HSE Hire Ban removal?

Indeed there are, just like the many inefficiencies and room for lost of productivity improvements in the private sector.

Indeed. But in general the tax payer isn't paying for that. The public sector should be of a higher standard.
 
Indeed. But in general the tax payer isn't paying for that. The public sector should be of a higher standard.
If the taxpayer is also a consumer of goods or services, they are indeed paying for the inefficiencies in the private sector.

I'm not excusing inefficiencies in the public sector or suggesting that they shouldn't be resolved. I'm just pointing out that the public and private sectors aren't as different as some AAM posters would like you to believe.
 
If the taxpayer is also a consumer of goods or services, they are indeed paying for the inefficiencies in the private sector.

And as a result of competition consumers can choose not to make use of these private sector companies.

I'm not excusing inefficiencies in the public sector or suggesting that they shouldn't be resolved. I'm just pointing out that the public and private sectors aren't as different as some AAM posters would like you to believe.

One significant difference is if a private sector organisation continues to to be so inefficient it fails and disappears or is taken over and restructured etc - it isn't just given a larger budget to get through.
 
And as a result of competition consumers can choose not to make use of these private sector companies.
So they get to deal with Eircom's terrible technical support in preference to BT's terrible billing system - right? I'm sure that's a great consolation.

One significant difference is if a private sector organisation continues to to be so inefficient it fails and disappears or is taken over and restructured etc - it isn't just given a larger budget to get through.
Indeed, takeovers and restructuring happen in the public sector too. Where is the old Department of Equality and Law Reform? It is languishing in the forgotten corners of the Department of Justice. And what's so great about being taken over or restructured? The customers of NTL (now NTL UPC) are still waiting 20-30 minutes to get through to customer service following the takeover. How has that improved their status?

It's a nice theory that the great free market economy fixes all such problems, but the reality of life for consumers is very different.
 
So they get to deal with Eircom's terrible technical support in preference to BT's terrible billing system - right? I'm sure that's a great consolation.

Are there no other service providers? Have you tried all the alternatives - Vodafone's new offering, VOIP based services etc.

Indeed, takeovers and restructuring happen in the public sector too. Where is the old Department of Equality and Law Reform? It is languishing in the forgotten corners of the Department of Justice. And what's so great about being taken over or restructured? The customers of NTL (now NTL UPC) are still waiting 20-30 minutes to get through to customer service following the takeover. How has that improved their status?

I wouldn't call what happens in the public sector restructuring - more like rebranding. In the DOJELR example, how many people were made redundant, fired, demoted, had salary reductions or were redeployed to different roles etc?

It's a nice theory that the great free market economy fixes all such problems, but the reality of life for consumers is very different.

Neither sector chosen above is operating to a proper free market economy.

Eircom was a state monopoly and still is a near monopoly in some sectors it operates in.

Television service provision is also hardly a free market - how many people have no choice of what supplier they can use because of where they live e.g. no satellite clauses in private estates or apartment blocks, and exclusive contracts between service provider and management companies. And I don't believe that Chorus and NTL ever competed before they merged - did they not operate in seperate areas around the country with no overlap? (may be wrong on that?)
 
The private sector private sector is not immune to inefficiency. One simple example of it is nepotisim. But theres lots of others. Theres all types of private businesses from small companies to large who have terrible business practises, woeful staff but yet manage to stay in business. Perhapes because they are dominant in a market, have a capitive market, are first to market etc, etc. Or perhaps its a hobby business. Lots of reasons.

You don't need to start getting on a hobby horse about a specific business. its just common sense.
 
I wouldn't call what happens in the public sector restructuring - more like rebranding. In the DOJELR example, how many people were made redundant, fired, demoted, had salary reductions or were redeployed to different roles etc?
Your posts seem a tad obsessed with firings. It would of course be illegal for any employer (public or private) to fire/demote/reduce salary during any takeover situation, under TUPE regulations.

There are many, many options available to employers in both public and private sectors other than firing. Good management will address many performance issues. Most people want to do a good job at work, regardless of what sector they are in. Give them the right resources and the right direction and the right job, and they will generally prosper. Firings are a last resort, and are often a bit of a cop-out.

Are there no other service providers? Have you tried all the alternatives - Vodafone's new offering, VOIP based services etc.

Neither sector chosen above is operating to a proper free market economy.
Eircom was a state monopoly and still is a near monopoly in some sectors it operates in.

Television service provision is also hardly a free market - how many people have no choice of what supplier they can use because of where they live e.g. no satellite clauses in private estates or apartment blocks, and exclusive contracts between service provider and management companies. And I don't believe that Chorus and NTL ever competed before they merged - did they not operate in seperate areas around the country with no overlap? (may be wrong on that?)
Lots of excuses there. When the public sector explains the limitations that they work within, whether due to budget limitations or changing govt policy, they are incompetent. But there seems to be endless patience to explain the difficulties of the poor craturs in the private sector.

But if you feel that the TV and telecom sectors are not typical, there are plenty of examples elsewhere. How many Irish consumers do you hear singing the praises of their bank? When was the last time you had a good experience getting served in PC World? Or Woodies? Or Tesco? I've been following this boards.ie thread on best/worst customer experiences for a while, and there are far more complaints about private sector providers than public sector? The panacea of the 'free market' does not provide value for money or quality of service to consumers.

The ultimate irony during the week was to hear Michael O'Leary, that great bastion of the free market whinging that the had to ground some planes in Dublin because DAA wouldn't subsidise his routes. No mention of $150 per barrell oil price, it's all the DAA's fault. Where's the free market economy there with all of Michael's subsidies?
 
Your posts seem a tad obsessed with firings. It would of course be illegal for any employer (public or private) to fire/demote/reduce salary during any takeover situation, under TUPE regulations.

There are many, many options available to employers in both public and private sectors other than firing. Good management will address many performance issues. Most people want to do a good job at work, regardless of what sector they are in. Give them the right resources and the right direction and the right job, and they will generally prosper. Firings are a last resort, and are often a bit of a cop-out.


Lots of excuses there. When the public sector explains the limitations that they work within, whether due to budget limitations or changing govt policy, they are incompetent. But there seems to be endless patience to explain the difficulties of the poor craturs in the private sector.

But if you feel that the TV and telecom sectors are not typical, there are plenty of examples elsewhere. How many Irish consumers do you hear singing the praises of their bank? When was the last time you had a good experience getting served in PC World? Or Woodies? Or Tesco? I've been following this boards.ie thread on best/worst customer experiences for a while, and there are far more complaints about private sector providers than public sector? The panacea of the 'free market' does not provide value for money or quality of service to consumers.

The ultimate irony during the week was to hear Michael O'Leary, that great bastion of the free market whinging that the had to ground some planes in Dublin because DAA wouldn't subsidise his routes. No mention of $150 per barrell oil price, it's all the DAA's fault. Where's the free market economy there with all of Michael's subsidies?


Excellent post serial.
 
Your posts seem a tad obsessed with firings. It would of course be illegal for any employer (public or private) to fire/demote/reduce salary during any takeover situation, under TUPE regulations.

There are many, many options available to employers in both public and private sectors other than firing. Good management will address many performance issues. Most people want to do a good job at work, regardless of what sector they are in. Give them the right resources and the right direction and the right job, and they will generally prosper. Firings are a last resort, and are often a bit of a cop-out.

So explain the poor teachers that I had in school over a decade ago that are still teaching, to the same poor standard.

Lots of excuses there. When the public sector explains the limitations that they work within, whether due to budget limitations or changing govt policy, they are incompetent. But there seems to be endless patience to explain the difficulties of the poor craturs in the private sector.

But if you feel that the TV and telecom sectors are not typical, there are plenty of examples elsewhere. How many Irish consumers do you hear singing the praises of their bank? When was the last time you had a good experience getting served in PC World? Or Woodies? Or Tesco? I've been following this boards.ie thread on best/worst customer experiences for a while, and there are far more complaints about private sector providers than public sector? The panacea of the 'free market' does not provide value for money or quality of service to consumers.

The ultimate irony during the week was to hear Michael O'Leary, that great bastion of the free market whinging that the had to ground some planes in Dublin because DAA wouldn't subsidise his routes. No mention of $150 per barrell oil price, it's all the DAA's fault. Where's the free market economy there with all of Michael's subsidies?

Why are you focusing on customer experience? The discussion was on inefficiencies.

Plus to say there are more complaints about private sector companies is a bit disingenuous - most of the public have minimal customer service interaction with public sector organisations on a daily basis. Do I drop into DOJELR to buy a bunch of bananas or a pot of paint?
 
So explain the poor teachers that I had in school over a decade ago that are still teaching, to the same poor standard.

Its just like my local main car dealer, still massively over charging, terrible service department. They could charge far less, improve the quality of their staff and have far more customers. But people just won't shop around. So they don't have to.

Why are you focusing on customer experience? The discussion was on inefficiencies.

How do you know if some organisation, public or private is inefficient? You don't know if its understaffed, or over staffed, what the work load is etc. Hard to know unless you actually work there or have direct experience. What I find in the public sector where I am is, where things work in a bizarre way, theres usually been some union or policital interference that has twisted the process. In the private sector this might be because an owner manager wants something done a particular way, for non business reasons.

Plus to say there are more complaints about private sector companies is a bit disingenuous - most of the public have minimal customer service interaction with public sector organisations on a daily basis. Do I drop into DOJELR to buy a bunch of bananas or a pot of paint?

I don't get the argument that frequence is a factor here. I've gone into some shops once or twice and service was woeful. Maybe its the only DIY shop in the area. Whereas other shops like the local butcher I'm in all the time and service is excellent.
 
In what way could I shop around it my maths and chemistry teachers were poor, apart from getting grinds. Is it that easy to switch schools a few years into secondary education?


The point is if I deal with 100 private sector organisations versus 10 public sector organisations, and 1 in 10 of each offers poor customer service, that's 10 private sector versus 1 public sector. So if there are 10 private sector complaints versus 1 public sector, then it means they are on a par, not that private sector is more complained about.
 
In what way could I shop around it my maths and chemistry teachers were poor, apart from getting grinds. Is it that easy to switch schools a few years into secondary education?.

Certainly it can be done, and is done all the time.

The point is if I deal with 100 private sector organisations versus 10 public sector organisations, and 1 in 10 of each offers poor customer service, that's 10 private sector versus 1 public sector. So if there are 10 private sector complaints versus 1 public sector, then it means they are on a par, not that private sector is more complained about.

The point I'm making is neither sector is perfect, and similar problems exist in both. I think its a bit pointless making direct comparisions, with stats between private sector and public when both are operating with different constraints.

For example how are you going to magic the union out of the comparision. Because that makes a world of a difference.
 
Certainly it can be done, and is done all the time.

And then when I switch I have a poor English or Physics teacher to contend with instead in the new school?

I think its a bit pointless making direct comparisions, with stats between private sector and public when both are operating with different constraints.

I was responding to your question on what frequency had to do with it. Which followed on from my response to complainers pointing us to the thread and saying there were far more complaints about private sector...so follow up with complainer on that one.

For example how are you going to magic the union out of the comparision. Because that makes a world of a difference.

Sorry, I don't understand this point - are you referring to trade unions?
 
And then when I switch I have a poor English or Physics teacher to contend with instead in the new school?

I think your veering into a whole different subject there. The school system. Which lets face it the Govt has left it to faith schools and washed their hands of it. I things thats a broader discussion than the scope of this topic. I've certainly had the whole "bad teacher" experience myself. The schools seem unable or unwilling to deal with it. I'm not entirely sure which.

I was responding to your question on what frequency had to do with it. Which followed on from my response to complainers pointing us to the thread and saying there were far more complaints about private sector...so follow up with complainer on that one.

I didn't think his comment was valid either. TBH.

Sorry, I don't understand this point - are you referring to trade unions?

Sorry yes. The unions do themselves no favours. That said sometimes the management, in public sector, seem to go out of their way to create confrontations with unions. So theres blame on both sides IMO.
 
The HSE say that there is no ban on recruitment, staff levels that were there before September 2007 (date of first recruitment freeze) are to remain the same.
 
"It would of course be illegal for any employer (public or private) to fire/demote/reduce salary during any takeover situation, under TUPE regulations. "

Not really true.

There is a slightly odd perception out there that TUPE means that an employer cannot implement any changes during a takeover. What TUPE really means is that employee rights cannot be reduced as a result of a takeover. Employers always have the right to re-structure, regrade, implement redundancies etc. Of course, they must do so within the law. But TUPE does not in some sense render employees immune to the effects of change - it merely protects existing rights.
 
Back
Top