 and no I don't look for extra money I'm happy with my salary and holidays (31 btw) but I do work hard for it.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

Why the defensive attitude that talk of efficiencies only apply to front line staff?
I have repeated many times here that the first think that is needed is good management.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> Why the defensive attitude that talk of efficiencies only apply to front line staff?
> I have repeated many times here that the first think that is needed is good management.


 


> I'd take the protestations of front line staff seriously if nurses were not looking for an even shorter working week, if the standard working week was 39 hours, if annual leave was set at the statutory minimum and absentee levels in the HSE were not the highest in the country.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Recent industrial action by IMPACT was about staff cut backs. not for the increase in pay. It is because most of these union members are seeing sever cuts on the ground that is effecting patients.


 
Exactly, streamlining to ensure the tax payer is getting value for money. Again having to force the issue because of continued incompetance.



television said:


> The vast majority of people who are empolyed as health professionals do so because of a sence of vocation. they get into health care because they care about people, about making sick people better, because they want to give back to society, its not for money or to get cosy state jobs.


 
Health care proffessionals spin the line of caring about patients as indirect bribery and nothing more. They know full well the emotional imapct it has on the public perception and know that a minister for health has a very delicate situation to handle. Its a spin constantly played out and contradicts their own "We really care about the patients front". 



television said:


> There is exteme flustration that there is cuts to front line services. And by the way the last industriakl action undertaken by IMPACT was done during lunch time.


 
Cut backs to the most in-efficient section first it seems. Unfortunate it had to be forced on them but they had given no other option.

What do you expect? Cosy state jobs is what it now has become. Work ethos is non-existent. Any increase in work load is met with rumblings and union statements. Its about money and the irresponsible spending. In all walks of life budgets are set and if not adhered to, questions must be asked and solutions implemented. This didnt happen soon enough within out health care system and a line had to be drawn. Theres your budget make it work because the days of constantly funding an inefficient service are over.


----------



## becky (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> Why the defensive attitude that talk of efficiencies only apply to front line staff?
> I have repeated many times here that the first think that is needed is good management.


 

I hope I didn't sound defensive because I don't mean to be.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

becky said:


> Yes I know but in lots of areas in the HSE, leave is planned, people cross cover, divert phones and work longer than contracted hours. I'm making the point that some solutions can't apply to the all areas in the HSE. The hosp reception open 12 hours a days 7 days a week need a certain amount of staff to cover all the shifts and I think expecting people to work extra for no money money all the time is a weak one no matter how much sense it makes.


 
I will accept that things are not as black and white when it comes to hospitals verses an office situation, but it has come to this due to a complete lack of adaptability or even a willingness to adapt to changing situations without downing tools and spending six weeks in negotiations. HSE management staff have had plenty of time to buck the trend but failed. 



becky said:


> I work an average of 45 hours a week and do another 3 or 4 hrs at home. My contracted hours are 33 and no I don't look for extra money I'm happy with my salary and holidays (31 btw) but I do work hard for it.


 
I am in the exact situation but ask a public sector employee to do this, cue unions/strikes etc. This is where the private sector has finally become fed up with public sector workers, not just HSE staff.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

> Health care proffessionals spin the line of caring about patients as indirect bribery and nothing more. They know full well the emotional imapct it has on the public perception and know that a minister for health has a very delicate situation to handle. Its a spin constantly played out and contradicts their own "We really care about the patients front".


 
Or is it because they actually care about patients?? No never after all they are all lazy monsters who want to steal patients change and take tea breaks and complain.  like all those people you know who actually work in the health services. 




> What do you expect? Cosy state jobs is what it now has become. Work ethos is non-existent. Any increase in work load is met with rumblings and union statements. Its about money and the irresponsible spending. In all walks of life budgets are set and if not adhered to, questions must be asked and solutions implemented. This didnt happen soon enough within out health care system and a line had to be drawn. Theres your budget make it work because the days of constantly funding an inefficient service are over


.

There is so much complete rubbish there I dont know where to start.

Work ethos non existant? Please 

Just because some private sector management will exploit its workers if allowed does not mean this has to go on in the public sector. 

Did you read the specifics about my post on budgets?

you have a serious ax to grind with public services.!!!!!


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Purple
> Why the defensive attitude that talk of efficiencies only apply to front line staff?
> I have repeated many times here that the first think that is needed is good management.
> ...


I asked you a question and you replied with two unrelated quotes. What gives?


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> What?
> There is so much complete rubbish there I dont know where to start.
> 
> Work ethos non existant? Please
> ...


 
They are straight forward statements. In-efficiency and continued irresponsible spending of public money leads have repercussions. 

I do have an axe to grind; Public sector workers want to work less hours, get more holidays and are " caring for patients" whilst doing so in an in-efficient manner using tax payers money but still want the same pay as everyone else.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Just because some private sector management will exploit its workers if allowed does not mean this has to go on in the public sector.



Maybe this post says it all. In the private sector this "them and Us", "Workers and management" ethos is very rare and in the truly competitive sectors it is non-existent. Basically if I don't do my job properly and efficiently the people who work for me can’t pay their mortgage and if they don't work the same way I can't pay mine. There is no "them and us", we are all in the same boat. I hate when some bearded clown from a public sector union starts prattling on about "the workers" as if they were a bunch of half-wits who couldn't look after themselves and "Management" as if managers didn't work (and in many cases were promoted to their positions from the roles that they now manage). This is not a Dickens novel; it's 21st centaury Ireland with all the laws and safeguards that go with it.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

bullbars said:


> I will accept that things are not as black and white when it comes to hospitals verses an office situation, but it has come to this due to a complete lack of adaptability or even a willingness to adapt to changing situations without downing tools and spending six weeks in negotiations. HSE management staff have had plenty of time to buck the trend but failed.
> 
> I am in the exact situation but ask a public sector employee to do this, cue unions/strikes etc. This is where the private sector has finally become fed up with public sector workers, not just HSE staff.


 
Why should people work for nothing? Why is this acceptable or lauded? Why is it that workers in the private sector think its okay to work for nothing? have private sector workers been that brainwashed into believing that that kind of practice is accpetable?? Absolutly unbelievable. 

It is never okay for people to work for nothing. Its called exploitation.


----------



## becky (13 Jun 2008)

bullbars said:


> I am in the exact situation but ask a public sector employee to do this, cue unions/strikes etc. This is where the private sector has finally become fed up with public sector workers, not just HSE staff.


 

I am a public sector worker, the HSE in fact.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Why should people work for nothing? Why is this acceptable or lauded? Why is it that workers in the private sector think its okay to work for nothing? have private sector workers been that brainwashed into believing that that kind of practice is accpetable?? Absolutly unbelievable.
> 
> It is never okay for people to work for nothing. Its called exploitation.



They do not work for nothing; they do so because they see that it is necessary for their own medium term job security, as their employer will not survive in a competitive market if the work does not get done. 
By the same token when times are good the same people should see the financial reward.
The problem with the public sector is that it is more likely to be a disconnect between how well/hard you work and how secure your job is and how well you get paid.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> Maybe this post says it all. In the private sector this "them and Us", "Workers and management" ethos is very rare and in the truly competitive sectors it is non-existent. Basically if I don't do my job properly and efficiently the people who work for me can’t pay their mortgage and if they don't work the same way I can't pay mine. There is no "them and us", we are all in the same boat. I hate when some bearded clown from a public sector union starts prattling on about "the workers" as if they were a bunch of half-wits who couldn't look after themselves and "Management" as if managers didn't work (and in many cases were promoted to their positions from the roles that they now manage). This is not a Dickens novel; it's 21st centaury Ireland with all the laws and safeguards that go with it.


 
If you think there is no exploitation of workers in 21st century ireland you are being extremely nieve. 

Union leaders are there to try to defend workers rights. You forget that all thouse safeguards you talk about were put into place by UNION action and lobbying and negotiation. Even in the most compeditive sectors as you call them will up and leave if there is a global downturn in the global economy and will thry to brainwash workers in India into working for nothing they and will not give a dam about irish workers. Remember workers in the private sector in ireland the following rules apply

1. the public sector is bad an efficent hate them.
2. UNions=the devil 
3. You must working for nothing because this is being compeditive. 

The happy family relationship you talk about between workers and owners is completly ridiculous.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

becky said:


> I am a public sector worker, the HSE in fact.


 
For a public sector employee that is admirable. You're one of few. please try and influence more staff around you.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> They do not work for nothing; they do so because they see that it is necessary for their own medium term job security, as their employer will not survive in a competitive market if the work does not get done.


 
leaves a lot of room open for exploitation if you ask me. And sorry if you get paid 10 E and hour and you work 50 hours you should get paid 500E if that is your contract. Responcible and effective employers will factor this into account when setting prices etc.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Why should people work for nothing? Why is this acceptable or lauded? Why is it that workers in the private sector think its okay to work for nothing? have private sector workers been that brainwashed into believing that that kind of practice is accpetable?? Absolutly unbelievable.
> 
> It is never okay for people to work for nothing. Its called exploitation.


 
Never said anything about working for nothing. nobody works for nothing but the public sector see their employment as great service they are doing for the people. Its a job just like everyone else's. If you dont like it there is some one who will.
 I get paid just like everyone else. When you work you get paid. When you work harderyou get paid more. If you want more work harder.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> If you think there is no eploitation of workers in 21st century ireland you are being extremely nieve.


 I suggested no such thing. BTW, the unions were bugger all use to the Turkish Gamma employees. Unions in Ireland are, to a large extent, political lobby groups who push around the government. 



television said:


> Union leaders are there to try to defend workers rights. You forget that all thouse safeguards you talk about were put into place by UNION action and lobbying and negotiation.


 I am proud that members of my family were instramental in setting up the Irish Trade Union movement.  They would be sickened if they saw what their life’s work had turned into.  



television said:


> Even in the most compeditive sectors as you call them if there is a global downturn they will up and leave and will not give a dam about irish workers.


What are you talking about? Most Irish employees working in the most competitive sectors are working for small to medium sized Irish companies. Where are they going to go?



television said:


> SO the happy family relationship you talk about between workers and owners is completly ridiculous.


 It may not fit in with your outmoded political ideology but the facts are that employers and employees in most companies in Ireland have the same worries and the same financial pressures. The only fat cats that I see living off the sweat of the average “worker” are the ones earning six figure salaries while looking out of the offices with thick piled carpets at the top of liberty hall.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

bullbars said:


> They are straight forward statements. In-efficiency and continued irresponsible spending of public money leads have repercussions.
> 
> I do have an axe to grind; Public sector workers want to work less hours, get more holidays and are " caring for patients" whilst doing so in an in-efficient manner using tax payers money but still want the same pay as everyone else.


 
But you think its okay to make these wild generalsied statements about ALL the public sector.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> leaves a lot of room open for exploitation if you ask me. And sorry if you get paid 10 E and hour and you work 50 hours you should get paid 500E if that is your contract. Responcible and effective employers will factor this into account when setting prices etc.


 
Where people are paid per hour is the greatest source of in-efficiency. In both public and private sectors this is abused. If an employee turns up for work and clock in at 8:00 am and clock out at 7:00 pm, but yet only does 4 hours productive work the other hours are a direct loss and unrecoverable. Where agreed set salaries are in place the hours can be recouped and production maintained.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

QUOTE=television;648208]leaves a lot of room open for exploitation if you ask me. And sorry if you get paid 10 E and hour and you work 50 hours you should get paid 500E if that is your contract. Responcible and effective employers will factor this into account when setting prices etc.[/QUOTE] Do you think that employees are chained to their desk/ work station? Do you realise that indentured slavery/ serfdom is illegal? 

If you take a job on the grounds that “you get 40K a year, your hours are 8.30 to 5.00 but you will have to do about 5-10 hours a week overtime. That’s included in the 40K. Is that alright?” and you say “yes”, how on earth is that exploitation?
How about “times are hard, you will have to work a few extra hours but when things get better we’ll be back to the profit share bonuses. Is that OK?” Is that exploitation?


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> I suggested no such thing. BTW, the unions were bugger all use to the Turkish Gamma employees. Unions in Ireland are, to a large extent, political lobby groups who push around the government.
> 
> I am proud that members of my family were instramental in setting up the Irish Trade Union movement. They would be sickened if they saw what their life’s work had turned into.


 
Im glad we admit that effective unions protect the rights of workers. 




Purple said:


> What are you talking about? Most Irish employees working in the most competitive sectors are working for small to medium sized Irish companies. Where are they going to go?It may not fit in with your outmoded political ideology but the facts are that employers and employees in most companies in Ireland have the same worries and the same financial pressures. The only fat cats that I see living off the sweat of the average “worker” are the ones earning six figure salaries while looking out of the offices with thick piled carpets at the top of liberty hall.


 
Listen there is not some symboitic harmonious relationship between employers and employees for most workers especially low paid ones. Bottom lines are as relivent now as they ever were. So please tell that to the guy working in Dunnes for 10 Euros an hour that. Or the guy working in a hard wearshop for a pitence that the employer cares and his needs are the same as the employees and we all need to work together for each other. 

If it is outmoded political ideolgy that workers should be paid fairly. then im outmoded.

If it is outmoded that workers need to have a collective voice and show unity I am ooutmoded.

If it is outmoded to suggest that some empyoyers will use the "need for compeditiveness retoric" to exploit their workers and workers should resist this collectively, than i am outmoded.


----------



## bullbars (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> But you think its okay to make these wild generalsied statements about ALL the public sector.


 
I wouldn't consider them wild given the comparison with Public sector work hours and levels of efficinecy when compared to the private sector. The underlying fact is that we have a taxpayer funded body operating in an in-efficient manner and it had to stop. All public sector bodies should be given the same treatment not just the HSE.


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

bullbars said:


> Where people are paid per hour is the greatest source of in-efficiency. In both public and private sectors this is abused. If an employee turns up for work and clock in at 8:00 am and clock out at 7:00 pm, but yet only does 4 hours productive work the other hours are a direct loss and unrecoverable. Where agreed set salaries are in place the hours can be recouped and production maintained.


 
I am talking about a fair days work for a fair days pay. What ever the method of payment or the mechenisem to access payment.


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> If it is outmoded political ideolgy that workers should be paid fairly. then im outmoded.


 Fairly is the key. People get paid what they earn, not what they need. If there is a shortfall between the two this should be filled through social welfare. Social engineering is not the function or responsibility of a private business. If you do not accept this then you are indeed utterly outmoded. 



television said:


> If it is outmoded that workers need to have a collective voice and show unity I am ooutmoded.


 What is your definition of a “worker”?


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> I asked you a question and you replied with two unrelated quotes. What gives?


 
I was referign to your previous point where you were showing negative attitude toward front line staff


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> Fairly is the key. People get paid what they earn, not what they need. If there is a shortfall between the two this should be filled through social welfare. Social engineering is not the function or responsibility of a private business. If you do not accept this then you are indeed utterly outmoded?


 
Straw men time again. 

What is your definition of a “worker”?[/quote]


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> Straw men time again.
> 
> What is your definition of a “worker”?


Eh?
I am a worker; I derive my income from my days work (I go with Tony Benn’s definition of a “worker”). So are most of the business owners in Ireland. Some business owners simply own the business and pay someone else to run it so I suppose they are not "workers". Some people are not employers and don't work but derive their income from rent, shares, royalties etc. Some people are employed but have their own business in which they employ other so they are both an employer and an employee. Some managers are owners and some are employees.

So I ask again, what is your definition of a "worker"? In the real world there is no clean break between "Workers" and "Management" so we will have to construct an theoretical scenario before I can reply to your post in which you state "
If it is outmoded that workers need to have a collective voice and show unity I am outmoded."


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Purple said:


> Eh? So I ask again, what is your definition of a "worker"? In the real world there is no clean break between "Workers" and "Management" so we will have to construct an theoretical scenario before I can reply to your post in which you state "
> If it is outmoded that workers need to have a collective voice and show unity I am outmoded."


 

A business owner is someone who takes initive and control and bears risk and tries to derive a profit from that risk. where goods and services is involved this will usally mean employing workers to fulfill certain duties which are central to the business making a profit. the diferenece between you as owner and worker and someone as an employee/worker is huge. 

Where are you going with this?


----------



## Purple (13 Jun 2008)

television said:


> A business owner is someone who takes initive and control and bears risk and tries to derive a profit from that risk. where goods and services is involved this will usally mean employing workers to fulfill certain duties which are central to the business making a profit. the diferenece between you as owner and worker and someone as an employee/worker is huge.


 No it's not. We all require that those we work with do their job well or all our jobs are under threat. 


television said:


> Where are you going with this?


 I want to show that the there is no clear line that can be drawn beween, no clear definition of what constitutes, workers and  managers or a worker and an employer. A carpenter who employs an apprentice is an employer. A guy on the board of City Bank is a worker. Do you think the banker needs protection from the carpenter and him ilk?


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

> We all require that those we work with do their job well or all our jobs are under threat.


 
true but it is not an equal relationship. And nor it should be. Business owners take a risk they should be rewarded. That is what makes business work.


----------



## Complainer (13 Jun 2008)

_Duplicate post removed_


----------



## Complainer (13 Jun 2008)

bullbars said:


> Where people are paid per hour is the greatest source of in-efficiency. In both public and private sectors this is abused. If an employee turns up for work and clock in at 8:00 am and clock out at 7:00 pm, but yet only does 4 hours productive work the other hours are a direct loss and unrecoverable. Where agreed set salaries are in place the hours can be recouped and production maintained.


This shows a distinct lack of understanding of most public sector work environments, and many private sector environments. How do you measure the productive work of a policy advisor. It may months of meetings/calls/emails/draft to get a policy idea accepted by relevant officials, and then all that work might get blown out of the water by a political whim. Does that mean the policy advisor was not productive? If you're lucky, one phone might just result in a change of legislation that improves the quality of life for thousands of people (I've seen this happen), but that is really down to luck - not down to the productivity of the advisor. How do you measure the success of a Community Welfare Officer - is it the number of cases he sees (which creates an incentive to rush through cases, regardless of the result), or how much/little welfare they provide? The same issues apply to many knowledge worker roles in the privae sector. In much of the public sector, it is effectively impossible to quantitatively measure productivity. In the UK, several chief constables recently announced publicly that they have decided to ignore Govt instructions about achieving specific targets and they are moving back towards empowering their officers on the street to deliver good policing.



Purple said:


> Maybe this post says it all. In the private sector this "them and Us", "Workers and management" ethos is very rare and in the truly competitive sectors it is non-existent. Basically if I don't do my job properly and efficiently the people who work for me can’t pay their mortgage and if they don't work the same way I can't pay mine. There is no "them and us", we are all in the same boat. I hate when some bearded clown from a public sector union starts prattling on about "the workers" as if they were a bunch of half-wits who couldn't look after themselves and "Management" as if managers didn't work (and in many cases were promoted to their positions from the roles that they now manage). This is not a Dickens novel; it's 21st centaury Ireland with all the laws and safeguards that go with it.



Indeed, this kind of polarisation of 'them and us' is generally unhelpful. Just as the kind of polarisation of public vs private as frequently seen on this thread and others on AAM is unhelpful. 

Public sector and private sector aren't different worlds. Public sector staff and private sector staff aren't different races or cultures. They are all just people. People move to/from both sectors frequently. People generally do their best to do a decent day's work for a decent day's pay.

Yes, there are skivers on both sides of fence. Yes, there are great managers and bad managers on both sides of the fence. Trying to create division through polarised arguments will not solve any of the many problems that exist in both the public and private sectors.

I work in the public sector, and my administrator has been calling and emailing weekly the venue that hosted an event for us last year. We've been telling them each week that we owe them €4.5k and we'd like a valid invoice so we can pay this money. The great, competitive private sector business hasn't been able to produce a correct invoice in 4 months, despite the fact that we've given them the damn figures repeatedly. 

We're all consumers, and we all come up against examples of great service and terrible service in both the public and private sectors. No-one has a monopoly on efficiency or inefficiency.

Those who like to believe the Daily Mail rants about overpaid and underworked public servants might like to check out some of the facts and conclusions from the recent OECD report on the Irish public services - see  - Here's a few (admittedly selective) quotes;



> From 1995 to 2005, public expenditures in Ireland experienced real increases of more than 5% annually, second only to Korea in the OECD . Much of this spending has been in the health and education sectors. [...] *Much of these increases have reflected a need to play catch-up from historically low levels. *In 2005, Ireland still had the third lowest public expenditure rates as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), third only to Korea and Mexico





> The number of Public Service employees has increased significantly by 30%
> between 1995 and 2007, but also from a low base relative to other OECD countries





> Ireland’s real average annual growth rate in public expenditure between 1995 and 2005 was 5.1%, significantly slower than real GDP growth of
> 7.5% (Figure 1.1). Government policy therefore has actually decreased the total number of public sector employees as a percentage of the labour force and decreased the overall public sector wage bill as a percentage of GDP.





> In comparison with other OECD countries, Ireland thus has been able to deliver public services with a public sector that is relatively small given the size of its economy and labour force (Table 1.1 and Figure 1.2). Even when factoring in infrastructure investment, Ireland has the third smallest total public expenditure as a percentage of GDP, and this figure has actually decreased over the past 10 years.


etc etc etc


----------



## television (13 Jun 2008)

Complainer said:


> This shows a distinct lack of understanding of most public sector work environments, and many private sector environments. How do you measure the productive work of a policy advisor. It may months of meetings/calls/emails/draft to get a policy idea accepted by relevant officials, and then all that work might get blown out of the water by a political whim. Does that mean the policy advisor was not productive? If you're lucky, one phone might just result in a change of legislation that improves the quality of life for thousands of people (I've seen this happen), but that is really down to luck - not down to the productivity of the advisor. How do you measure the success of a Community Welfare Officer - is it the number of cases he sees (which creates an incentive to rush through cases, regardless of the result), or how much/little welfare they provide? The same issues apply to many knowledge worker roles in the privae sector. In much of the public sector, it is effectively impossible to quantitatively measure productivity. In the UK, several chief constables recently announced publicly that they have decided to ignore Govt instructions about achieving specific targets and they are moving back towards empowering their officers on the street to deliver good policing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Now that is a good post. Well done and well said.


----------



## mrsk (19 Jul 2008)

I have worked for both the private and public sector. 

With the arrival of the Celtic Tiger public sector jobs lost their attractiveness. 

When the Celtic Tiger came people left the public sector in droves to take advantage of the well paid private sector jobs, with regular bonuses and attractive perks. 
In 1998 I eventually finished college as a mature student and went for numerous interviews, I got offered a temporary job with the the Health Board, which I took. 
I took the low paid clerical officer job in 1998, other college friends took well paid jobs in the computing industry they were awarded huge bonuses, shares etc. 
Now some of those people are unemployed. 

I took a gamble with High Paid unsecure job versus lowpaid secure job. As somebody who remembered the last 1980s early 1990s and the bad times I went for job security. That's all it was. The jobs were open to all. 

I and my admin colleagues happen to do a great job. Unfortunately we are not the policy makers. The DEPT of Health/Mary Harney have responsibility for policy decisions. 

The HSE needs admin workers, I know that Doctors, Nurses and Clinical Specialists are the angels of the HSE, but these people need support from a wide range of admin workers. 

Who else makes 
Hospital Appointments
Deals with refunds under the Drugs Payment Scheme,
Awards Medical Cards
Long Term Illness Cards
European Health Insurance Cards
Deals with Patient Accounts
Hospital Accounts
Purchasing Equipment, 
Hardship Medicines,
Aids and Applicances such as special shoes, wigs for cancer patients, oxygen equipment etc, 
register births, deaths, marriages, 
Social Inclusion for Homeless, disadvantaged etc

And the support staff to deal with all HSE depts such as 
Payroll
IT Specialists
HR


The budget overruns in the HSE are due to increased applications for demand led schemes such as the Drugs Payment Scheme and the Medical Card Scheme and not due to Clerical staff wasting money.


----------



## Calebs Dad (19 Jul 2008)

Also some talk that the next 2.5% of 2016 in September might be delayed till ater on in the year. So I would say its bad at the moment


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Jul 2008)

People forget that when the population increases, and the economy is busy it puts a greater demand for public services. As more people become unemployed it will also put a great demand on different public services. So cutting public sector staff, is going to have direct effect on that. 

At the same time there's definitely inefficiencies across the public sector and there's lots of productivity improvements that can be done. There's no denying that.


----------



## rmelly (19 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> People forget that when the population increases, and the economy is busy it puts a greater demand for public services. As more people become unemployed it will also put a great demand on different public services.


 
A valid point, but a correlation that should work both ways. 

I'd be interested to know if the reduction in unemployment levels over the last decade or more led to a corresponding reduction in staffing levels to handle the reduced demand, or did it stay at the same level, or indeed increase?


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Jul 2008)

Theres a bigger picture.

The Public sector is huge and varied. You could be taking about an increase in Firemen or a increase in people working in social security. So people need to be specific about they are talking about. Also you had a huge immigration of people who needed social welfare, and other supports from the state. When people complain about the size of the public sector, I wonder what do they expect. You can't have population growth and expect that to have no impact on public sector services. Also theres been under investment for decades in many areas. Look at the schools for example. Some schools have been in prefabs for 30yrs. What about the increases in numbers in schools. How are you going to decrease staff there. Go back to large class sizes? Have class sizes of 50? 

I'm in the public sector, though only for a couple of years. But I was staggered by the volume of non - Irish in the system. When people complain about increase. Also where I am there hasn't been a significant increase in staffing in many years, and it has been constantly understaffed. Of the little increases in staff a high % was due to decentralisation in a new location creating new roles. Even then my section has about 60% of the staff it needs. The end result is that that some projects take forever to complete, and theres delays in some services. You can only do so much with finite resources. Thats not to say things couldn't be improved and existing resources used better. 

Thats only my tiny section of it. I'm sure theres a wide variety of different experiences depending what section you are talking about.


----------



## rmelly (19 Jul 2008)

aircobra19, would you envisage any scenarion / situation / circumstances where there wouldn't be great or greater demand for public services? It seems that no matter what is happening there is always an excuse for maintaining the status quo or increasing staffing levels. What about the productivity increases from wage agreements etc.


----------



## Complainer (19 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> At the same time there's definitely inefficiencies across the public sector and there's lots of productivity improvements that can be done. There's no denying that.


Indeed there are, just like the many inefficiencies and room for lost of productivity improvements in the private sector.


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> aircobra19, would you envisage any scenarion / situation / circumstances where there wouldn't be great or greater demand for public services? It seems that no matter what is happening there is always an excuse for maintaining the status quo or increasing staffing levels. What about the productivity increases from wage agreements etc.


 
Without thinking about it seriously. Population decrease, mass emmigration etc. Change of govt policy, since thats what really drives the public sector. Stricter controls on immigration, explusion of those who shouldn't be here. Stop all the social welfare. Make all health services private, everyone has to have insurance etc. 

Regarding productivity increases from wage agreements. You'd have to look at each section. As some are understaffed and what can you expect there. Each section is different. Some will define easy goals and them meet them. Same thing happens in the prvate sector. How can you fire people who consistently don't come up to standard, when the union will go on strike over nothing?


----------



## rmelly (19 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Indeed there are, just like the many inefficiencies and room for lost of productivity improvements in the private sector.


 
I'm glad we've been set straight on that, thanks complainer.


----------



## aircobra19 (19 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Indeed there are, just like the many inefficiencies and room for lost of productivity improvements in the private sector.


 
Indeed. But in general the tax payer isn't paying for that. The public sector should be of a higher standard.


----------



## Complainer (19 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Indeed. But in general the tax payer isn't paying for that. The public sector should be of a higher standard.


If the taxpayer is also a consumer of goods or services, they are indeed paying for the inefficiencies in the private sector.

I'm not excusing inefficiencies in the public sector or suggesting that they shouldn't be resolved. I'm just pointing out that the public and private sectors aren't as different as some AAM posters would like you to believe.


----------



## rmelly (19 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> If the taxpayer is also a consumer of goods or services, they are indeed paying for the inefficiencies in the private sector.


 
And as a result of competition consumers can choose not to make use of these private sector companies.



> I'm not excusing inefficiencies in the public sector or suggesting that they shouldn't be resolved. I'm just pointing out that the public and private sectors aren't as different as some AAM posters would like you to believe.


 
One significant difference is if a private sector organisation continues to to be so inefficient it fails and disappears or is taken over and restructured etc - it isn't just given a larger budget to get through.


----------



## Complainer (20 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> And as a result of competition consumers can choose not to make use of these private sector companies.


So they get to deal with Eircom's terrible technical support in preference to BT's terrible billing system - right? I'm sure that's a great consolation.



rmelly said:


> One significant difference is if a private sector organisation continues to to be so inefficient it fails and disappears or is taken over and restructured etc - it isn't just given a larger budget to get through.


Indeed, takeovers and restructuring happen in the public sector too. Where is the old Department of Equality and Law Reform? It is languishing in the forgotten corners of the Department of Justice. And what's so great about being taken over or restructured? The customers of NTL (now NTL UPC) are still waiting 20-30 minutes to get through to customer service following the takeover. How has that improved their status?

It's a nice theory that the great free market economy fixes all such problems, but the reality of life for consumers is very different.


----------



## rmelly (20 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> So they get to deal with Eircom's terrible technical support in preference to BT's terrible billing system - right? I'm sure that's a great consolation.


 
Are there no other service providers? Have you tried all the alternatives - Vodafone's new offering, VOIP based services etc.



> Indeed, takeovers and restructuring happen in the public sector too. Where is the old Department of Equality and Law Reform? It is languishing in the forgotten corners of the Department of Justice. And what's so great about being taken over or restructured? The customers of NTL (now NTL UPC) are still waiting 20-30 minutes to get through to customer service following the takeover. How has that improved their status?


 
I wouldn't call what happens in the public sector restructuring - more like rebranding. In the DOJELR example, how many people were made redundant, fired, demoted, had salary reductions or were redeployed to different roles etc?



> It's a nice theory that the great free market economy fixes all such problems, but the reality of life for consumers is very different.


 
Neither sector chosen above is operating to a proper free market economy. 

Eircom was a state monopoly and still is a near monopoly in some sectors it operates in.

Television service provision is also hardly a free market - how many people have no choice of what supplier they can use because of where they live e.g. no satellite clauses in private estates or apartment blocks, and exclusive contracts between service provider and management companies. And I don't believe that Chorus and NTL ever competed before they merged - did they not operate in seperate areas around the country with no overlap? (may be wrong on that?)


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Jul 2008)

The private sector private sector is not immune to inefficiency. One simple example of it is  nepotisim. But theres lots of others. Theres all types of private businesses from small companies to large who have terrible business practises, woeful staff but yet manage to stay in business. Perhapes because they are dominant in a market, have a capitive market,  are first to market etc, etc.  Or perhaps its a hobby business. Lots of reasons. 

You don't need to start getting on a hobby horse about a specific business. its just common sense.


----------



## Complainer (20 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> I wouldn't call what happens in the public sector restructuring - more like rebranding. In the DOJELR example, how many people were made redundant, fired, demoted, had salary reductions or were redeployed to different roles etc?


Your posts seem a tad obsessed with firings. It would of course be illegal for any employer (public or private) to fire/demote/reduce salary during any takeover situation, under TUPE regulations. 

There are many, many options available to employers in both public and private sectors other than firing. Good management will address many performance issues. Most people want to do a good job at work, regardless of what sector they are in. Give them the right resources and the right direction and the right job, and they will generally prosper. Firings are a last resort, and are often a bit of a cop-out.



rmelly said:


> Are there no other service providers? Have you tried all the alternatives - Vodafone's new offering, VOIP based services etc.
> 
> Neither sector chosen above is operating to a proper free market economy.
> Eircom was a state monopoly and still is a near monopoly in some sectors it operates in.
> ...


Lots of excuses there. When the public sector explains the limitations that they work within, whether due to budget limitations or changing govt policy, they are incompetent. But there seems to be endless patience to explain the difficulties of the poor craturs in the private sector. 

But if you feel that the TV and telecom sectors are not typical, there are plenty of examples elsewhere. How many Irish consumers do you hear singing the praises of their bank? When was the last time you had a good experience getting served in PC World? Or Woodies? Or Tesco? I've been following this boards.ie thread on best/worst customer experiences for a while, and there are far more complaints about private sector providers than public sector? The panacea of the 'free market' does not provide value for money or quality of service to consumers. 

The ultimate irony during the week was to hear Michael O'Leary, that great bastion of the free market whinging that the had to ground some planes in Dublin because DAA wouldn't subsidise his routes. No mention of $150 per barrell oil price, it's all the DAA's fault. Where's the free market economy there with all of Michael's subsidies?


----------



## television (20 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Your posts seem a tad obsessed with firings. It would of course be illegal for any employer (public or private) to fire/demote/reduce salary during any takeover situation, under TUPE regulations.
> 
> There are many, many options available to employers in both public and private sectors other than firing. Good management will address many performance issues. Most people want to do a good job at work, regardless of what sector they are in. Give them the right resources and the right direction and the right job, and they will generally prosper. Firings are a last resort, and are often a bit of a cop-out.
> 
> ...


 

 Excellent post serial.


----------



## rmelly (20 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Your posts seem a tad obsessed with firings. It would of course be illegal for any employer (public or private) to fire/demote/reduce salary during any takeover situation, under TUPE regulations.
> 
> There are many, many options available to employers in both public and private sectors other than firing. Good management will address many performance issues. Most people want to do a good job at work, regardless of what sector they are in. Give them the right resources and the right direction and the right job, and they will generally prosper. Firings are a last resort, and are often a bit of a cop-out.


 
So explain the poor teachers that I had in school over a decade ago that are still teaching, to the same poor standard.



> Lots of excuses there. When the public sector explains the limitations that they work within, whether due to budget limitations or changing govt policy, they are incompetent. But there seems to be endless patience to explain the difficulties of the poor craturs in the private sector.
> 
> But if you feel that the TV and telecom sectors are not typical, there are plenty of examples elsewhere. How many Irish consumers do you hear singing the praises of their bank? When was the last time you had a good experience getting served in PC World? Or Woodies? Or Tesco? I've been following this boards.ie thread on best/worst customer experiences for a while, and there are far more complaints about private sector providers than public sector? The panacea of the 'free market' does not provide value for money or quality of service to consumers.
> 
> The ultimate irony during the week was to hear Michael O'Leary, that great bastion of the free market whinging that the had to ground some planes in Dublin because DAA wouldn't subsidise his routes. No mention of $150 per barrell oil price, it's all the DAA's fault. Where's the free market economy there with all of Michael's subsidies?


 
Why are you focusing on customer experience? The discussion was on inefficiencies.

Plus to say there are more complaints about private sector companies is a bit disingenuous - most of the public have minimal customer service interaction with public sector organisations on a daily basis. Do I drop into DOJELR to buy a bunch of bananas or a pot of paint?


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> So explain the poor teachers that I had in school over a decade ago that are still teaching, to the same poor standard.


 
Its just like my local main car dealer, still massively over charging, terrible service department. They could charge far less, improve the quality of their staff and have far more customers. But people just won't shop around. So they don't have to.



rmelly said:


> Why are you focusing on customer experience? The discussion was on inefficiencies.


 
How do you know if some organisation, public or private is inefficient? You don't know if its understaffed, or over staffed, what the work load is etc. Hard to know unless you actually work there or have direct experience. What I find in the public sector where I am is, where things work in a bizarre way, theres usually been some union or policital interference that has twisted the process. In the private sector this might be because an owner manager wants something done a particular way, for non business reasons. 



rmelly said:


> Plus to say there are more complaints about private sector companies is a bit disingenuous - most of the public have minimal customer service interaction with public sector organisations on a daily basis. Do I drop into DOJELR to buy a bunch of bananas or a pot of paint?


 
I don't get the argument that frequence is a factor here. I've gone into some shops once or twice and service was woeful. Maybe its the only DIY shop in the area. Whereas other shops like the local butcher I'm in all the time and service is excellent.


----------



## rmelly (20 Jul 2008)

In what way could I shop around it my maths and chemistry teachers were poor, apart from getting grinds. Is it that easy to switch schools a few years into secondary education?


The point is if I deal with 100 private sector organisations versus 10 public sector organisations, and 1 in 10 of each offers poor customer service, that's 10 private sector versus 1 public sector. So if there are 10 private sector complaints versus 1 public sector, then it means they are on a par, not that private sector is more complained about.


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> In what way could I shop around it my maths and chemistry teachers were poor, apart from getting grinds. Is it that easy to switch schools a few years into secondary education?.


 
Certainly it can be done, and is done all the time. 



rmelly said:


> The point is if I deal with 100 private sector organisations versus 10 public sector organisations, and 1 in 10 of each offers poor customer service, that's 10 private sector versus 1 public sector. So if there are 10 private sector complaints versus 1 public sector, then it means they are on a par, not that private sector is more complained about.


 
The point I'm making is neither sector is perfect, and similar problems exist in both. I think its a bit pointless making direct comparisions, with stats between private sector and public when both are operating with different constraints.

For example how are you going to magic the union out of the comparision. Because that makes a world of a difference.


----------



## rmelly (20 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Certainly it can be done, and is done all the time.


 
And then when I switch I have a poor English or Physics teacher to contend with instead in the new school? 



> I think its a bit pointless making direct comparisions, with stats between private sector and public when both are operating with different constraints.


 
I was responding to your question on what frequency had to do with it. Which followed on from my response to complainers pointing us to the thread and saying there were far more complaints about private sector...so follow up with complainer on that one.



> For example how are you going to magic the union out of the comparision. Because that makes a world of a difference.


 
Sorry, I don't understand this point - are you referring to trade unions?


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> And then when I switch I have a poor English or Physics teacher to contend with instead in the new school?


 
I think your veering into a whole different subject there. The school system. Which lets face it the Govt has left it to faith schools and washed their hands of it. I things thats a broader discussion than the scope of this topic. I've certainly had the whole "bad teacher" experience myself. The schools seem unable or unwilling to deal with it. I'm not entirely sure which. 



rmelly said:


> I was responding to your question on what frequency had to do with it. Which followed on from my response to complainers pointing us to the thread and saying there were far more complaints about private sector...so follow up with complainer on that one.


 
 I didn't think his comment was valid either. TBH. 



rmelly said:


> Sorry, I don't understand this point - are you referring to trade unions?


 
Sorry yes. The unions do themselves no favours. That said sometimes the management, in public sector, seem to go out of their way to create confrontations with unions. So theres blame on both sides IMO.


----------



## ajapale (20 Jul 2008)

polo1 said:


> Anyone know if the HSE will lift their ban on recruitment now that the gov have increased spending for next year?



Anyone care to discuss the original question posed back in Dec 07?


----------



## mrsk (20 Jul 2008)

The HSE say that there is no ban on recruitment, staff levels that were there before September 2007 (date of first recruitment freeze) are to remain the same.


----------



## MOB (20 Jul 2008)

"It would of course be illegal for any employer (public or private) to fire/demote/reduce salary during any takeover situation, under TUPE regulations. "

Not really true.  

There is a slightly odd perception out there that TUPE means that an employer cannot implement any changes during a takeover.   What TUPE really means is that employee rights cannot be reduced as a result of a takeover.  Employers always have the right to re-structure, regrade, implement redundancies etc.  Of course, they must do so within the law.  But TUPE does not in some sense render employees immune to the effects of change - it merely protects existing rights.


----------

