State supports for Vulnerable Children.

In some cases (and my own better half is a case in point), she took an elongated leave of absence whilst the smallies were very small and then when she did return to work, it as on reduced hours As part of that, we moved out of Dublin to her home town to have that network of family around to support us if needed. However I am conscious that not everyone can do that. Therefore, is there not a bigger issue here firstly that needs to be tackled, namely the cost and availability of affordable childcare? I'm aware of people where it made no financial sense for both of them to continue working so one gave up.
 
Peanuts20 said:
Therefore, is there not a bigger issue here firstly that needs to be tackled, namely the cost and availability of affordable childcare?
Click to expand...
Yes, but while that's happening, and it will take time, can we also look at who and how we train people for roles in child services and healthcare?
Peanuts20 said:
I'm aware of people where it made no financial sense for both of them to continue working so one gave up.
Click to expand...
And that's usually the woman. That's a combination of societal expectations, and personal choice based on genetic programming (women and men are equal but we are not the same). Given the luxury of choice, based on having financial resources to make that choice, more women than men will choose to spend more time with their children. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not a negative. Not taking that into account when we train people for the workforce is a negative.
 
If abuse is happening, there will be some evidence of this, one way or other, either in reduced outputs or higher staff turnover or whatever. Once again, it's a little bit rich to come out with 'mass misuse/abuse of taxpayers money' with no actual detail of how/when/where this happened.

And no, I'm definitely not a unionist. Orange doesn't go with my skin complexion.
 
As you know, there is no way of a layperson being privy to criminal behaviour within the public sector.

As for 'mass misuse/abuse of taxpayers money' - this is intrinsic to the public sector union actions.

I purposely omitted "trade" as the public sector has nothing to do with trades
 
ATC110 said:
As you know, there is no way of a layperson being privy to criminal behaviour within the public sector.
Click to expand...
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
ATC110 said:
As for 'mass misuse/abuse of taxpayers money' - this is intrinsic to the public sector union actions.
Click to expand...
That's just the nature of Unions. In small businesses they either moderate their behaviour or close the business. In the Protected Sector there is a limitless amount of other people's money and employees can't lose their job so there is no check on them but that's not what this thread is about.

I'm asking a simple question; given the profile of the people working in the sectors which provide services and support for vulnerable children do we need to look again at how we train and provide the necessary staff.
 
Purple said:
I'm asking a simple question; given the profile of the people working in the sectors which provide services and support for vulnerable children do we need to look again at how we train and provide the necessary staff.
Click to expand...
Potentially yes and one of the key questions to ask, how do we attract more men to the roles?. Having said that, how many people would consider a man as having ulterior motives if he was to take up such a role.? For many, it would be their knee jerk reaction
 
Yes, I agree. Sexism and gender stereotypes go both ways. If we aren't looking at gender quotas then do we need more training places?
The reality is that there is no shortage of speech therapists but there is a shortage of speech therapists who want to work fulltime. The same applies to Doctors in General Practice; there are more then enough of them but they don't want to work fulltime. Both are relatively well paid jobs (particularly Doctors) and with high marginal tax rates and high childcare costs the extra hours probably just aren't worth it financially when balanced against disruption to family life and the desire to spend more time with their children. We can call them vocations all we like but first and foremost they are jobs.
 
Is this some kind of Schrödinger's criminality - it's definitely there as you're speaking 100% definitively about its existence, but no-one can actually see it, detect it, define it, quantify it or describe it? Criminality at work isn't unique to the public sector, btw, as we know from the tip-of-the-iceberg cases that do come to Court. You won't hear about the many cases in the private sector that are quietly covered up as the person gets moved off and moved out and everyone stays nice and quiet to avoid any reputational damage, but that's for another day perhaps.

Same for the 'mass misuse/abuse' - just seems strange that you can't define it, yet you're 100% convinced of its existence. Another article of faith perhaps.

All the trades staff in the OPW and County Councils will be fascinated to hear that they don't exist in your eyes. There are lots of tradepersons in public sector trades unions, and lots of non-trades staff in both public and private sector trades unions.
 
That's a fairly definitive statement about the cause of the shortage for both GPs and SLTs. Is there any kind of analysis behind this? Are there more complex issues in both of these areas? Is there some mass conspiracy going on that results in the professional associations not mentioning this problem of the part-time women in their frequent discussions on shortages?
 
Union membership isn't restricted to public sector. Membership is fairly strong in retail, hospitality, construction, finance. All those businesses don't seem to be closing, so it looks like they find ways to live together.
 
The IMO have two recent reports which speak to the issue. The latest is Women in Medicine.
 
RetirementPlan said:
Union membership isn't restricted to public sector. Membership is fairly strong in retail, hospitality, construction, finance. All those businesses don't seem to be closing, so it looks like they find ways to live together.
Click to expand...
None of those areas are open to international competition. Finance, as we know, isn’t really properly open and in many cases is ‘too big to fail’. Construction is grossly inefficient, as has been covered in detail in other threads.
There are certainly areas where Unions are necessary but the fact is that the people on both sides of the table in the Public Service are in Unions and there is a bottomless pit of other people’s money on that table. They get to decide if they trouser it or use it for the public good. The results are there for everyone to see.
 
RetirementPlan said:
Union membership isn't restricted to public sector. Membership is fairly strong in retail, hospitality, construction, finance. All those businesses don't seem to be closing, so it looks like they find ways to live together.
Click to expand...
The unions are broken in some of these areas. Imagine what would have happened in the 1970's if numerous banks said they were closing entirely like Danske have done and KBC and UB are going to do. It would be an all out banking strike accross the country. Senior management in the banks take no real notice of them anymore
 
That's true, but AIB and BoI know that no matter what they do they cannot be allowed to fail.
 
RetirementPlan said:
Is there some mass conspiracy going on that results in the professional associations not mentioning this problem of the part-time women in their frequent discussions on shortages?
Click to expand...
The professional associations represent their members, why would they raise as an issue something many of their members want to see continued?
 
They took enough notice of the unions that HP recognised unions for the first time worldwide when BOI outsourced the IT team to HP. That's a few years back now, but it got a fair bit of attention at the time. An environment of industrial peace isn't an indicator that employers are ignoring unions. It may well be an indicator of the reverse.
 
Leo said:
The professional associations represent their members, why would they raise as an issue something many of their members want to see continued?
Click to expand...
Because they want to solve the problem, though probably not in the 'get back in the kitchen' way of some posters here. The first step to solving the problem is recognising the root cause. I've never seen any serious analysis indicating that part-time work is a serious contributing factor, and definitely not the only or main contributing factor to staff shortages in these areas.
 
Fair point and in that case I think it was a good thing.
 
RetirementPlan said:
Because they want to solve the problem,
Click to expand...
Do they? What makes you think that?
RetirementPlan said:
though probably not in the 'get back in the kitchen' way of some posters here.
Click to expand...
Which posters?
Finally, you are understanding the point of the thread. There is no analysis that I can find but given the fact that women work shorter hours, spend less time in the workforce and are far more likely to take parental leave in the State Sector it is remarkable that the data doesn't seem to be available. I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't make those choices. I'm suggesting that they should be taken into account at the resource planning stage and that can only be done when the real data is available.
 
Purple said:
The IMO have two recent reports which speak to the issue. The latest is Women in Medicine.
Click to expand...
This one? https://www.imo.ie/policy-internati...Position-Paper-on-Women-in-Medicine-Final.pdf

21% female respondents said they had applied for part-time work, however of those that had applied, roughly one-quarter had their applications rejected. By comparison, only 4% of male respondents had applied for part-time work in the past.
Click to expand...

So about 15% of female staff availing of part-time work? Doesn't seem like that's the major issue here - certainly not from the POV of the medics, who highlight these major issues.

  • Gender-based Bullying, Gender-based Harassment, and Sexual Harassment
  • Addressing Gender Issues in Specialty Choice and Career Progression
  • Supporting a Balance between Family Life and Medical Training and Practice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register