Croke Park 2 - dead before it gets voted upon
- Thread starter Leper
- Start date
Aren't we lucky we have such a performant public sector?
Yes, the financial regulator, Central Bank, ESRI and Dept Of Finance worked well during the Cetic Tiger era.
You forgot the "
" there Cork.I presume that you're joking, given that you are clever enough to write, dress yourself, cross the road, you know, basic higher brain functions. Given that I know you are joking.
C
celebtastic
Guest
+1
The sad thing is that, as can be seen from some of the union defenders on here, that needed government services will continue to suffer in the absence of real reform in the PS.
What is needed is to freeze all increments (or pay rises by the back door), eliminate flexi and paid overtime, chop all these "allowances", and get rid of the sort of clock watching culture that leads to taking sick days as an automatic entitlement.
The reality is that if these sort of very reasonable changes were implemented, then there would not be such a need for the modest pay cuts proposed or the dramatic cuts to front line services now being experienced by many.
Sadly, with SIPTU bankrolled Labour in gubbernment, little change will happen and the debts will just snowball for future generations.
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
This interests me - how would you structure & manage pay in the absence of incremental scales then? (And by the way I see you'
You seem to disdain incremental salary scales (as opposed to many people who simply think that proper performance management needs to be put in place so that there's a bell curve applied). In the absence of incremental pay, staff have no financial incentive for performance - bear in mind that only a fairly limited number can be promoted.
The only logical conclusion of flat pay scales is that no-one will ever stay in a PS job for any length of time (except someone who knows they are pretty unemployable elsewhere - just the kind of person you want to have around long-term!); as soon as they are experienced/skilled enough they will simply have to move on to a better paying job in the private sector (again, only a small proportion can be promoted in a relatively short term).
Or maybe you think that a very high staff turnover would somehow be a good thing for the machinery of the state? If so you might explain the benefits, as I don't really see how they would outweigh the costs (substantial HR admin costs of constant recruitment, inability to attract/motivate suitably qualified candidates due to the flat pay structure, lack of continuity resulting in difficulties implementing long-term projects / policies).
For example - I'll ask you this, from a context I'm familiar with - what qualified accountant / tax consultant / solicitor (this is the job requirement), will be happy to join Revenue as an Administrative Officer on a salary of €29,922, with no prospect of any increase in that salary other than a possibility of promotion at some point somewhere in their future, or any prospect of other professional work on the side to augment their income, due to ethics/conflict of interest issues? The answer is none worth their salt.
By the way you do realise that the actual pay for a particular grade is the top of the scale, not the bottom? I'll be perfectly happy to be immediately put at the top of my scale on a permanent basis until I get promoted..!
Oh, and you conveniently never responded to my earlier post, so here it is again:
That's quite a statement. So getting paid (and keeping your job) aren't enough financial incentive?
I think one option would be to have a quota of increments each year - rather than doing away with them completely (which could only ever be a short-term measure), maybe 20% (or 50% or 80%) of staff eligible for increments would be allowed one. So the top performers would still see progress and the middling performers would effectively have to compete to outperform their colleagues. If it became the norm in the public sector, there would be a knock-on effect to those looking to move out because they felt underpaid - the private sector recruiter could ask about the person's increment performance - so a non-performer. non-increment earner couldn't move so easily because they were fed up with lack of increments.
Cutting peoples pay because they work in an inefficient organisation is unfair. Make the organisation efficient and then if pay cuts are needed look at that option.
The problem is that the people in charge don’t seem to have the ability to change the structures and even if they did the unions will attempt to stymie any real reforms in order to protect their underperforming members. Therefore the current situation will remain where the majority of public sector employees who are diligent and hard working are subsidising their underperforming colleagues and are penalised because of the structural inefficiencies within their organisations.
I’d love to see a grass-roots lobby group of Public Sector/ Civil Service employees from all levels put forward their own plan for real reform; Title it “Don’t cut my pay, do this instead”, but while both management and non-management levels are so heavily unionised I can’t see that happen.
The problem is that the people in charge don’t seem to have the ability to change the structures and even if they did the unions will attempt to stymie any real reforms in order to protect their underperforming members. Therefore the current situation will remain where the majority of public sector employees who are diligent and hard working are subsidising their underperforming colleagues and are penalised because of the structural inefficiencies within their organisations.
I’d love to see a grass-roots lobby group of Public Sector/ Civil Service employees from all levels put forward their own plan for real reform; Title it “Don’t cut my pay, do this instead”, but while both management and non-management levels are so heavily unionised I can’t see that happen.
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
Choose to misinterpret what I said if you like; I'm pretty sure it's clear what I meant, which was performance beyond the bare minimum, as in being considered a performer rather than a plodder.
Outside of the big organisations like banks and insurance companies, many private sector companies don't have incremental scales - you get hired at a certain salary level so in theory there is no financial incentive to do more than plod. However, if you are a plodder you probably won't move off your starting salary (and if you don't like it you can leave) but if you are a performer, you will probably see your pay rise. The problem with incremental scales (in both public and private sector) is the near-automatic progression. I know there'll be the usual clamour of 'oh, no you have to earn it...' but really, hand on heart, unless you are truly terrible at your job, what chance is there of not getting your increment?
That's why I think some sort of quota system would work well: if only 50% of people eligible got increments, that would save 50% of the cost of increments. The performers are kept happy and those who didn't get an increment will be incentivised to up their performance next year. I don't see any downside.
That's why I think some sort of quota system would work well: if only 50% of people eligible got increments, that would save 50% of the cost of increments. The performers are kept happy and those who didn't get an increment will be incentivised to up their performance next year. I don't see any downside.
dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
You have still not stated why you find flexi-time such an appalling thing. You do realise that many organisations use it, not just the public sector?
Doing away with paid overtime could lead to a requirement for additional staff to be recruited which isn't going to happen.
There has already been significant changes to sick leave management recently, it is monitored much more closely than before.
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
On the one hand you say "The problem with incremental scales (in both public and private sector) is the near-automatic progression", but on the other you say it needs to be fundamentally changed to a quota based system. Surely if the problem is as you say, then the solution, quite simply is to ensure proper management of the PMDS system as is already there.
2 suggestions to provide a quick and effective remedy:
Firstly (and I think this may already be in train?) a 3 should be the required score for incremental progression.
Secondly, mid- and senior- management CANNOT get a score of 3 in their own performance review unless the PMDS scores of the staff in their teams / units are within a "normal" range. I think this would ensure that there would be a more realistic spread of performance scores, and a higher proportion of non-increments.
What happens when 99% of people start getting a 3?
When 99% of people start getting a 3? The only publicly available stats are that 99% already get a 3! I think it should be a minimum of a properly graded and assessed 4, subject to a maximum of 20% of people getting increments.
I see no inconsistency in saying that the solution to a badly working system is a fundamentally different system. Sure, a better working of the existing badly-operated system is one solution but it’s not the only solution.
We have two problems – the badly-operated system and the country’s financial condition. Fixing the operation of the existing system might help towards the finances but it will be difficult to quantify an impact and an overnight shift is unlikely – a wholesale revision of grading from 99% at 3 and above is unlikely to happen overnight. The existing system with a maximum quota of increments at eg 20% would give an immediate saving which could be estimated fairly accurately.
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
99% don't get 3 and above surely?! Is there a source for that?
We know >99% of those eligible get their increment, but as I said that's because a 2 has thus far been sufficient to get it. Surely there's at least a few % of 2's knocking around... Not as many as there should be, but more than 1% I'd say.
We know >99% of those eligible get their increment, but as I said that's because a 2 has thus far been sufficient to get it. Surely there's at least a few % of 2's knocking around... Not as many as there should be, but more than 1% I'd say.
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
I think you missed the point of my suggestion.
If 99% of people got 3's then hardly anyone with responsibility for more than (say) 10 staff would qualify for their own increment, as they would not have properly overseen the PMDS process.
I'm pretty sure managers wouldn't have too much difficulty grading their staff more honestly if their own increment depended on it.
Hey Guys, don't get caught up in marking performance anywhere (especially in the public service). Line Managers tend to go down the middle on the assumption that if they give an excellent mark and the prospect fails to perform later he/she (line manager) will not look good. On the other hand, if a low mark is provided and the prospect performs well later the line manager still looks bad.
It's not rocket-science; they go down the middle.
It's not rocket-science; they go down the middle.
Yes, 99% get 3 and above in the only data available (on 23,000 civil servants) – see my post #119 and http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/26/00132.asp 8% got a 5, 56% got a 4, 35% got a 3, 0.9% got a 2 and 0.1% got a 1. So 64% got 4 or better, 99% got a 3 or better and 99.9% got a 2 or better.
How do you decide whether an individual manager has properly overseen the process? How do you decide what is an acceptable range of outcomes – either on an organisation-wide basis or on a smaller team basis? A manager of 20 people could have 20 strong performers deserving of 4s – does he have to downgrade some so that he appears to have managed well in producing a wide range of grades?