3 Main Obstacles to Public sector Reform

[mollox]

There are three obvious major obstacles to achieving meaningful public sector reform:

The Government:
Their long-standing display of a lack of political will and dearth of management competence gives no confidence in their ability to achieve any meaningful change.
Benchmarking, decentralisation and the creation of the HSE without displacing any existing Heath Board staff, all illustrate the scale of the problem.
Every potential problem in the past decade has been fudged or had money thrown at it.
So we can expect a slash & burn “across the board” approach which is likely to leave the end-user, the citizen, as the biggest loser.
Decentralisation will be exposed as a major obstacle to achieving optimal efficiency in the public service, seriously damaging the capacity to achieve economies of scale in many operations. So it’ll cost us twice.

The Unions:
David Begg, General Secretary of ICTU is the highest ranking representative of the Union movement in Ireland and is a consummate media performer, always coming across as intelligent, articulate, measured, moderate and calm. He’ll be fronting the negotiations at a macro level and the Union PR.
However, negotiating the key on-the-ground changes to work practices - flexibility, transferability etc etc will be the likes of SIPTU’s Patricia King or the ATGWU’s Brendan Ogle. These are traditional “not an inch”, “over my dead body” intransigent union reps – where the strike threat is the first rather than the last option put on the table. What are the chances of negotiating meaningful change at the crucial operational level?

The Management:
Senior management tiers within the public service are almost completely untried and untested with regard to executing major strategic change. In the private sector, such management in any large company would have been through a number of major restructurings. In the public sector, the dead hands of Government and the Unions have ensured that no senior manager would even attempt major structural change.

Paradoxically, the one major change attempted in recent decades has also been the one which has most alienated the same senior managers who would be charged with leading such change.
The 2003 Decentralisation political stroke effectively ended the career prospects of many senior civil servants, who were unwilling to move with their departments to locations outside Dublin. Has anyone calculated what impact this has had on motivation these people and what impact that will now have on their appetite to facilitate and lead the necessary change?

Other than the above, it should be a doddle!

[mollox]

First up on the news this morning was the loss of 750 jobs at Ulster Bank/First Active, which should have set a realistic backdrop to the Union talks with Government today.

Instead, we’ve had a morning of radio soundbites from public sector union leaders telling us that salary cuts are not up for negotiation.

What planet are these guys living on? I may well have understated the scale of the challenge in my opening post on this thread.

I’m certainly not betting on the Govt taking a tough stance on this and demonstrating to the country that they are actually running the country. Rather I expect to see some fudging and fiddling with the system e.g. a pension levy – which will tell the country that the Unions still rule the roost.

Such a failure to face down the unions on such a fundamental requirement will have a major knock-on impact of any efforts at management level to negotiate changes to work practices at operational level. It will also embolden the trade union reps to dig in their heels and frustrate efforts to achieve such changes.

[Dios]

I may well have understated the scale of the challenge in my opening post on this thread.

Indeed. If the current government can't manage the unions, a stronger government will be elected and change will come the hard way. This is going to get very rough.

[mccafferty cat]

I would add another:

4) The Labour Party.

They are the only one of the 3 main parties who oppose public sector reform. The fact that a substantial side of the opposition benches are taking this line is giving grist to the Union's mill, and hampering any efforts the Government are making (not much, by the looks of it).

The other effect of this seems to be that it is hampering Labour's opinion poll support, to Fine Gael's benefit. The simple fact of the matter is that the voters are OVERWHELMINGLY in favour in favour of slash-and-burn tactics in the public sector, and FG are the only party who agree with them

[Leftfemme22]

The simple fact of the matter is that the voters are OVERWHELMINGLY in favour in favour of slash-and-burn tactics in the public sector, and FG are the only party who agree with them

Really? I have seen no proof of this spectacular claim.

[mccafferty cat]

Really? I have seen no proof of this spectacular claim.

Knock on a few doors. I was surprised by it myself

[Leftfemme22]

Knock on a few doors. I was surprised by it myself

Ah, more anecdotal evidence that in no way validates the claim that voters are OVERWHELMINGLY in favour in favour of slash-and-burn tactics.

[red-365]

The simple fact of the matter is that the voters are OVERWHELMINGLY in favour in favour of slash-and-burn tactics in the public sector...

Maybe they are in favour of the reducing the public sector pay bill, but are they OVERWHELMINGLY in favour of increasing class sizes? Fewer cops on the beat? Fewer bus services? Fewer oncologists?

I think you know the answer.

There is fat in the public service, and it should be eliminated, but 'slash and burn'? I don't think so.

(Oh and by the way, I have been going door-to-door)

[mccafferty cat]

Maybe they are in favour of the reducing the public sector pay bill, but are they OVERWHELMINGLY in favour of increasing class sizes? Fewer cops on the beat? Fewer bus services? Fewer oncologists?

This is the same old distortion and whine put out by Jack O'Connor, David Begg, that dreadful woman who was on Q&A last week, and others.

NO-ONE (opposition, employers, voters) wants to sack teachers, doctors, nurses or guards. So why do the unions keep claiming that they do?

The fact is that there are admin staff in the HSE, ESB and other state bodies who do nothing. Nothing. And yet they are getting paid well, with secure jobs and pensions

These are the people who ought to be in the firing line.

[mollox]

This is the same old distortion and whine put out by Jack O'Connor, David Begg, that dreadful woman who was on Q&A last week, and others.

NO-ONE (opposition, employers, voters) wants to sack teachers, doctors, nurses or guards. So why do the unions keep claiming that they do?

The fact is that there are admin staff in the HSE, ESB and other state bodies who do nothing. Nothing. And yet they are getting paid well, with secure jobs and pensions

These are the people who ought to be in the firing line.

The last thing we need is an across-the-board "slash & burn" approach.

What is needed is a more considered approach that identifies the priority areas and activities and protect the key front-line service deliverers.

However, as mccafferty points out, there are many area with considerable scope for reform e.g. Vincent Browne always poses the question as to what 500 civil services in the Dept of Health are now working on in Hawkins House, now that all operational responsibility has been devolved to the HSE - and it's a fair question. So it's not just the duplicated management tiers in the HSE that should be getting the chop.

Low priority activities can be tackled with greater vigour and less risk of causing unanticipated knock-on problems.

In addition, the process must result in a major reform of traditional structures and work practices within the public service - to make it flexible and fit-for-purpose "going forward". [I put that in so that Biffo could borrow the line, if he's stuck].