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

demoivre said:
No I'm not joking at all - as I said it's been my experience. I have also found that the smaller the job the less likely they are to return your call or turn up at an agreed meeting. On the bigger jobs that they agree to undertake, they don't stay at it until complete - you end up chasing them to get the job done.
Click to expand...
But the people in question are not paid with public money and if they are consistently bad at their job they will go out of business. This is not the case with the public sector. No private sector business would function well where there was no real downside for working slowly, badly and/or inefficiently, and no real reward for doing the opposite. This is how the civil and public sector and so-called "commercial" semi-state sectors operate. That's why they are so bad. It's not just the fault of the people who work there or the unions or the management or the government. The fault is shared by all paties. Unfortunately the problem is bigger than any of them and without total support by all of them, and a good plan, things will not change. Because of the adversarial culture between management and unions in many of there cases, which is the fault of both parties, it is very unlikely to ever happen.
What is required is good management and a willingness by the unions to let the managers manage without having to seek permission to do their job from the people they are supposed to be in charge of. At the moment the management skills are not there so it is understandable that the unions dig their heels in. Once that culture has been created (and by now it's not just created, it's institutionalised) it is very hard to get rid of it.
 
Purple said:
But the people in question are not paid with public money and if they are consistently bad at their job they will go out of business. This is not the case with the public sector. No private sector business would function well where there was no real downside for working slowly, badly and/or inefficiently, and no real reward for doing the opposite. This is how the civil and public sector and so-called "commercial" semi-state sectors operate. That's why they are so bad. It's not just the fault of the people who work there or the unions or the management or the government. The fault is shared by all paties. Unfortunately the problem is bigger than any of them and without total support by all of them, and a good plan, things will not change. Because of the adversarial culture between management and unions in many of there cases, which is the fault of both parties, it is very unlikely to ever happen.
What is required is good management and a willingness by the unions to let the managers manage without having to seek permission to do their job from the people they are supposed to be in charge of. At the moment the management skills are not there so it is understandable that the unions dig their heels in. Once that culture has been created (and by now it's not just created, it's institutionalised) it is very hard to get rid of it.
Click to expand...

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

When you have that level of ingrained trade unionism and a management vs unions culture in an organisation there will never be adequate reform - so you have two options scrap it and start again or privatise as much as you can.
 
While it's all very well to say that "good management" is required in the civil service/public sector, one must remember that management have few sanctions against under-performing staff: they cannot sack them, they cannot dock wages, they cannot send them to Siberia.

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

And staff have few incentives to work efficiently and harder: they don't get bonuses, they won't get promotions based on their work and they won't have wages increased for hard work.
Click to expand...
I agree. That's exactly the point I was making. Management also have no real incentive to work harder/ better and there is no real sanction if they don't.
 
My preference would be for the government to regulate rather than run public services such as transport and health. But they have shown a remarkable lack of competence whenever they have interfaced with the private sector over the last 15 years and the tax payer has had to pick up the pieces. So if the choice is to run things badly or regulate them badly I'd choose the former.
I do think that much of the problem comes from the attitude of the Irish people in general where we want a materialistic government to take care of us instead of taking care of themselves.
I heard the female member of the comedy duo on NewsTalk this morning bemoaning the fact that "They" didn't "put something in place" for "the community" when drink driving laws impacted on rural pubs. To me this typifies the cultural lack of personal responsibility we have.
 
Welfarite said:
And staff have few incentives to work efficiently and harder: they don't get bonuses, they won't get promotions based on their work and they won't have wages increased for hard work.
Click to expand...

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

I don't think public sector staff are excluded from promotions - if not work based, what is it based on? surely not just longevity of service?
 
Furthermore, those conditions described above ^^ will only serve to attract a certain calibre of individual (in general), exacerbating the situation.
 
Caveat said:
But a lot of people in the private sector don't get bonuses either, and nor will they necessarily have their wages increased for hard work. I frequently "work late" - just because the work needs done. I don't get any bonuses or other incentive for this.
Click to expand...

Your incentive (like mine) is that you are more likely to still have a job next year if you work hard/ stay late. Job security is pretty much a given in the public sector or at least it is not tied to job performance.
 
Caveat said:
But a lot of people in the private sector don't get bonuses either, and nor will they necessarily have their wages increased for hard work. I frequently "work late" - just because the work needs done. I don't get any bonuses or other incentive for this.

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


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

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

And yes, some promotions are still based on longevity of service!
 
Welfarite said:
I bet you worked late to get the job done, so that your employer would get paid and you would also get paid! The point is no such primal incentive exists in the PS. ("Work late or else we might go out of business" I think not!)
Click to expand...

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

Agree

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

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

And yes, some promotions are still based on longevity of service!
Click to expand...

I'm saying nothing. ;)
 
Caveat said:
But do you not have to work hard to pass this test? and then to prepare for interview etc? I know it's not quite the same thing, but it still is an incentive/goal of sorts, based, broadly speaking on 'hard work'
Click to expand...

Yes, but the person beside you who doesn't work as hard as you can do the test as well! and probably get it because they studied for it while you were working hard!
 
There are many elements of public services that are delivered well and efficiently and there are many elements that aren't.

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

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

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

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

The public sector is in a no-win situation. Resources are finite and yet everyone expects more services with less money. Yes, there are numerous examples of where efficiencies could be improved quite easily with sufficient will. But to suggest that the perfect delivery of public services across the board is easily achieveable is unrealistic to say the least.
 
efm said:
I caught a snippet of "The Last Word" last night where Matt Cooper was talking to some trade unionsist (I think!) who was promoting a book about the success of the Irish economy - at one stage Matt Cooper suggested that while the economy had been successful there were a number of public services that weren't, or that could have been better, and that the public service trade unions were blocking progress (I'm paraphrasing) - quick as a flash the trade unionist retorted with "ahh now, that wasn't the unions fault, it was management's".

When you have that level of ingrained trade unionism and a management vs unions culture in an organisation there will never be adequate reform - so you have two options scrap it and start again or privatise as much as you can.
Click to expand...
I heard the interview with Paul Sweeney from ICTU (who was clearly unhappy that Matt was focusing on stirring up trouble, rather than plugging the book), and I'm pretty sure that he was asked a more specific question when he gave that particular answer. I can't recall the question, and the won't work for me.

Purple said:
My preference would be for the government to regulate rather than run public services such as transport and health. But they have shown a remarkable lack of competence whenever they have interfaced with the private sector over the last 15 years and the tax payer has had to pick up the pieces. So if the choice is to run things badly or regulate them badly I'd choose the former.
Click to expand...
I don't hear too many UK citizens singing the praises of their privatised/regulated hospitals/schools/transport systems.
 
RainyDay said:
I don't hear too many UK citizens singing the praises of their privatised/regulated hospitals/schools/transport systems.
Click to expand...
Either do I but I have heard nurses who moved back here from the NHS say thay we are 20-30 years behind them from a work practics and quality of service point of view.
 
I don't hear too many UK citizens singing the praises of their privatised/regulated hospitals/schools/transport systems.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that the Irish public transport system is better than the UK public transport system?
 
People here are assuming a lot. not all public sector jobs are the same.

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

My point is that not all public sector jobs are cushy numbers. BTW I get very well paid and I love my job but just wanted to make the point.
 
amtc, your post sums up the public service exactly, any organisation that employs a person on a job no one else can do needs their heads examined, and anyone who goes off ill and works from home should be sacked.

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

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

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