The public sector, why is it so bad!?!?!

Public sector unions need to be taken on & defeated.

Crap public services in Ireland can be put down to consesus in social partnership.

I have worked in the public and private sector - in the public sector - nixers, expense claims etc are common place.

Compare the cost of transaction in such bodies with Aldi or Tesco.
 
Public sector unions need to be taken on & defeated.
Yeah, let's get Thatcher over here to run the country. She did such a great job at creating a divided British society that they've been afraid to let the Tories back in for a generation after she got the boot.
Crap public services in Ireland can be put down to consesus in social partnership.
Wow, deep commentary. Got any basis for this conclusion? Would you care to explain how the 'crap public service' doesn't seem to have been a problem for the other social partners, including IBEC, SFA, farmers etc?
I have worked in the public and private sector - in the public sector - nixers, expense claims etc are common place.
I've worked in both too, and my experience is the opposite. If you do have any evidence of tax/welfare fraud through nixers or just plain old fraud through expense claims, please get this to the relevant authorities to ensure that it gets addressed.
Compare the cost of transaction in such bodies with Aldi or Tesco.
Why not compare apples with bicycles? You may not have noticed that the nature of the the transaction in public service environments is generally fairly different to Aldi or Tesco. Where there are high-volume customer service counter environments in the public service, the transaction is generally information based these days, as most of the money is done electronically. This comment reminds of Wilde's quote about people who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
 
Complainer, are you happy with the level of service and value for money in the public and state sector?
 
Complainer, are you happy with the level of service and value for money in the public and state sector?

If answering that also consider are you happy with the level of service and value for money in the private sector? When you get a plumber, buy a house, get your car fixed, buy an iPhone, go to a private dentist.
 
If answering that also consider are you happy with the level of service and value for money in the private sector? When you get a plumber, buy a house, get your car fixed, buy an iPhone, go to a private dentist.
All good points but you also have to take into account that in the private sector I have choice. This is not usually the case in the public sector.
 
All good points but you also have to take into account that in the private sector I have choice. This is not usually the case in the public sector.
You've no choice about where you get your iPhone, as it happens :p

In answer your 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' question, there is no straight answer. I'm not one for the divisive 'us and them' / 'public vs private' game. There is little to be gained (beyond partisan finger pointing) by creating such false divisions.

On the substantive issue of customer service, I find a huge disparity in the quality of customer services. I've seen some examples of super customer customer service in both the public and private sectors. In the public sector, Revenue Commissioners stand out from my experience (and indeed have been mentioned favorably here on AAM for swift processing of MED1 refunds). They have a strong customer service ethic, and they manage the customer experience in their large Dublin offices efficiently. In the private sector, my experience with my own bank (NIB) has improved substantially since they assigned a personal banking manager. Having this named individual available at the end of an email address has ensured that issues get resolved promptly.

I'm sure that neither of these organisations are perfect, and other posters may well have negative experiences with these organisations, but that's the nature of the beast. On the negative side, I have come to despair of my own local authority, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown. They have repeatedly shown incompetence, ignorance, obnoxiousness and many other nasty traits. On the private sector side, I've had my battles with M&S, NTR/Eazy Pass, American Express/BOI, Microsoft, Mercer et al, as detailed on my [broken link removed].

I find that many organisations pay lip service to customer services. In the public sector, the Dept of an Taoiseach operate the initiative, but this doesn't have a huge impact on the ground. They might run a conference every year or two, or publish some , but it isn't getting the kind of ongoing, regular attention and commitment. I understand that it is hard to focus on customer service with all the other pressures of increasing demand, increasing complexity, recruitment embargoes etc, but it really does deserve better.

Similarly in the private sector, it is often an afterthought. Product and service offerings are handed over to the customer service team, but the CS team are rarely involved in designing the products or services. Many major customer service snafus could be avoided if the goys from Morketing went slumming in the CS dept before the product or service was released, instead of beating them up afterwards.
 
I've seen some examples of super customer customer service in both the public and private sectors.

Big deal. Because so many people work in both sectors of course everyone has. The original question remains - "The public sector, why is it so bad!?!?!" Probably something to do with lack of accountability, lack of incentive, and the fact so few if any people have ever lost their job in the public sector over anything, no matter how pathetic the boo-boos. The "I'm all right Joe " attitude from well paid public servants, who have guaranteed safe jobs, with holidays, sick pay, pensions etc- and a salary higher than the ordinary taxpayer who supports them - just adds insult in injury.
 
The original question remains - "The public sector, why is it so bad!?!?!"
Sorry you missed the point in my detailed answer. I'll try it another way.

The question is misleading. The public sector isn't 'so bad'. Some parts are good, and some parts are bad, just like the private sector.

But seeing as your posts seem more focused on political point scoring than actually understanding cause and effect, I'll drop out here and leave you to rant away on your own time.
 
Sorry you missed the point in my detailed answer. I'll try it another way.

The question is misleading. The public sector isn't 'so bad'. Some parts are good, and some parts are bad, just like the private sector.

But seeing as your posts seem more focused on political point scoring than actually understanding cause and effect, I'll drop out here and leave you to rant away on your own time.
Are you suggesting that on a macro level the public/state sector is as efficient as the private sector?
Since the private sector is more exposed to market forces I would think that this is not the case but I am interested in your opinion on the matter.
 
Are you suggesting that on a macro level the public/state sector is as efficient as the private sector?
Since the private sector is more exposed to market forces I would think that this is not the case but I am interested in your opinion on the matter.

Are you reasonably suggesting that the public sector CAN be as efficient as the market sector? A market-based approach to the delivery of public services wouldn't provide for a very just society, however "efficient" this might be.

As a precursor to any further debate, it might be worth bearing this in mind.

I made a couple of other points in a post about a month ago which might be worth repeating now.

There are many elements of public services that are delivered well and efficiently and there are many elements that aren't.

Of those that aren't, there are elements that could be improved with the application of more effective forethought, planning and execution. There are other elements, however, that are genuinely difficult to provide properly even with the application of best management and organisational procedures.

It displays a poverty of thought, therefore, when it's suggested that a "private sector approach" would cure all public service delivery ills. The public generally only requires a public service intervention in cases where the private market doesn't offer a solution or offers a solution that isn't acceptable (e.g. expensive housing).

Added to that is the constantly-changing nature of the public's demands. Whereas these demands manifest themselves quite quickly in the private-sector because of the efficiency of the supply-demand model, public services can be difficult to withdraw once available (remember Seamus Brennan's attempts to remove certain social welfare schemes?) Trying to replace an existing service with a new one for which there is an apparent demand can be very difficult.

In 2008, however, there is no justification for a public service organisation not being contactable by phone or e-mail and certainly i would encourage the making of complaints in these instances. But if you don't make a complaint, how can the people you're dealing with know there's a problem. What's the point in complaining on this forum where nobody has the power to address the problem you have?

The public sector is in a no-win situation. Resources are finite and yet everyone expects more services with less money. Yes, there are numerous examples of where efficiencies could be improved quite easily with sufficient will. But to suggest that the perfect delivery of public services across the board is easily achieveable is unrealistic to say the least.
 
Agree with this. May times when trying to ring some offices, you are ringing an individuals direct number. If that individual is busy or out of the office, the call does not pass onto another person.

Some of my friends work in a Social welfare office, in fact most of their phones operate on a "hunting line" that is if you directly dial an individual and if their phone is engaged it automatically rolls onto the next available phone, unfortunatley many phones are unmanned when the civil servant is directly dealing (e.g. at the counter) with a member of the public. I believe they found they were in a double bind when they used voice mail as (they claim) not have enough staff to simultaneously deal with

1. Phone Callers
2. Callers at the counter
3. Query letters
4. Responding to voice mail ( item 4 was dropped to deal with 1,2,3)

I don't condone agree or disagree with the above just some info for you to digest.
 
I've worked in both the public and private sectors over the years and have a few observations.

There seems to be a direct relationship between underperformance in the public sector and politically appointed management/staff.

I am generalising here, but those public sector organisations who's management and in some cases employees are appointed by councillors, politicians etc. tend to be a lot worse performing than the non-policitically appointed positions where the employees are forbidden from being members of policital parties.

Here's a list of some of the worst performers:

HSE - political.
Local Authorities - political
Dublin Transport - political

Whereas better performers e.g. Revenue, are non-political.

The reason for this is that the poor political public service bodies are run by friends of senior politicians and staffed as favours by supporters of political parties who got the job because of who they know rather than their ability. In the end of the day, if the best person doesnt get the job, then the job isnt going to be done as well. Sometimes there isnt even a genuine job available for a relative of a supporter - they are created. These organisations are little more than slush funds to enable policital parties to give out smarties to their supporters.

A big failing of all sectors of the public service is the randomness at which people get appointed to positions. Generally whoever is next on the recruitment/promotion list gets whatever position at that level is available. Not much thought is given to the education, experience and skills of the individuals. An individuals have virtually no say in the matter. You get a lot of bad fits - which are not a reflection on the individuals who would possibly trive in a different position.
 
Are you suggesting that on a macro level the public/state sector is as efficient as the private sector?
Since the private sector is more exposed to market forces I would think that this is not the case but I am interested in your opinion on the matter.

Again, I think this is the wrong question. Efficiency on its own is not a good measure. I'd hazard a guess that the 3rd Reich was very efficient (see Godwins Law).

It might be worth checking out the survey results from 2003 about public attitudes to the public sector. I could have sworn that there was a more recent survey, but I can't find it now. Anyway, check out the results summarised on p 4 & 5 of and detailed in .
A survey late last year found that 79% of the general public are satisfied or very satisfied with the service they receive from civil servants.

I am generalising here, but those public sector organisations who's management and in some cases employees are appointed by councillors, politicians etc. tend to be a lot worse performing than the non-policitically appointed positions where the employees are forbidden from being members of policital parties.

Here's a list of some of the worst performers:

HSE - political.
Local Authorities - political
Dublin Transport - political

Whereas better performers e.g. Revenue, are non-political.
Isn't it a long, ong time since there were political appointees in anything but board level in any of these organisations?
 
Again, I think this is the wrong question. Efficiency on its own is not a good measure. I'd hazard a guess that the 3rd Reich was very efficient (see Godwins Law).
Actually the 3rd Reich was not on a full war footing 'till late in the war, unlike the UK for example. But anyway, I do not think that the public sector should be run like the private sector in as much as it should not be expected to make a profit but it should be run in a way that maximises the returns from tax payers’ money. It should also put the customer (the general public) first and not the people who work there. There are basic rules that should apply to the public and private sector.
 
If answering that also consider are you happy with the level of service and value for money in the private sector? When you get a plumber, buy a house, get your car fixed, buy an iPhone, go to a private dentist.
Well then I will take my custom elsewhere if I feel I don't get good value in the private sector. Can I stop paying my taxes if I feel the public sector is wasting my money?
 
Well then I will take my custom elsewhere if I feel I don't get good value in the private sector. Can I stop paying my taxes if I feel the public sector is wasting my money?
You can certainly vote for change every five years or so, which is probably similar in effectiveness to 1 AIB account holder switching their account.
 
You can certainly vote for change every five years or so, which is probably similar in effectiveness to 1 AIB account holder switching their account.
The bottom line is that for the customer is that they have greater control over the services they consume from the private sector but that choice is very limited (if at all) for services consumed from the public sector. By the way I am not suggesting that everything be privatised I am just pointing out that the point made by diarmuidc is valid. The bottom line is that while some private sector businesses may be as bad or worse than anything in the public sector these businesses are not funded by tax payers money and are not the sole provider of public services to those tax payers. Therefore comparisons are not relevant.

I am open to being persuaded otherwise but in my opinion the lack of management accountability and in turn their lack of real sanction over their subordinates in a major factor in why the public sector under performs. Political interference, lack of incentives and de-motivational work practices also factor. I do not subscribe to the "public/ civil servants are lazy" view; people are people no matter where they work. I blame weak government, weak management and unions that have too much power (unions having too little power is also a bad thing). I do think that the culture of underperformance is changing and management structures are improving but there is still a long way to go. My opinions are formed based on friends who work in the public sector and others who deal with them regularly, as well as my dealings with state agencies and general media reporting so I accept that they are anecdotal.
 
You can certainly vote for change every five years or so, which is probably similar in effectiveness to 1 AIB account holder switching their account.
"similar in effectiveness" Are you joking? I don't believe I have to actually spell this out

Secnario1. I am unhappy with my bank => I move bank => I am not unhappy with new bank => problem solved

Scenario2. I am unhappy with my public service => I vote for FG/whoever => FF are reelected (Bertie is a nice guy or some other reason), nothing changes => I am still unhappy with my public service => problem remains
 
Back
Top