That wasn't what was done of course - or even attempted. The Civil Service tried to off load non-core activities into local areas without any customer or organisational logic - yes - largely because of McCreepy's faux populism, bt don't blame the customers. It was up to the Civil Service leadership to come up with a coherent strategy for decentralization - in terms of efficiency and service quality improvement. That wasn't even on the agenda. notes from no w here
Things have come to a sorry pass when people feel that private services provide a better / more responsive service than equally well funded public services.
The usual canard to justify this is "lack of resources". However expenditure on public health care has tripled in recent years - and people just don't see where the value has been added.
We can play games with words - customers, clients, service users etc. The bottom line is that the public are paying for public services and deserve to be treated with respect - ideally better than they receive from "for profit" enterprises. notes from no w here
i know you're jiving colman, but isn't the attitude you parody in that comment really the kernel of anglo disease?
one thing about the name 'anglo' for it, you wouldn't have to waste any time explaining it to latinos, they'd know instantly what you meant.
as would native americans and african americans if you called it 'white man's disease'. The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
It was up to the Civil Service leadership to come up with a coherent strategy for decentralization - in terms of efficiency and service quality improvement.
Public-Private Wage Differentials in Ireland, 1994-2001
Are public sector workers in Ireland paid more than private sector employees, when such differences in productivity-related personal attributes and job characteristics are controlled for? We estimate that in 2001 the premium enjoyed by public servants was about 13 per cent. We find that the premium, is significantly bigger for those near the bottom of the earnings distribution than for those near the top, was significantly bigger for women than men in the mid-1990s but not at the end of the 1990s, and does not vary significantly across different levels of educational attainment. We estimate the premium for 2001 to be not significantly different from that estimated for 1994 despite this period a period of exceptionally rapid output and employment growth, and correspondingly sharp tightening of labour market conditions in the Irish economy. The most remarkable difference between our results and those of other researchers for other countries relates to the absolute size of the premium. A number of possible explanations for this difference are discussed.
I'll do some digging for more recent data notes from no w here
ie public sector workers are, thanks to teachers, much more educated, on average, but their pay is higher by a lot less than it should. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Virtually all teachers have tenure - i.e. are basically unsackable for anything but a criminal offence connected with their job. notes from no w here
Which probably corresponds to linca's figure of €23K gross. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
Again however, I wouldn't want to single out the teachers in this debate - the Irish education system isn't the worst. However my argument is that our Civil Service system - particularly the non-customer facing middle and senior grades - which are also very well paid - are amongst the most self-interested - with almost no effective mechanisms for ensuring that they do actually serve the public interest in terms of efficient organizational design, good quality services, and good value for money. notes from no w here
Another thing is that teachers - and people identifying with them - are a significant portion of the voting population. Significant enough that their interests are to be taken into account when designing policy, if only as citizens.
Finally, I'm all for worker participation in the workplace - which also implies the input of teachers in the education system. Indeed, the teachers unions speak a lot about pedagogy, much more than a metallurgists union speaks about making good metal...
The impression I am getting from your diary is that it is not the average frontline civil servant who is unmanaged and needs efficiency and measuring of its output - but rather the management, who is getting an increased share of pay, and is all about wasteful bureaucratic infighting. I'd even venture part of the problem is that the frontline civil servants, those that usually care about providing good service, are not involved enough in management... One of the problems in a bureaucracy is that those that want power, not those that care about the service, end up in leading positions, if only because a motivated teacher actually wants to be in front of the pupils... Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I take your point about front-line versus managerial staff. Sometimes the introduction of more measurement/control systems can have the effect of demotivating and de-statusing front line workers relative to managerial staff - so that no-one with any ambition, status, or earnings needs wants to work in the front line.
The most effective motivational systems are almost always participatory - involving the people in their own management - and harnessing peoples natural desires to do a good job. Big brother is watching you is almost always counter productive.
Good management is about focusing and building organisations around their client needs, and rewarding positive performance as opposed to cynical disregard for the students/clients/customers etc.
Unions have an important role in collective bargaining and in protecting individual employees from capricious management. They should never stand over restrictive practices which prevent staff development and improved customer service which will intimately improve the status of the organisation/profession as a whole.
My concern is that Public service - which is a noble calling when done conscientiously - is being dragged into disrepute by cynical attitudes which wouldn't even be funny if found on Yes Minister. notes from no w here
Anyway, who is to be satisfied by a public service ? The taxpayers ? The politicians ? The voters ? The "clients" (in a private company, clients' opinions are only worth the money they'll spend, which is why the term provokes unease) or the "users" ? The workers ? The management ?
You have a problem of management in league with politicians, keeping workers happy through high pay. How do you increase the involvement of voters and users ? Is management techniques ? Or could this have something to do with, say, some EU referendum being put to vote again ? Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Current Government Ministers will almost certainly be kicked out at the next election in any case. The YES vote side contained every major Government and Opposition party bar Sinn Fein, all major Trade Unions, and many sectoral groups representing business and agriculture.
If you wanted to expand your political market share there was far more scope on the NO side - and arguably opposition parties like Labour could have greatly increased their prospective vote by opposing and attracting some of the 53% of the NO vote (only 8% of which supported Sinn Fein.
45% of the electorate is up for grabs - which is why there is a huge market opportunity for Libertas et al. There is almost nothing in it for a political representative to support Lisbon - the reason they do so is because they generally support the EU and want to be on good terms with our fellow members. notes from no w here
Up to a point, that's what Sarkozy did, with a populist appeal to the right wing No vote.
What I'm attempting to say is that the way none of the elite organisations that are supposed to represent the people attempt to actually interact with them - either by admitting that, indeed, the people are against it or by convincing it of changing their mind - and also, and more importantly, the way the people didn't trust their elites by voting yes on something pretty much, as you describe, the whole elites approved, are symptoms of an elite and its people not in contact.
In the same way a political class, and a bureaucratic managerial class, caring much more about bureaucratic infighting, and absence of outside noise, than quality of service provided, to the point, if what you describe is reality, of contempt for the end users of Public Services - is also a symptom of a similar illness.
Implementation of managerial techniques won't do much to reduce public insatisfaction with the public services, if the elite doesn't really care about that... Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
