Public sector reform-the buck stops here?

[patslatt]

The election campaigns of both Labour and Fine Gael focussed on the government's incompetence in managing government services and the desperate need for change. But aside from the slogan "the buck stops here",the threat to dismiss underperfoming ministers and the plan to put single managers in charge of projects, no details of reforms were published in the media that I know of.

It would be a good start for ministers to take responsibility. But what if the minister was not to blame for an underperforming department? Wouldn't it be unfair to dismiss the minister? Not so, because forcing ministers to take responsibility would force the government to make the civil service and public sector managers more accountable. These managers have been allowed to duck responsibility by hiding behind hydra-headed committees,as Tom McGurk pointed out a few years ago.

What steps are necessary to improve accountability? First, single managers must have clear lines of authority,a clear chain of command and the ability to recruit people who can do the work or quickly remove those who can't. Managers should be rewarded with bonuses of up to a year's salary for delivering critical pojects on time. Managers who fail to deliver should be demoted.

The civil service and the public sector lack expertise in a number of areas, such as enterprise wide IT projects and project management services. In such areas, jobs should be recruited openly from the private sector. Mobility between the public sector and the private sector in both directions should be encouraged,as is the case in France.

This would require an end to public sector job tenure,a privilege given to distinguished professors and,in the 19th century,well connected aristocrats. Such tenure has an enervating effect on people's work ethic.

Wouldn't an end to tenure be unfair to the public sector? Not in the case of individuals lacking the competence to do their work,in which case they would be better off in a new career where they could enjoy the satisfaction of a job well done.

It would be necessary for an independent commission to sign off on ministerial dismissals of public sector workers, in order to prevent politically motivated dismissals.

[bobbysands81]

The civil service and the public sector lack expertise in a number of areas, such as enterprise wide IT projects and project management services. In such areas, jobs should be recruited openly from the private sector. Mobility between the public sector and the private sector in both directions should be encouraged,as is the case in France.

That is already happening in the Civil Service.

It would be necessary for an independent commission to sign off on ministerial dismissals of public sector workers, in order to prevent politically motivated dismissals.

A Minister no longer needs to be the person firing someone in the Civil Service. The Sec Gen can do it now... and it is being done throughout the Civil Service.

As for the security of tenure you speak about, I think most people, if explained the reasons, would understand why it is needed and the public benefit far greater than they lose in this instance.

[patslatt]

It would be necessary for an independent commission to sign off on ministerial dismissals of public sector workers, in order to prevent politically motivated dismissals.

A Minister no longer needs to be the person firing someone in the Civil Service. The Sec Gen can do it now... and it is being done throughout the Civil Service.

As for the security of tenure you speak about, I think most people, if explained the reasons, would understand why it is needed and the public benefit far greater than they lose in this instance.

In theory the Sec Gen can do so. But in practice, virtually nobody is dismissed,thanks to government' appeasement of public sector unions.

I know of at least one very efficient civil service that does not have tenure,that of the Government of Ontario,Canada.

Why is tenure necessary anyway as long as there is an independent assessment of dismissals?

[bobbysands81]

As far as I know dismisslas are happening all the time due to people being late, underperformance, not turning in for work etc... and this is 100% correct and right.

I believe that one part of the tenure is necessary because it is next to impossible for say a Principal Officer to just come in off the street and start work in the Civil Service such is the amount of knowledge they would need.

In the last few Pay Agreements it is now possible to come in at this level. However, I think this is something that the State will row back from in time.

[patslatt]

As far as I know dismisslas are happening all the time due to people being late, underperformance, not turning in for work etc... and this is 100% correct and right.

I believe that one part of the tenure is necessary because it is next to impossible for say a Principal Officer to just come in off the street and start work in the Civil Service such is the amount of knowledge they would need.

In the last few Pay Agreements it is now possible to come in at this level. However, I think this is something that the State will row back from in time.

You may be correct on the frequency of dismissals but I haven't come across any media reports about it. For example,the teaching profession is notorious for burnouts thanks to the stressful nature of public speaking and class disruptions,yet only a very small number of teachers are dismissed in any given year,maybe seven to ten,according to press reports.

Is anyone in government concerned that large numbers of burned out,incompetent teachers are letting down tens of thousands of students?

As I understand the situation,trade unions fight to keep incompetents in their jobs by exploiting regulatory red tape and endless grounds for appeal. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease: the incompetents are the most likely to assist union activities in order to secure help in the event of a threat to their jobs.