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

aircobra19 said:
How does it do that? Usually the idea is to see both sides.
Click to expand...
Usually it is but if I represent one side and other posters only post about my posts how is the other side being seen?

aircobra19 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are very few things in life that I see as black and white. It is quite possible to form an overall view of the public service without applying that view to everyone that works within it; just like you just did about DRCC. I simply asked others here what their overall opinion was. I did not ask them any black or white questions.
 
Purple it was me who posted about DLRCC
Try reading the posts in future.
 
Purple said:
Usually it is but if I represent one side and other posters only post about my posts how is the other side being seen?
Click to expand...

I would say the devils advocate is generally about taking the other side for the purpose of testing the argument. So I don't understand what you mean by only one side being seen.


My point was you don't have to post your own opinion to have a discussion, you can post from the other point of view as you might in a debate. You seem to think you can't proceed unless someone pins their colours to a wall. In my experience thats usually an attempt to attack the poster rather than the issue at hand. I could take the example of O2 selling the Apple iPhone, or broadband access in Ireland, and generalise that the private sector is uncompetitive. Not a very useful sweeping generalisation IMO. If you are going to declare sweeping generalisation as a valid from of assessment there's not going to much else to discuss.

BTW. Whats the DRCC.
 
I don't believe you fully appreciate the whole picture.
You are talking about a huge organisation.
Guards, hospital staff, fire brigade, civil service, teachers, prison staff, county council workers.
These were just off the top of my head, as far as I know you could be looking at up to 200,000 people
You can't fit them all into a small bracket of yes they are all great or no they are all crap there are too many different ways to answer.
Get the book Yes Minister it explains it all very well, then 2 seconds when you are on the next chapter you are confused again.
 
aircobra19 said:
I would say the devils advocate is generally about taking the other side for the purpose of testing the argument. So I don't understand what you mean by only one side being seen.
Click to expand...
I don't see the counter view; I just see posters asking questions about my view. It's not even devil’s advocate.


I'm not asking anyone to pin their colours to the mast, I'm asking them to contribute something constructive to the thread. Deconstructing my opinions is not being constructive.
It is valid to offer the opinion that O2 are a well run company but question their deal with Apple or that Eircom are generally bad but good at X and Y. It is valid to say that the government is good at X or Y but generally failed to maximise the opportunities of the last 15 years.

You get the idea?
 
Purple said:
I don't see the counter view; I just see posters asking questions about my view. It's not even devil’s advocate.
Click to expand...

How did the 18 posts before your first one in this thread, ask questions about your view?


Thats exactly what you are not doing by such a sweeping generalisation, and lumping all of the public sector together.

If you want comparisions of value for money, why not compare O2 with their offerings in other countries, ditto car insurance, broadband etc. Its not called rip off ireland for nothing. Who is happy with the value of money of the private sector?

What metrics should be applied, and what comparisions are valid? Personally I think its the wrong question. Do we get value for money from our politicians would be more apt.
 
aircobra19 said:
If you want comparisions of value for money, why not compare O2 with their offerings in other countries, ditto car insurance, broadband etc.
Click to expand...

This is only valid if you are prepared to adjust for purchasing power parity. Otherwise what is achieved by sitting around moaning about the fact you can buy a bottle of beer and a meal in Kuala Lumpur for under €3? Even if O2 do charge comparably more than their (adjusted) offerings in other countries, and they can do so without losing customers, then why wouldn't they? Anything less would be a dereliction of duty by the management to their shareholders.

Also, if you run such comparisons on the cost of public service delivery in Ireland against other countries we generally fare quite badly.
 
Complainer said:
Any examples?
Click to expand...

The €180M proposed budget to upgrade 7.5km of track from Clonsilla to Pace leaps to mind. In France they built a brand new 300km high-speed rail track between Paris and Metz for under €3.5 billion.

So it costs the French €11.6M to put down a kilometre of new track, but it costs CIE €24M per kilometre to upgrade an existing line? Since they already own the land, the high price of land in this country cannot account for such a dramatic difference.

I'm sure there are lots of other examples out there. However, I wonder are there any examples of the public sector providing a high quality international standard of service in way that can be considered value-for-money?
 
We have had successive governments that have pandered to public sector unions.
They have created a system where no matter how inefficient, non performing or inept the service is, no one is responsible and nothing is done to remedy the situation bar hiring an expensive external consultant and commissioning a report that is shevled after the storm has died down.

It has now reached a stage where the vast majority of people in the private sector see public sector workers/civil servants as people:
a) who cannot be fired or sanctioned no matter how much they cock up (PPARS, Health misdiagnosis, Garda corruption, LUAS overruns)
b) who are entitled to large pension benefits in comparison to most private sector workers,
c) who will not accept change, no matter how small, without first receiving compensation (train drivers on numerous occassions).
d) who can get promotion and pay rises not based on how they do their jobs but on longevity (lady promoted after failure to show relevant minister documentation on Aer Lingus, or was it cover up ?)
e) who are subject to benchmarking that never seems to show any increases in productivity or benefit for the general public and where they are now probably getting bigger pay increases than the supposed comparable unsafe private sector workers.

The pity is, as mentioned in other posts, there are no incentives for anyone that does give a damm about their jobs, since they will do equally as well or eqaully as badly as their coworkers who don't give two ****s about us the taxpayers or their customers.

Sadly privatising some of these institutions has not solved these issues as anyone that has dealt with Eircom would testify.
The only advantage in this case is we can take our business elsewhere, but how can we do that with most of our public services.

Truly how inadequate, inefficient and costly our public sector/sevice is will become apparant when the economy nosedives and there aren't the large tax takes available to keep the whole mess afloat.
 
The problem about this is that everyone has a view that ALL public servants get ALL public perks.

I work for a public sector organisation.
I applied for my job through the national press. FIVE interviews.
I don't belong to a union, nor do lots of my colleagues.
I don't get benchmarking.

I work hard, and take work home regularly. Today I am on a day off ad spent two hours on a conference call.
I do have an annual appraisal against targets, and I get a bonus and pay review accordingly, but nothing's guaranteed.

It does bug me when I see colleagues talking about 'allowed sick leave' etc. but NOT ALL of us are the same. Having said that, having come from the private sector I earn more than them, but I started off on a fixed term contract.
 
You mentioned that most hopsitals are private - this is no longer true.
Click to expand...

I disageee. Look in the Dublin area.

Beaumont, St. James, St. Vincents, Mater & Tallaght are all privately owned hospitals - mostly by religious orders.

To prove a point, name me a major hospital in Ireland that is NOT privately owned?
 

Job hopping is not an indication of lack of political interference, in fact it could be the opposite - indication that people who are connected will be facilitated in their careers.

You have to remember that the old health boards were comprised of local councillors. If thats not political interference, I dont know what is. Everything flows from the top.

The local area where I am from has produced a couple of major political figures. There are neighbours of mine who are and have been on various "boards" of publically funded organisations, including in the health and local services sector, who's only qualifications for the jobs were that they were connected with certain political figures. No qualifications, no experience in the sector.

The foot soldiers in many organisations will be recruited in the normal way, but they have little say in anything. Its how the Board and CEO or Chair is appointed is the important thing. And they usually have a major say in the appointment of all senior management.
 
csirl said:
Job hopping is not an indication of lack of political interference, in fact it could be the opposite - indication that people who are connected will be facilitated in their careers.
Click to expand...

You would need to show that their career path coincided with the trend of political control in the relevant councils, e.g. an FF-connected county manager would only get jobs where FF control the council. This is just fantasy land.

csirl said:
You have to remember that the old health boards were comprised of local councillors. If thats not political interference, I dont know what is. Everything flows from the top.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that the old health boards don't exist any more, hence my 'long, long time' question.

There are indeed many issues with political appointees to the boards of state bodies. But that's a very different issue to your earlier claims of political interference in recruitment of full-time employees.



THat's a fair distance away from your original claim of 'public sector organisations who's management and in some cases employees are appointed by councillors, politicians etc'. You still haven't named one organisation where employees are appointed by councillors or politicians.
 
You have to remember that the old health boards don't exist any more, hence my 'long, long time' question.
Click to expand...

Hardly a long time - old Health Boards are only recently abolished and the vast vast majority of the people are still in the HSE.



I stand over my original claim. I personally know people in these positions in organisations, so I'm not going to name people and organisations on a public forum. As a general rule, the policitally appointed Board will hire a CEO and senior management of people generally connected with them - supporters of their party. This senior management then interviews the candidates for the middle management jobs, quite often hiring people known to them or having people who are connected to the local political branch - no paper record of this, the management simply say that they hired the candidate they liked. The senior and middle management are full time employees. Generally they do not use the civil service commission but prefer to directly hire themselves.

Questions you have to ask is why political activity is NOT banned in these organisations in much the same way as it is for civil servants? Having done some work in public sector recruitment myself a few years ago, I have very serious doubts about the probity of the recruitment process in some public sector organisations - the lack of structured interviews, lack of use of properly trained interview staff, the advertisement of some posts. Ask anyone in the public service about the legend of the "Irish Times Interview".

If you want evidence, then you should take a close look at the staff make-up of many quangos. You will find that a high proportion of people are related to one another - much higher % than you would expect by chance if open unbiased recruitment. You will also find that an extraordinary % of employees are either members or former members of political parties or have family members who are very active in political circles.
 
Can't say I've ever seen in this political influence in recruitment in the public sector agencies I've worked for. But then I'm not at the CEO and senior management level. However I will say from what I've experienced, as Govt policy and directions for ministers/depts directly control what the agencies do, to the point where you might have to instantly drop one project to start another, or move your family across the country (decentralization). Not entirely unexpected, there is a far higher interest in politics, and knowledge of politics than I've seen in the public sector. The higher than average membership of unions would also be a factor, as union activities are very often political.
 

Is this true ? Do people get fired in the public service for poor work ? I've always wondered that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register