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

Isn't it a long, ong time since there were political appointees in anything but board level in any of these organisations?
Click to expand...

All the current heads were politically appointed.

DTO people are appointed directly by the Minister for Transport.
Brendan Drumm was politically appointed to HSE - he's not a former civil servant.
Local Authorities are run by councillors.
 
One thing people calling for privatisation should bear in mind is the form of privatisation. You need to have competition. You need to have competitive tendering & you need to be able to dismiss for poor performance. There is nothing worse than a private sector monopoly performing a public service with zero possibility of losing its contract.

We see this in the health sector. A&E in this country is operated by private sector organisations who, through clever politics, have managed to get themselves permanent public service contracts. Remember that the vast majority of hospitals in Ireland delivering public services are privately owned (usually by religious groups). Their employees are not public servants. They are private sector employees delivering a public service.
 
Purple said:
All good points but you also have to take into account that in the private sector I have choice. This is not usually the case in the public sector.
Click to expand...

I have very little choice about where I can get quality broadband and a reasonable price. I'm still looking for a decent mechanic or garage.

Purple said:
Are you suggesting that on a macro level the public/state sector is as efficient as the private sector?
Since the private sector is more exposed to market forces I would think that this is not the case but I am interested in your opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

You could argue that market forces where demand exceeds supply, or there is a monopoly that you don't get good value. Especially in Ireland where so many services and products are artificially poorer value compared to other markets.
 
diarmuidc said:
"similar in effectiveness" Are you joking? I don't believe I have to actually spell this out

Secnario1. I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I am not unhappy with new bank => problem solved

Scenario2. I am unhappy with my public service => I vote for FG/whoever => FF are reelected (Bertie is a nice guy or some other reason), nothing changes => I am still unhappy with my public service => problem remains
Click to expand...

Purple said:
....

I am open to being persuaded otherwise but in my opinion the lack of management accountability and in turn their lack of real sanction over their subordinates in a major factor in why the public sector under performs. Political interference, lack of incentives and de-motivational work practices also factor. I do not subscribe to the "public/ civil servants are lazy" view; people are people no matter where they work. I blame weak government, weak management and unions that have too much power (unions having too little power is also a bad thing). I do think that the culture of underperformance is changing and management structures are improving but there is still a long way to go. ...
Click to expand...

IMO what you are saying here is that the public sector is driven by Govt policy and in turn by political will. The problem comes from the top down. The problems of no culpability and no desire to effect change is really coming from the top down.

I think it would be more useful to look at why some Public services are better than others, rather then unrelated comparisons between public/private sectors.
 
diarmuidc said:
"similar in effectiveness" Are you joking? I don't believe I have to actually spell this out

Secnario1. I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I am not unhappy with new bank => problem solved

Scenario2. I am unhappy with my public service => I vote for FG/whoever => FF are reelected (Bertie is a nice guy or some other reason), nothing changes => I am still unhappy with my public service => problem remains
Click to expand...
Scenario 3 - I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I find my new bank is pretty much the same as my old bank => problem remains.

Many consumers of private sector services find themselves in Scenario 3 on a regular basis.

Purple said:
I do not subscribe to the "public/ civil servants are lazy" view; people are people no matter where they work. I blame weak government, weak management and unions that have too much power (unions having too little power is also a bad thing).
Click to expand...

There seams to be a bit of a paradox here. You say that 'people are people no matter where they work' and yet you attribute a broad set of personal weaknesses (weak management, unions exercising too much power) to one group of people for no apparent reason other than some anecdotal experiences.

csirl said:
All the current heads were politically appointed.

DTO people are appointed directly by the Minister for Transport.
Brendan Drumm was politically appointed to HSE - he's not a former civil servant.
Local Authorities are run by councillors.
Click to expand...
DTO Board Members may well be appointed directly by the Minister, but the executives responsible for the day-to-day operation are not political appointees. Similarly in the HSE, while Drumm was appointed by the Minister, I'm pretty sure that every one of the other 100,000+ employees are not political appointees. In the case of local authorities, most councillors will tell you that the county manager and the Directors actually run the authority, not the councillors. The last FF/PD government further emasculated the councillors by putting the controversial power to set waste charges in the hands of the County Manager, not the councillors.
 
DTO Board Members may well be appointed directly by the Minister, but the executives responsible for the day-to-day operation are not political appointees. Similarly in the HSE, while Drumm was appointed by the Minister, I'm pretty sure that every one of the other 100,000+ employees are not political appointees. In the case of local authorities, most councillors will tell you that the county manager and the Directors actually run the authority, not the councillors. The last FF/PD government further emasculated the councillors by putting the controversial power to set waste charges in the hands of the County Manager, not the councillors.
Click to expand...

Hiring in these organisations is generally done directly rather that via the Civil Service Commission and using less strict recruitment methods than the Commission. The result is that a lot of the management and staff are politically connected to the local branch of whatever party was in power when they were hired. People working in these organisations are not barred from political activity, whereas civil servants are. The result is a lot are party members. The clincher for me is that when the HSE was set up, civil servants who's functions were given to the HSE were BANNED from moving with the jobs and civil servants were banned from applying for many of the jobs that were advertised. Why did the HSE do this? Why did they ban non-politicial civil servants from working for them?
 
Complainer said:
Scenario 3 - I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I find my new bank is pretty much the same as my old bank => problem remains.
Click to expand...
You should have done your homework on bank 2 before you gave them your business. However don't despair. Rinse and repeat for bank 3. (except do your homework correctly this time. It's not hard with access to the internet these days)

At this stage in the with the voting you would probably be 20 years older and still paying for an inefficient public service
 
Complainer said:
There seams to be a bit of a paradox here. You say that 'people are people no matter where they work' and yet you attribute a broad set of personal weaknesses (weak management, unions exercising too much power) to one group of people for no apparent reason other than some anecdotal experiences.
Click to expand...

Organisations have a culture and that culture, to a great extent, dictates how the people within that organisation work. Weak management allows an inefficient culture to exist by not penalising bad work and not rewarding good work and unions stop that weak management from changing to a customer focused culture.
Perhaps the public sector bodies that do function well have better management? In the end bad service, bad performance and bad industrial relations are usually down to bad management (systems), not bad people under them. The unions are only at fault in that they stymie change.
 
From what I've seen, the battles between Unions and Management are often about breaking the union and nothing else. Often the customers and even profits are sacrificed in order to score points over the union or to score points on the corporate ladder. So I can see why Unions get entrenched in those kind of environments. That said the unions often do themselves no favours by resisting useful change. I have had situations where the staff has to plead with their union to accept changes that would make their life easier, but the Union wouldn't accept them. Thats daft. But like you can have a bad manager you can have bad union reps too. Good and bad everywhere.
 
csirl said:
Hiring in these organisations is generally done directly rather that via the Civil Service Commission and using less strict recruitment methods than the Commission. The result is that a lot of the management and staff are politically connected to the local branch of whatever party was in power when they were hired. People working in these organisations are not barred from political activity, whereas civil servants are. The result is a lot are party members. The clincher for me is that when the HSE was set up, civil servants who's functions were given to the HSE were BANNED from moving with the jobs and civil servants were banned from applying for many of the jobs that were advertised. Why did the HSE do this? Why did they ban non-politicial civil servants from working for them?
Click to expand...
You're talking rubbish, certainly in the case of local authorities. I've sat on local authority interview boards, and there is absolutely no political angle. Interview boards will include people from outside organisations, who have no vested interest, and just pick the best person for the job.

If you look at the way county managers and local authority directors 'job-hop' from one authority to a neighbouring one, you will see that your claim of political interference falls apart. I don't have a whole lot of experience on HSE recruitement, though I do know a couple of people who came in from outside the organisation into senior positions in recent years, again with no political interference.

diarmuidc said:
You should have done your homework on bank 2 before you gave them your business. However don't despair. Rinse and repeat for bank 3. (except do your homework correctly this time. It's not hard with access to the internet these days)

At this stage in the with the voting you would probably be 20 years older and still paying for an inefficient public service
Click to expand...
Indeed, in theory it may well be possible to pick a better bank. However, most people just dont bother their backsides doing this kind of research. In fact, the vast majority won't bother moving their business at all - they'll just whinge about their existing bank. Inertia is a powerful force. My own experience is that service from many providers is often largely dependant on individual relationships, and when that individual moves on or leaves or gets promoted, the service deteriorates.

Purple said:
Organisations have a culture and that culture, to a great extent, dictates how the people within that organisation work. Weak management allows an inefficient culture to exist by not penalising bad work and not rewarding good work and unions stop that weak management from changing to a customer focused culture.
Click to expand...


That's not rocket science, and senior people in the public sector are well used to the challenges of dealing with public sector culture. These are (for the most part) hardworking, dedicated, committed, smart people - and I don't accept your broad unsupported criticisms.
 
Complainer said:
...My own experience is that service from many providers is often largely dependant on individual relationships, and when that individual moves on or leaves or gets promoted, the service deteriorates....
Click to expand...

I agree and I think that applies across private and public sectors.
 
I work in the HSE and can confirm we use the same criteria as the Public Appoinment Service - we are not less strict.

The post that Prof got was actually advertised twice and failed to attract the right candidate - head hunters were use I believe on both occasions. Prof Drum was not a civil servant but he was a public servant working as a consultant paediatrician - a post I believe he will revert to when his current contract is up.

You mentioned that most hopsitals are private - this is no longer true. In the recent past - they use to be funded by the DoH and much to their dismay now receive their funding from the local HSE. While they are not public/civil servants they enjoy the same perks. In the past they often received more resouces than the local health board hospital. I know my equal in the 'voluntarty hospital' is a grade higher then me with more staff in her department. There are 10 times more personnel on our payroll. When people speak about the hugh health budget it should be noted that these hospitals spend it as well.

Why the DoH staff were not allowed to transfer to the HSE - I 'm guessing here but I'm sure this is a major IR issue. A similar senarior with the HSE's CWO and the Dept of SW SWO's is ongoing. CWO's who are suppose to transfer to the Social Welfare are being told they will not be allowed to apply for promotions in the Dept of SW for 5 years even though they do the same job.
 
Complainer said:
That's not rocket science, and senior people in the public sector are well used to the challenges of dealing with public sector culture. These are (for the most part) hardworking, dedicated, committed, smart people - and I don't accept your broad unsupported criticisms.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that you are generally happy with the public sector and the value for money that it delivers. Is this correct? Since you do not offer your own views on the subject I have to draw my own conclusions. That's the thing about discussion forums; the idea is that you offer your own opinions at the same time and possible as a counter to, other posters opinions.
 
Purple said:
I get the impression that you are generally happy with the public sector and the value for money that it delivers. Is this correct? Since you do not offer your own views on the subject I have to draw my own conclusions. That's the thing about discussion forums; the idea is that you offer your own opinions at the same time and possible as a counter to, other posters opinions.
Click to expand...
I've given my views pretty clearly in this post.
 
Complainer said:
I've given my views pretty clearly in this post.
Click to expand...

Purple said:
Right, I've re-read that post... I still don't know if you are happy, in a general sense, with the value for money we get from the public service.
Click to expand...

I think I'd be the same boat as serial complainer.
There is a wide difference of quality service between the various different departments. Some are great and some are appalling beyond belief.
I don't think its possible to discuss the whole of the public service in such simple terms as The public service, why is it so bad!?!?!
I've just finished the books, "Yes Minister!", and, "Yes Prime Minister!", they are a real eyeopener about the workings of public and civil service (e.g. if you want to have cuts in the public service you have to employ extra people to have it implemented)
I believe we have a reasonably good public service, but its not perfect
Regarding DLRCC I totally agree about them they are woeful beyond comprehension, I've met some wonderful people in there but my god I've met some abolute thicks there as well. I think I'll be starting a thread about them soon about their enforcement department.
 
Purple said:
True, but it adds little and is annoying. It also smacks of moral superiority.
Click to expand...

How does it do that? Usually the idea is to see both sides.

Quite a few posters have suggested to you that its not as simple or as black and white as you're suggesting. You seem to want to pin people down on one side or the other when that isn't peoples opinion at all. Why do you want to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top