Public Service work to rule?

[Shawady]

Re: PS work to rule?

Thanks - so now I know.

Not having a go at the PS but in our case anyway, it's proving to be very silly. As you say, it has worked out more inconvenient for the PS than for us on each occasion. The stances taken haven't even been logical. Hasn't cost us a cent so far - maybe 10 minutes extra admin.

As I said, we do more favours as a supplier than they do for us anyway so, if it turns out that a WTR attitude costs us financially, or in terms of time, we will simply apply our own WTR and claw any lost money back as there are plenty of ways of doing so - might even add in a few more % just for the inconvenience caused

In my area anyway, I think it would be more hassle for us than the public if we tried to apply the WTR in its strictest terms. I think it is just human nature that most people just want to do their job.
As Liaconn has said there are some defined actions such as not working on lunch or not working late.

 

[Shawady]

Re: PS work to rule?

What would happen if one person kept answering the phone on the off days?

There is a 10 point plan detailing what cannot be done by union members and if someone is found breaking the work to rule, they can be subject to disiplinary action by the central excecutive committee. Don't know what this means but probably told to leave the union.
One point that has caused a bit of hassle in our place is that we are not supposed to do the work of another grade. So if someone is off sick or on leave, that work is supposed to be left. However this can have a knock on effect for the rest of us and is proving to be more hassle for the employees than anything else.

 

[Deiseblue]

It seems that the refusal of the relevant department to deal with parliamentary questions is causing problems for TD's per today's Irish Times.

 

[MrMan]

Re: PS work to rule?

Tell your friend to buy her granny a mobile!

she isn't at her best mentally shall we say, so she has to be loooked after.

 

[Caveat]

Re: PS work to rule?

One point that has caused a bit of hassle in our place is that we are not supposed to do the work of another grade. So if someone is off sick or on leave, that work is supposed to be left. However this can have a knock on effect for the rest of us and is proving to be more hassle for the employees than anything else.

I don't get it - have the unions not thought of this or discussed it? It's totally counterproductive.

Can't go into specifics, and it's convoluted to explain anyway but a few stances taken with us as a supplier (apparently as a result of a WTR) have actually cost the PS money and quite a bit of hassle I'd say too. For us the impact was negligible. I don't understand the point of it.

I don't want to seem over belligerent, but there is no way that this is going to affect us as a business - if anyone gets too stroppy or awkward, we will simply make up the money elsewhere if necessary by charging for services/items that we should have been charging for anyway. Why should we be out of pocket?

What annoys me is that a WTR is supposed to demonstrate how previously flexible staff have been and how they have turned a blind eye and overlooked whatever. - is it not?

It doesn't seem to have crossed anyone's mind that suppliers to the PS often bend over backwards for them - we do.

There are all sorts of charges that strictly speaking we should be applying, all sorts of favours, free of charge replacements, hand delivering urgently required items at no charge etc etc

 

[Shawady]

Re: PS work to rule?

I don't get it - have the unions not thought of this or discussed it? It's totally counterproductive.

The top guys in the unions have decided upon this WTR strategy but there are so many different areas within the public service that some may have an effect on the government but many others won't. I think a previous poster mentioned that dealing with parlimetary questions is causing problems for them.
If we followed it strictly we would be make life more difficult for ourselves and postponing work that will just have to be done anyway.

 

[Teatime]

Re: PS work to rule?

A friend of mine working in a university was handed a memo detailing what to do as part of the work-to-rule. One of the items was not to reply to an email until the next day - is that not a go-slow rather than a work-to-rule?

 

[Firefly]

Re: PS work to rule?

Can't go into specifics, and it's convoluted to explain anyway but a few stances taken with us as a supplier (apparently as a result of a WTR) have actually cost the PS money and quite a bit of hassle I'd say too. For us the impact was negligible. I don't understand the point of it.

Since when did the unions ever care about this?

 

[becky]

Re: PS work to rule?

she isn't at her best mentally shall we say, so she has to be loooked after.

Mr. Man - I heard from a colleague that there is WTR for nurses in Limerick where they won't answer telephones.

 

[becky]

Re: PS work to rule?

A friend of mine working in a university was handed a memo detailing what to do as part of the work-to-rule. One of the items was not to reply to an email until the next day - is that not a go-slow rather than a work-to-rule?

A WTR rule can have go slows like these as part of the WTR. For example we have a a policy of responding to a certain query within 3 days. However, in reality this query is responded to within 24 hours. As part of the WTR we should/could wait 3 days.

WTR's are meant to cause disruption to the employer. If this means that the members are disrupted in the process so be it.

 

[Caveat]

So is disruption caused to suppliers just regarded as collateral as well?

I don't see why staff/unions cannot distinguish between their employer and their suppliers.

 

[becky]

So is disruption caused to suppliers just regarded as collateral as well?

I don't see why staff/unions cannot distinguish between their employer and their suppliers.

Yes I would say suppliers can be disrupted as well.

Why would they be excluded specifically? Maybe if you supply medicine or food perhaps. I can't see the union making any consessions for say suppliers of stationary.

 

[Henny Penny]

I tried today to get through to revenue - no luck - phone message on answering service said due to industrial action 1890 number is not being answered.
Spoke to receptionist in dept of health today ... she said wtr was in operation but would try to put me through to a prinicipal officer whose union was not wtr ... after several attempts she informed me that they must all be sympathizing and that I should try tomorrow ... it'll probably be over by then!
Just one question ... why didn't someone in the government write 'responding to telephone queries' into the job description of civil servants?

 

[becky]

... it'll probably be over by then!
Just one question ... why didn't someone in the government write 'responding to telephone queries' into the job description of civil servants?

If you mean the WTR will be over tommorow, afraid not. It's only getting going. Answering telephone calls is a fairly common task written into a job spec. I have a list of specific duties which I issue to new staff and one of the tasks is to deal with telephone calls promptly. The non answering of phones is a form of industrial action which is short of strike action. The employer has been informed of the action according to the industrial relations act. The employer can decide to reduce pay for non performance of certain duties by say 10%. This was what they threatened to do to nurses when they were looking for the 35 hour week a few years ago.

 

[Birroc]

The employer has been informed of the action according to the industrial relations act. The employer can decide to reduce pay for non performance of certain duties by say 10%.

I am curious why you refer to the government as the 'employer' as if this happens within other employments. Maybe I am wrong butI would say there is no other employer in Ireland that would put up with a work-to-rule like this.

 

[Caveat]

Why would they be excluded specifically?

Why??

A WTR is a protest - right? So what is it about suppliers that the HSE or wider public service is protesting about? The protest is meant to be against their employer, the state, as far as I was aware.

Put simply, suppliers should be excluded because it's got nothing to do them.

For exactly what reason should PS workers make it difficult for suppliers to do their job, regardless of what they are supplying?

 

[becky]

I am curious why you refer to the government as the 'employer' as if this happens within other employments. Maybe I am wrong butI would say there is no other employer in Ireland that would put up with a work-to-rule like this.

I don't consider the government the employer. My employer is the HSE. I agree that some employers, namely private sector ones, wouldn't put up with this but you're not comparing like with like.

 

[becky]

Why??
A WTR is a protest - right? So what is it about suppliers that the HSE or wider public service is protesting about? The protest is meant to be against their employer, the state, as far as I was aware.
Put simply, suppliers should be excluded because it's got nothing to do them.
For exactly what reason should PS workers make it difficult for suppliers to do their job, regardless of what they are supplying?

This WTR is a form of industrial action just like a strike. The employer is the HSE in my case not the government . What about patients? My Dad has an OPD appointment next week which is an all day one. If a 3 hour stoppage was planned that day in the hospital, chances are the appointment will be cancelled. This has nothing to do with him either.

 

[Caveat]

This WTR is a form of industrial action just like a strike. The employer is the HSE in my case not the government.

Fine, the HSE then, doesn't matter - the point is that suppliers are certainly not your employer.

What about patients? My Dad has an OPD appointment next week which is an all day one. If a 3 hour stoppage was planned that day in the hospital, chances are the appointment will be cancelled. This has nothing to do with him either.

No it hasn't but there is a difference.

The HSE and wider public service/sector are providing a service to the public.

Leaving aside for the moment whether or not I agree with the action or it's consequences I can see the logic in disrupting service to the public: disgruntled members of the public have no-one to complain to except the government - I presume it is intended that the pressure will further their cause.

I can also see the logic in disrupting services from the civil service directly to the government e.g. briefing on parliamentary speeches was mentioned.

What I can't see any logic in is making things difficult for suppliers to the extent where it costs both the PS and the suppliers time and money, when the supplies will be needed anyway, and when there will be no affect that I can see other than to annoy suppliers.

 

[Firefly]

What I can't see any logic in is making things difficult for suppliers to the extent where it costs both the PS and the suppliers time and money, when the supplies will be needed anyway, and when there will be no affect that I can see other than to annoy suppliers.

I think the whole idea of the WTR is that as many people as possible will be inconvenienced - suppliers included. The unions IMO don't care at all about the added costs/inconvenience to the HSE or suppliers.