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

Is this true ? Do people get fired in the public service for poor work ? I've always wondered that.
Click to expand...

Very few do, though some public sector organisations have become more proactive in recent years.

Another similar question might be do private contractors delivering public services ever get fired when they dont perform their contracts? There is a huge issue of lack of contract management in the public service.
 
csirl said:
I stand over my original claim. I personally know people in these positions in organisations, so I'm not going to name people and organisations on a public forum. As a general rule, the policitally appointed Board will hire a CEO and senior management of people generally connected with them - supporters of their party. This senior management then interviews the candidates for the middle management jobs, quite often hiring people known to them or having people who are connected to the local political branch - no paper record of this, the management simply say that they hired the candidate they liked. The senior and middle management are full time employees. Generally they do not use the civil service commission but prefer to directly hire themselves.

Questions you have to ask is why political activity is NOT banned in these organisations in much the same way as it is for civil servants? Having done some work in public sector recruitment myself a few years ago, I have very serious doubts about the probity of the recruitment process in some public sector organisations - the lack of structured interviews, lack of use of properly trained interview staff, the advertisement of some posts. Ask anyone in the public service about the legend of the "Irish Times Interview".

If you want evidence, then you should take a close look at the staff make-up of many quangos. You will find that a high proportion of people are related to one another - much higher % than you would expect by chance if open unbiased recruitment. You will also find that an extraordinary % of employees are either members or former members of political parties or have family members who are very active in political circles.
Click to expand...

This is a mixture of exaggeration, outdated practices and pure fiction.

The only factual piece in your post is the existence of a politically appointed board. But no board gets to jump in and pick a CEO at the drop of a hat. They will inherit a CEO who may well have 5-7 years left to run in his contract. The CEO may well outlive the politically appointed board. Of course, in some cases, the CEO's term will end, and the board will get to appoint a new CEO. Similarly, that CEO will not get to appoint a new management team at the drop of a hat. The CEO will inherit a management team who will almost certainly be on permanent contracts. So the only opportunity for political appointments would come as members of the management team retire or move to new positions. The same logic applies to middle management roles, and other opportunities down the line. The opportunities for politically influenced appointments are much fewer and farther between that your post would imply.

Your claim of 'the management simply say that they hired the candidate they liked' shows that you know little about current recruitment processes in the public sector. First of all, any interview board will include at least one external member, usually selected by the HR department. So if your claim of conspiratorial political appointments is to be believed, it now not only includes the internal members of the interview board and the HR department, but it also includes the external member of the interview board. The outcome of any recruitment process is subject to an appeals/complaints process involving an independent review. So now the conspiracy needs to extend further to cover the independent reviewer as well.

In my experience, interview staff are generally very well trained, if only to protect the organisation from claims of discrimination or bias. I would love to see some solid data to support your claims of family and/or political connections.
 
In my experience, interview staff are generally very well trained,
Click to expand...

I have sat on a number of public service interview boards over the years and, while it is true that those in some organisations are well trained, some I've been with have left a lot to be desired. The last interview board I sat on was approx. 3 years ago, so its not that long ago. I found that a good proportion of the internal people on some of the boards did not have any formal training, were not familiar with public service guidelines and tended to take into account things from outside the interview. Sometimes a candidate would give a good interview, but during the assessment discussions, it becomes clear that the internals have something against the candidate. I've also seen situations whereby the internals mark a particular candidate much higher than their interview performance merits and justify it with comments like ".....I know candidate X.....I think s/he just had a bad day and gave a poor interview...". The worst thing I ever came across was one interview board where the internal interviewers had notes on all the candidates - based on canvassed feedback - on the table while interviewing the candidates. Needless to say the resulting panel look very different to the performance of the candidates. I have complained about this stuff, but its difficult to prove. The only record of a candidates performance is often a few lines of paraphrasing of what the candidate says in an assessment box along with some bland comments by the board. Without tape recordings or any other proof, how is any candidate to know how s/he did relative to the others?

My experience was that the type of competitions with loads of candidates, large panels, multiple boards tend to be the fairest. Those where the candidates all work in a small organisation and all know each other tend to be the worst.
 
csirl said:
I disageee. Look in the Dublin area.

Beaumont, St. James, St. Vincents, Mater & Tallaght are all privately owned hospitals - mostly by religious orders.

To prove a point, name me a major hospital in Ireland that is NOT privately owned?
Click to expand...


csirl - try and remeber the hospitals outside the pale. University College Hospitals- Cork and Galway. General Hospitals Limerick, Waterford, Tullamore, Cavan etc etc. All the hospitals you quoted above receive their monies from the HSE. I'm sure they have a board of managment which may consist of a few nuns.
 
The point I'm getting at is that, though privately owned, these hospitals have never tendered for the State contracts they have and those that perform badly are never penalised under the contracts. They also operate a kind of cartel. Its only a matter of time before one of the newly built private hospital operators complains about the breach of procurement and competition rules.

Its a bit of a pet hate of mine that the worst public service in the country is delivered by a private sector monopoly cartel that has not fairly tendered for the business. Either we have public hospitals that are owned by the public service or private operators who've won the business by competitive tender. No private organisation should have a "right" to receive guaranteed business and payment from the taxpayer, particularly with such lowsy service. And nobody has the "right" to be enriched at taxpayers expense - these hospitals have been built and paid for largely by the taxpayers. Hospitals are assets with capital value to the owner.
 
csirl said:
I have sat on a number of public service interview boards over the years and, while it is true that those in some organisations are well trained, some I've been with have left a lot to be desired. The last interview board I sat on was approx. 3 years ago, so its not that long ago. I found that a good proportion of the internal people on some of the boards did not have any formal training, were not familiar with public service guidelines and tended to take into account things from outside the interview. Sometimes a candidate would give a good interview, but during the assessment discussions, it becomes clear that the internals have something against the candidate. I've also seen situations whereby the internals mark a particular candidate much higher than their interview performance merits and justify it with comments like ".....I know candidate X.....I think s/he just had a bad day and gave a poor interview...". The worst thing I ever came across was one interview board where the internal interviewers had notes on all the candidates - based on canvassed feedback - on the table while interviewing the candidates. Needless to say the resulting panel look very different to the performance of the candidates. I have complained about this stuff, but its difficult to prove. The only record of a candidates performance is often a few lines of paraphrasing of what the candidate says in an assessment box along with some bland comments by the board. Without tape recordings or any other proof, how is any candidate to know how s/he did relative to the others?
Click to expand...
It is very dissapointing to think that this kind of stuff would be still going on. This is where the role of the external member becomes hugely important. Were you able to keep the other panel members 'on track' and ensure that the interview result was based on the interview? Were you able to give feedback to the HR department about the weaknesses in the process.
csirl said:
The point I'm getting at is that, though privately owned, these hospitals have never tendered for the State contracts they have and those that perform badly are never penalised under the contracts. They also operate a kind of cartel. Its only a matter of time before one of the newly built private hospital operators complains about the breach of procurement and competition rules.
Click to expand...
I share your concern about this. Why wait for one of the private operators to complain? Why not make a complaint yourself?
 
Complainer said:
I share your concern about this. Why wait for one of the private operators to complain? Why not make a complaint yourself?
Click to expand...
With all due respect if ministers and governments can't change things what chance does a member of the public have?
 
csirl said:
I have sat on a number of public service interview boards over the years and, while it is true that those in some organisations are well trained, some I've been with have left a lot to be desired. The last interview board I sat on was approx. 3 years ago, so its not that long ago. I found that a good proportion of the internal people on some of the boards did not have any formal training, were not familiar with public service guidelines and tended to take into account things from outside the interview. Sometimes a candidate would give a good interview, but during the assessment discussions, it becomes clear that the internals have something against the candidate. I've also seen situations whereby the internals mark a particular candidate much higher than their interview performance merits and justify it with comments like ".....I know candidate X.....I think s/he just had a bad day and gave a poor interview...". The worst thing I ever came across was one interview board where the internal interviewers had notes on all the candidates - based on canvassed feedback - on the table while interviewing the candidates. Needless to say the resulting panel look very different to the performance of the candidates. I have complained about this stuff, but its difficult to prove. The only record of a candidates performance is often a few lines of paraphrasing of what the candidate says in an assessment box along with some bland comments by the board. Without tape recordings or any other proof, how is any candidate to know how s/he did relative to the others?

My experience was that the type of competitions with loads of candidates, large panels, multiple boards tend to be the fairest. Those where the candidates all work in a small organisation and all know each other tend to be the worst.
Click to expand...

I would agree with the above comments. Interviews conducted by the PAS tend to be far superior to those conducted internally by individual Departments. In my own Department, Boards tend to consist of people of an appropriate grade who just happen to be free for the week or two around the interview dates. These people are often untrained and receive a quick crash course when they agree to sit on the Board. Their suitability, following the course, does not seem to be assessed. This can result in uneven Boards, inadequate interviews etc. Prior to a recent round of interviews, one of the interviewers stood in front of one of his staff, flicking through the application forms, naming names and saying things like 'yes, I'd say he'll do well'! This kind of unprofessionalism really shouldn't be accepted.
 
Complainer said:
Is this the 'Homer Simpson' school of political activism, i.e. 'Can't someone else do it'?
Click to expand...
No, but thanks for the insult.
I don't subscribe to the "Write a letter and everything will be fine" school of activism. I pay my public representatives to represent me in government and at local level, as I don't have the time or the skills to do it myself. If I don't like what they are doing, or trying to do, I vote for someone else. It's called representative democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top