Time off for Christmas shopping in public service.

FWIW, I have complained about the public service for the last 20 odd years - whether the country is experiencing a boom or a recession makes no difference to me. As for the big Christmas bonuses in the private sector - well, in 20 years employment I've never got one. No-one I know gets one either.

And remember, apart from the top few percent of earners, public sector employees, on average, get paid more than private sector ones.

Fact.

Do a search for the most recent stats.
 
I have no problem with anyone in public or private sector getting a few hours off around Christmas. As long as they don't end up shutting up the social welfare office or something for it, good luck to them.

I draw the line at the time off to go to the bank to cash their non-existant pay cheques though!
 
Caveat said:
FWIW, I have complained about the public service for the last 20 odd years - whether the country is experiencing a boom or a recession makes no difference to me. As for the big Christmas bonuses in the private sector - well, in 20 years employment I've never got one. No-one I know gets one either.

And remember, apart from the top few percent of earners, public sector employees, on average, get paid more than private sector ones.

Fact.

Do a search for the most recent stats.
Click to expand...

Caveat, you must not know anyone working in factories then - for the 5 people I know working in different factories - each one has always received a xmas bonus. However, out of these 5 factories, 4 of them have halved the bonus this year. Still half of €1000 is 500 so still not too bad.
 
Last year I was working in the private sector and got a 5 grand bonus. I know which I'd prefer.
Click to expand...
You suggest you prefer the money but yet you've freely chosen to work in the sector that gives the shopping time off instead. Isn't this a bit like someone who drinks Coke telling you they prefer Pepsi - you might say to them well drink Pepsi then.

I had a far handier number in my old private sector job but when offered this post could not turn it down given the current economic circumstances.
Click to expand...
A handy number where you were afraid of losing you job? Some would see that as not being a handy number at all.
 
Interviewers generally don't interview for free, although depending on the circumstances it may not be directly for pay. It's hard work (if you're doing it properly). The headline is wrong - it's not "sit in on" it's actually conduct an interview. Serving civil servants and external advisers do conduct interviews but it's often difficult to get enough of them.

Do you think they should work for free?
 
Dreamerb said:
Do you expect your job interview to be conducted exclusively by someone in HR?
Click to expand...

No, not exclusively - but neither do I usually expect anyone else involved in the interview to be drafted in like this.

Surely there are appropriate technical staff, managers etc etc - whatever the situation requires - already available for this?
 
yes and i would think most interview boards do consist of serving civil servants but the thing is they have jobs to do and it isn't always feasible or desireable to have them taking time off from their jobs to work on interview boards.
the article seems to imply this happens with all boards when i would doubt that is the case.
from a cost benefit position it can make more sense to use retired public servants rather than taking busy people away from their jobs. but we get slaughtered for thinking like that - we're slagged off for taking a half day shopping (not everyone takes this) but then slagged off for not taking time off our jobs to work on interview boards. this thread like so many others has turned into a rant against the public and civil service.
 
dereko1969 said:
yes and i would think most interview boards do consist of serving civil servants but the thing is they have jobs to do and it isn't always feasible or desireable to have them taking time off from their jobs to work on interview boards.
the article seems to imply this happens with all boards when i would doubt that is the case.
from a cost benefit position it can make more sense to use retired public servants rather than taking busy people away from their jobs.
Click to expand...

Well fair enough when you put it like that...but...and you probably knew I'd say this...

...the private sector seem to manage to do it! :D

this thread like so many others has turned into a rant against the public and civil service.
Click to expand...

Turned into? Look at the title - it was practically a rant in the first place anyway :)
 
ashambles said:
You suggest you prefer the money but yet you've freely chosen to work in the sector that gives the shopping time off instead. Isn't this a bit like someone who drinks Coke telling you they prefer Pepsi - you might say to them well drink Pepsi then.

A handy number where you were afraid of losing you job? Some would see that as not being a handy number at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to make of the soft drinks analogy but I thought it would be obvious to most that the reason I took the public sector position was job security and not the fabled half day off at Christmas.

I had been working in the construction industry which as you may have heard is experiencing some difficulties. So yeah I took a pay cut to take the more secure job. Since then the company has been forced to lay-off 25 people and cut wages by 15%. As someone with a family to support I guess I made the right decision. And again I assumed it would be obvious that by handy number I meant the pressure and responsibity involved in proforming my duties and not security of tenure.
 
Caveat said:
Well fair enough when you put it like that...but...and you probably knew I'd say this...

...the private sector seem to manage to do it! :D



Turned into? Look at the title - it was practically a rant in the first place anyway :)
Click to expand...
the scale of it is the thing, how many people would you say are normally interviewed for private sector jobs? in the public sector i would think the numbers interviewed are much much higher, as you're usually putting people onto a panel that can have a hundred people on it, in the private sector you're (usually) appointing one person.
yep it was a rant in the first place mea culpa
 
This is just madness.

In the private sector interviews are almost always carried out by the active employees of the company (managers, HR, engineers, etc.).

I remember when I first left college and went for interviews with some of the biggest banks in the UK, I was interviewed by senior management of those banks. Now if senior managers in the big banks in the UK can find time to interview people, then our civil servants have no excuses at all not to do the same, instead of given nice pay outs to their retired chums.
 
This wasn't necessarily a rant to begin with, though it does seem to be turning into a bit of a catfight. Obviously I work in the private sector, in construction as it happens. I was never on a huge wage when I was employed by others and a christmas bonus was a weeks wages, net. For this, I worked up to and over 70 hours per week and at weekends, had fair headaches and phonecalls at all hours. Work could be anything from meetings to cleaning out sewers to staying up right through the night finishing concrete.
Hands up here, I got E800 per week take home for this and overtime was paid sometimes time and a half, sometimes just time. I thought it was good money for my age and as I was well capable for what I was at, I was happy with it. However, I also cribbed about the public sector at the heighth of the boom. The inefficiencies and cushy numbers were as obvious then. It was my choice however, to stay in the private sector and forego the 'job for life' for the potential rewards in my job.They haven't materialised, as yet anyway, and won'tfor a while if I can keep my head above water as I am now out on my own.
What I'm getting at is that, fair enough, the public sector is coming in for a lot of scrutiny and sometimes unfair abuse at the moment but we all made our choices and it was either job security in the public or monetary reward in the private. Believe me, I got enough abuse from people I know in the Public sector in the last few years about the presumably 'massive' money I was on.
My original post about the half day for shopping was not intended as a a go at the Public sector, merely highlighting another unfair perk that's available, whether it's availed of or not.To those that don't, fair play.
 
Just some info on interview boards in the civil service. Bear in mind I'm talking about the civil service here, not the wider public service.
Since public sector posts are public positions, it must be seen to be as fair as possible to try to get the best possible candidates (obviously) but also to avoid the potential for litigation, which I believe is less of a potential issue for the private sector. One thing that is clear is that civil service recruitment is scrupulously fair, but unfortunately that costs money.

The composition of the standard interview board is one person one grade above the position being applied for, one person two grades up and one external person, who also has the role of ensuring that there is no favouritism shown in the interviews, and who is usually the chair of the board. So the typical board for an EO interview would be a HEO, an AP and the external person who was usually a PO at the time of retirement. While they used to use serving civil servants for the external person, it has been determined (most of the time) to be cheaper to use retired civil servants, plus most people didn't want to do it.

The system is designed to to be as fair as possible, but unfortunately that costs.

Edit: Looking at the Indo article, the amounts they're to be paid do seem excessive.
 
There was an informal arrangement for a half-day Xmas shopping leave in my last private sector employer, but there is no such arrangement in my current public sector employer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top