What are all the publicly employed people actually doing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chris

Registered User
Messages
1,323
People that critizise the size and scope of public services often attract critisism that it is important to have a good, well funded and even large public sector.

Beyond the question of how to define a good public service, or what services are needed and which are not, I went off to find out what the numbers actually are.

In a recent Channel 4 documentary "Britain's trillion pound horror debt": [broken link removed] the same kind of question was asked (I highly recommend watching it). The conclusion in the program was that the UK has 7.5 million publicly employed staff, and only about 2 million of those are so called front line staff, i.e. teachers, nurses, doctors, police officers, fire fighters.

Here are the numbers for Ireland, and I am open to links on more up-to-date figures:
Total publicly paid employees 405,900: http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1020840.shtml

Gardai: 14,000 (12,000 uniformed) (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...ent/garda_siochana_national_police_force.html)
Teachers: 53,000 in 2006 ([broken link removed])
Doctors: 14,800 in 2005 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/12/38976551.pdf)
Nurses: 51,000 in 2005 ([broken link removed])
Fire fighters: ??? couldn't find the number for Ireland but UK had 35000 in 2002 ([broken link removed]) divide by 15 for Ireland and you get 2300

Note that doctors and nurses include those employed privately.

That's only 135,000 out of 405,000 that provide front line services. What on earth are all those other bureaucrats doing that is so valuable to the public? I seriously wnat to know if I am missing something here.
 
The CSO report on Public Sector employment and pay dated the 18th December 2009 is your only man for the info you require.

As at September 2009 360,900 were employed in the Public Sector - this has fallen further since and will fall further in due course.
 
No idea where you or Finfacts get a figure of 405,000 staff in the public service from.

There are roughly 301,000 staff in the Public Service (figures based on end of year estimates and from the National Recovery Plan)

There are 37,000 in the Civil Service with alot of these being front counter staff dealing with the public over the phone or in public offices day after day.

There are 32,000 working in Local Authorites, most of these front line staff.

There are jus over 12,000 working in non-commercial state agencies.

There are about 14,500 Gardai

There are over 105,000 in the Health Sector and 93,000 in the Education sector.

Read page 63 of the National Recovery Plan 2011 - 2014
 
Over administrated in general and thats from someone working in the public service!
 
This attempt to split front-line and non-front-line staff is just more of the 'divide and conquer' agenda. First of all, I'd love to see Chris's definition of what constitutes front line, and what isn't front line.

But regardless, the implication is that front-line staff are always essential and others are of lesser worth. Someone has to run the IT systems that the EPA inspectors use to file their reports. Someone has to pay the HSE inspectors. Someone has to pay the invoices to pay for the HIQA inspectors laptops. Someone has to pull the patient's file and have it ready for the doctor at the clinic.
 
Would financial regulators be regarded as frontline staff?

How many of those have they got in the UK versus here?
 
How is it that nearly every subject here gets taken over with the argument Private Sector V Public Sector? Let's say that the title of the post here was "What are all the Private Sector Doing?"

I'm now self employed (having worked in the Public Sector until my 30th birthday). My wife works in the Public Sector. To be honest, I'm fed up with wannabe or self-styled Entrepreneurs bashing and bashing those whom they think are somewhere beneath them.

Most of these bashers are employed and will never take the step into self employment because they are too busy trying to run other peoples lives. If they ran their own lives perhaps they would have the bravery to take the leap into self employment. But, the reality is they dont have what it takes and the Public Service is an easy target to which to vent their vitriol.
 
Leper said:
How is it that nearly every subject here gets taken over with the argument Private Sector V Public Sector?
Click to expand...

Nobody mentioned the Private Sector in this thread - until you did.

The thread is not about Private Vs Public, it's about discussing the size of the Public Sector, 'Frontline' Staff Vs 'Non-Frontline' Staff
 
Maybe if people stopped taking the bait when we get threads like this, there would be less of them. Does anyone really believe that because there are only 130,000 frontline staff out of a public service of 300k or whatever, that this is proof of a hugely over staffed public sector? Just ignore them.
 
I agree with boaber, you need to check out who is posting, and see what else they have posted,you may find they post about nothing else but objections to practically every reform that anyone suggests about the PS..
You have to think there is a vested interest at work ..why else would someone spend such a huge amount of time waiting for any mention of the PS.
You don't see titles like " what are the Private sector doing" because the private sector is transparent,we can all see how this works ,we know we can complain,we know people can be sacked,are sacked and are seen to be sacked..

Red herrings are constantly thrown about ,but just don't take the bait..there are constant diversion tactics and they pick up on the tiniest word you may type and I have found some PS defenders to be very aggressive,confrontational in their responses.

But this is all to try and defend the indefensible and get away from the real issues..
Some have a major chip on their shoulder and seem to have a sneering contempt for anyone who owns a semi detached house,and isn't it negative equity..personally I just laugh at them,as it must be hard to live with yourself when you are full of bitterness. ( they haven't yet clarified exactly how much they will allow us to earn ..yet)
I often wonder if/when one of their own kids became what they term middle class,would they be as quick to condemn them.

We know how the PS works as most people have to deal with them,I know how the unions work as I was a member of one,I know how the PS works as I was in the PS,I also know how the private sector works as I worked there as well.
In fairness I have noticed that those who have a genuine grip about ,PS workers not being sacked, attractive pension,time off for non exsistant cheques,over staffing, and increments etc ,do post in a non confrontational way,and are obviously trying to get to the bottom of things, but the response is in a lot of cases is, nasty, arrogant and confrontational. seems to come with the territory ..Dont let it put you off posting,as it would appear that's exactly what some posters want..
 

Of course you need admin staff for IT and the services you mention. What's interesting in what Chris has highlighted is that for every 1 person providing frontline "essential" services there are 2 more people employed in admin/other areas. In most large companies in the private sector I would imagine the ratio would be more than reversed. So the question IMO is valid - what are the remainding 270,000 staff actually doing? As taxpayers I think we all deserve to know where our taxes are being spent, wouldn't you agree?
 

I think Complainer does have a point in how are we defining "Front Line"? Is it really fair to say that taking out Gardai, Nurses, Teachers and all the rest are expendable workshy jobsworths?

Before it is suggested that there are slashes of certain ratios, as it is a public service, it's worth identifying those aspects that don't provide (to use Private Sector parlance) "additional value for the customer".

However, of course the public has the right to ask questions about the size of the Public Sector, but let's not make it quite so vitriolic and vengeful as it has escalated to on some occasions. Yes, I'd totally agree it is too big, for a country this size, those numbers seem excessive in total, but no, I can't point to specific areas nor give specific examples. Does that make my argument or views weaker? Probably, but I couldn't care less, but I do accept that it's 10 years too late to be really quite so concerned about the size of the PS.

And lastly, let's not forget that we're asking for a large gorup of people to be made redundant in a time when there are limited opportunities for a new job, interest rates on mortgages are going to escalate next year and ,well, it's generally not a good time to be laid off. I can understand why people may get a bit defensive about a portion of people calling for them to lose their livelihoods and to sod off and struggle on their own. That's not a union thing, it's not a Public Sector thing, it's a very human reaction to a very worrying time.

As I said, I do feel the PS is too large, I do feel there are areas for improved efficiency, but I'm not going to be quite so gleeful or agressive about calling for thousands of people to be out of a job at this moment in time. I dunno, it's called being a human being.

At some point in this whole saga we're going to run out of scapegoats and people to blame and it's still going to be a desperate place in desperate times. What will we do then?
 

That is what needs to be said and heard..
The fact is that this is the main reason why the PS have to defend their positions,they are worried and yes its only human and very understandable.

And thankfully someone has said this,because the constant defence of the wrongs in the PS just causes others to think they are in complete denial.

I think they would get a lot more sympathy based on that ,than trying to defend the indefensible.
The unions are doing the wrong thing,sending out the wrong messages,they will not get people on their side by doing so.
They need to send out the message as you posted above..It is a fair assessment as opposed to the war speak type tactics they are using.
Perhaps this is what union members need to let their leaders know,their public perception has been very damaged and they need to limit that damage.
 
I am not in the public service so I don't know the level of inefficiency there. However I do know the level of poor service I am getting when I try to employ private sector self employed tradesmen. They still think they are are the height of the boom, wont turn up on time to give estimates, look for "cash jobs" etc, wont turn up to do the job.
I know the level of ignorance I get in some restaurants, bars from staff, always Irish, who havent learned how to say thank you after charging 3 euro for a small cup of coffee. And they wonder why they lose customers
Its still going on
 
Latrade said:
I think Complainer does have a point in how are we defining "Front Line"? Is it really fair to say that taking out Gardai, Nurses, Teachers and all the rest are expendable workshy jobsworths?
Click to expand...

I don't think they are nor suggested otherwise. The ratio of frontline staff to non-frontline staff appears to be excessive - the question being asked is what are they all doing? It's a fair q IMO

Latrade said:
Before it is suggested that there are slashes of certain ratios, as it is a public service, it's worth identifying those aspects that don't provide (to use Private Sector parlance) "additional value for the customer".
Click to expand...

I agree - let's identify non-essential services


I take your point. However, let's not forget that we have raided the Pension Reserve Fund and agreed to a bail out for the bank and the current deficit (which is made up largely of PS pay and pensions). As we will be paying a lot of interest on this and passing the burden to our next generation (as well as the lost opportunities forgone with the money spent ion interest) I think it's only fair that we have more transparancy in how our money is being spent. Identifying what the 270,000 non-frontline staff are actually doing would be a good start IMO
 

I'm guessing that much of this rant is aimed at me, so just for the record, I do own a semi-D house (well, I co-own it with NIB), and I'm not in negative equity. I still don't get this fetish for 'sacking', given that it indicates a clear failure in recruitment and management. Where is the fetish for getting it right first time, or second time? Perhaps the private sector should spend more time picking the right people and managing their performance than obsessing about sacking.

It seems that anyone who goes against the conventional wisdom here on AAM has to put up with attempts to 'play the man, not the ball'.


I know it's hard for you to believe that some people are motivated by anything other than self-interest, but here we go. Much of the defence that you see is not about self-interest, it is about a passionate belief in public services.




Chris has highlighted nothing, until he can actually come up with a sensible definition of what constitutes 'front line staff'. Until he does have a definition, this thread is yet another meaningless AAM attack on public services.

Firefly said:
I don't think they are nor suggested otherwise. The ratio of frontline staff to non-frontline staff appears to be excessive - the question being asked is what are they all doing? It's a fair q IMO
Click to expand...
The ratio quoted is meaningless, because there is no definition of what constitutes 'front line'. I don't suppose there is any possibility of holding off on the rush to judgement until we actually have some sensible data?

That's a lie. The NPRF is being raided solely and specifically to put more money into the black hole of the banking sector.
 
In my opinion part of the problem with this debate is that people in the private sector generally work in small to medium sized businesses and so have no understanding of how a large corporation works. It is nonsensical to compare the management structure of a business employing a few hundred people to the HSE or a large government department. Therefore it is nonsensical to suggest that efficiencies in such a small business can or should be replicated in a government department.
I renewed my car insurance yesterday. If I had got bad customer service or if I had a complaint about delays or inefficiencies in processing a claim I would have no expectation that anyone would lose their job over it. I wouldn’t even get the name of the person who had given me that bad service. I’m not defending the public sector; I think it is too big and I know that we are spending too much money on it but I don’t accept that there are masses of pencil-pushers who spend their days doodling and drinking coffee. Are there inefficiencies? Yes, I’m sure there are. Are they worse that a large corporation? On an overall level I’m not so sure.

My gripe is that the citizens of this country want the state to do things for them that they should and could do for themselves. It seems that everyone wants to be a net beneficiary of the states largess. That’s one of the reasons we are in this mess.

I also agree strongly with the point that complainer made. I would suggest that there are as many work-shy nurses, gardai, teachers and doctors as there are work-shy clerical staff. In general it’s the so-called frontline staff that are overpaid, not the scriveners and low-level managers.

The bottom line is that as a state we can’t afford our public service bill. To blame those working in the public service for this is stupid. The fault lies with the politicians who kept expanding and expanding the public sector in order to give all things to all men over the last 10-15 years. Those same politicians didn’t have the brains or the balls to do their job properly and let the whole thing spiral out of control.

Over the next few years the staffing levels and wage levels in the public sector will drop again. It will happen because it has to but nobody should take any pleasure in it.

By the way, public sector employees are citizens of this state as well. They are, most of them, income tax payers and so have just as much of a stake in how the government spends our (and their) money.
 

All true and no one's saying otherwise, but I feel that some do post in haste regarding the PS without recognising that their wishes may well mean a drop in some of the essential services (granted some posters feel there should be no PS at all, but I personally support a social "ambulance"), but also thousands now without a job/income. Not a handful, not a few hundred, people are talking about a reduction in numbers of thousands, possibly even tens of thousands. We owe it to those people and to ourselves to make sure that any reduction is right and not just decimation.

As you say, the deficit is the bottom line; I think many would agree with the oversized argument. Only based on personal and anecdotal experience, I hear the same view from people in the PS. But, I don't see why discussions always come down to the T&Cs of the PS, or casting aspersions on the work ethic of the entire PS, that's irrelevant. The numbers, the efficiency and the service we ought to provide are to be discussed as best we can. Bringing anything else into the argument only hints at taking a bit too much pleasure in what is likely to be a very hard time for the individuals involved and ultimately for us all as we will have to carry the additional burden of the thousands laid off.

Lastly on the deficit: yes let's not forget that we have to make that "adjustment", but let's also not forget why we have to make such a severe adjustment. And when we remember that, ask just how much of that has to do with those who took jobs in the PS. Ask why it is so essential that they are part of the sacrifice that has to be made for this 85bn bailout, when Government decisions and action (well intended or not) meant such drastic measures are necessary. And ask why we're shocked, appalled and offended when they don't take the sacrifice, loss of job, livelihood and family life readily, willingly and passively when those who actually did make this 85bn hole make no sacrifice and suffer no consequences.

Essential a discussion as it is, let's go about it with a bit of class, dignity and humanity and a little less bloodlust. Accept that those in our sights for a very bleak future are naturally going to defend their position and their future.
 
Well said Purple. You touched on many good points:

1) Inefficiencies in the public sector are comparable to many large well established corporations

2) It is a fallacy that frontline staff are all underpaid and overworked compared to those in more administrative roles

3) We shouldn't be specifiaclly wishing job losses or pay cuts on anyone (public or private), but it's only natural to question why things are more expensive in this country (i.e. how are some people able to continue to draw higher wages than their counterparts in europe/uk)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register