Bloated Government

[MilitantDogOwner]

Any sources you'd care to share with us - other than ones of the 'everyone knows...' or 'a mate said...' calibre?

jealousy aside, this is not actually an attack on government workers (slack or otherwise). this thread is about the bloat in the government

 

so, purely hypothetically. say you wanted to move your desk, the little filing cabinet beneath it and the PC on top of it 20 foot to the left because of the draft from the window giving you backache

 

what is the solution and how many people would it take?

 

in the private world? 2. just move the freakin desk and quit moaning

actually 1. leave the desk and get some gaffer tape

 

could someone from government tell us the government way? include every person in the loop

 

I'm gonna guess 10+

 

Well in the private company I work for the following agencies have to get involved:

 

1. Service desk who take the desk move request from user.

2. Field Support to move the IT equipment.

3. Desktop support for software support.

4. Infrastructure for network support.

5. Telephony for transfer of desk phone properties.

6. Works Services to actually move the desk for H&S reasons.

 

Does that answer your question.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You know a lot of the staff are people who have struggled with the stress of having a £15k bank job right? Now their GCSE C in English suddenly worth £24k.

 

I do think though that it is better them being in a 24k job than 15k. I mean 15k is shit.

 

I think slacking off is completely fine if you are getting a shit wage but it is really unfair, as you say, when there is a variance of salaries yet those paid the work don't do any work.

 

Do you believe it is the lack of stimulation from the work that creates this reluctance to do work in the civil service or the fact that there are so many people that there is not enough work to go round and people get bored?

[Tempus Fugit]

Any sources you'd care to share with us - other than ones of the 'everyone knows...' or 'a mate said...' calibre?

jealousy aside, this is not actually an attack on government workers (slack or otherwise). this thread is about the bloat in the government

 

so, purely hypothetically. say you wanted to move your desk, the little filing cabinet beneath it and the PC on top of it 20 foot to the left because of the draft from the window giving you backache

 

what is the solution and how many people would it take?

 

in the private world? 2. just move the freakin desk and quit moaning

actually 1. leave the desk and get some gaffer tape

 

could someone from government tell us the government way? include every person in the loop

 

I'm gonna guess 10+

 

Well in the private company I work for the following agencies have to get involved:

 

1. Service desk who take the desk move request from user.

2. Field Support to move the IT equipment.

3. Desktop support for software support.

4. Infrastructure for network support.

5. Telephony for transfer of desk phone properties.

6. Works Services to actually move the desk for H&S reasons.

 

Does that answer your question.

 

Well in the private company I work for

 

1. Service desk who take the desk move request from user. = me

2. Field Support to move the IT equipment. = me

3. Desktop support for software support. = me

4. Infrastructure for network support. =me

5. Telephony for transfer of desk phone properties. =me

6. Works Services to actually move the desk for H&S reasons. =me

 

next question

[Guest MrFunk]

Do you believe it is the lack of stimulation from the work that creates this reluctance to do work in the civil service or the fact that there are so many people that there is not enough work to go round and people get bored?

 

There is nothing like enough work to keep the various head counts in most departments busy. You combine that with the fact it doesn't matter how you perform and it breeds apathy. A few years of apathy and you have staff that have forgot what work really means and get very upset at the thought of any change. Union and stress related sickness here we come! They have tried to remedy things by making the annual increment performance based but I think it would be really interesting to see just what percentage of the staff don't meet the minimum requirements to get their increment. I'd guess next to none, it's really just a paper shuffling exercise to employ even more staff. Have you done some work? Yes. Prove it? Here is a spreadhseet I did in July.

 

I'd make the whole thing a 2 year compulsery job swap. Every 2 years you move to a new area and learn something new.

 

There is also a major problem with the way that management hoard the head count. They'll never give up a member of staff and if they can get another one "just in case" then all the better. Of course this is all backed up with a "legit" business case to personnel. Or in reality yet more paper shuffling and jobs for the boys. It's a different world to anywhere where performance matters (at a business and personal level).

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There is nothing like enough work to keep the various head counts in most departments busy. You combine that with the fact it doesn't matter how you perform and it breeds apathy. A few years of apathy and you have staff that have forgot what work really means and get very upset at the thought of any change. Union and stress related sickness here we come! They have tried to remedy things by making the annual increment performance based but I think it would be really interesting to see just what percentage of the staff don't meet the minimum requirements to get their increment. I'd guess next to none, it's really just a paper shuffling exercise to employ even more staff. Have you done some work? Yes. Prove it? Here is a spreadhseet I did in July.

 

I'd make the whole thing a 2 year compulsery job swap. Every 2 years you move to a new area and learn something new.

 

There is also a major problem with the way that management hoard the head count. They'll never give up a member of staff and if they can get another one "just in case" then all the better. Of course this is all backed up with a "legit" business case to personnel. Or in reality yet more paper shuffling and jobs for the boys. It's a different world to anywhere where performance matters (at a business and personal level).

 

In a sense, I am glad these people have job security which is more that can be said for anyone employed in the private sector.

 

Well people have to be interested and not be alienated by their work in order to do well, unless their welfare is at risk if they don't perform as would be the case in the private sector. I suppose here you don't have the 'stick' to make people do work that they are bored of and don't have a lot of.

But I would personally find working in a lot of areas of government less alienating than working in the private sector. At least you can say that to an extent (depending on your role and type of service) you are providing a service to the people and not getting some people rich.

 

I think a job swap is interesting, maybe not even 2 year. At least it keeps people learning which doesn't happen in so many jobs. And maybe there are others way to create more motivation, though as you say if people have become averse to change they won't like it. I wouldn't support any solution that involves the 'stick' but the incremental pay thing sounds good.

[Moghrey Mie]

They run the MEA and the Water Authority. As well as the Post Office.

Into the ground perhaps?

 

The number of times folks on here bleat about the size of the public sector. IMHO the problem is twofold:

 

Firstly in my experience organisations that evolve rather than growing to a plan are the most inefficient, disorganised and demoralising places you could imagine.

 

Secondly as far as I'm aware the task of running IOM PLC has never actually been properly sized up using modern methodologies.

 

The public sector has always been an easy target but frankly some of it is richly deserved. I've dealt with civil servants with budgets of millions that you wouldn't trust with doling out pocket money. The private sector runs rings around them which is why just about every UK public sector IT project has been an out and out disaster - it's no accident believe me.

 

 

Looks like we're back to the Scope And Structure of Government report which TB is supposed to be 'looking at'

[Gladys]

There is also a major problem with the way that management hoard the head count. They'll never give up a member of staff and if they can get another one "just in case" then all the better. Of course this is all backed up with a "legit" business case to personnel. Or in reality yet more paper shuffling and jobs for the boys. It's a different world to anywhere where performance matters (at a business and personal level).

 

I don't know about here, but in the UK, the public sector is driven by annual budgets. If you have a budget for any particular expense you had better use it or it will be cut to your actual expenditure level in the next year's budget. So there is no real incentive the make cost savings as all that will serve is to drive down your budget for following years. So departments will staff up to their budget levels regardless of whether the work is there or not.

[Mission]

5. Telephony for transfer of desk phone properties

 

In layperson speak (must be pc now) what does that actually mean please?

 

Best one I've ever witnessed (and I kid you not) a well known local financial institution had to contract in someone to put an A4 sized certificate frame on the wall - a job that would take me and my hammer all of a minute to do.

 

Still, I guess it keeps someone in paid employment...

[Albert Tatlock]

Been banging on for years about the number of government employees. If 28% of the working population work for government, and 28% of the total population are over 65 - then in any downturn it's economics 101 that we'll quickly be in the doo doo.

 

Diversification and immigration which are key fundamental economic issues on an island this size, have save for a couple of minor industries (e.g. Space) and mostly political BS, otherwise taken a back seat.

 

Add a balls up like KSF into the equation, and it's now time to pay the price for all this incompetence. Pity it's only now that people are starting to realise what idiots they have let run riot running our finances and spending like there was no tomorrow. And as for those elected in 2006 on the remit that their manifesto was to address some of these major issues...well they should be hanging their useless heads in shame.

[Dunroamin]

[quote name='MrFunk' post='380846' date='Dec 18 2008, 04:26 PM'

 

But I would personally find working in a lot of areas of government less alienating than working in the private sector. At least you can say that to an extent (depending on your role and type of service) you are providing a service to the people and not getting some people rich.

 

Hey guy, it is the so called "rich people" you denegrate and sneer at that provide the employment and profit = vat/taxes that pays for those people that you like who "provide the service to the people". Without these so called rich people, there would be no money coming into the Island.

 

Incidentally, amongst those "rich People" are a great number who probably earn less than the average paid in the Civil Service but who prefer to be self empolyed and independent!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Hey guy, it is the so called "rich people" you denegrate and sneer at that provide the employment and profit = vat/taxes that pays for those people that you like who "provide the service to the people". Without these so called rich people, there would be no money coming into the Island.

 

Incidentally, amongst those "rich People" are a great number who probably earn less than the average paid in the Civil Service but who prefer to be self empolyed and independent!

 

I was particularly talking about the owners of the companies. They provide the employment in the sense that, because they own all the needed means of production, they give permission for people to work in their offices as they need labour. And profit is made by the workers, not by those who own the company. A Manx person for example should not feel grateful because they are in a position where they NEED work but HAVE to gain permission to do it. Work is not a privilege.

 

I am not going to explain why such a 'system' is wrong. But I would like to provide a social good, that is my preference. Though you are correct in stating that the productivity of the private sector funds government, but I don't agree with the current system and recognise that it is hard work done by people, not the employers, that funds government.

[Jack Meoff]

whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....................

[Guest MrFunk]

I was particularly talking about the owners of the companies. Blah Blah Blah....absolute toss....blah blah....

 

Ahh I understand now. You're a complete and utter mentalist with no idea of how the real world works. You're probably gay as well just to be radical and different!

 

Time to get back to the real world, I just thought for a moment it might be worth giving some insight on here as to how the local civil service actually works. Never mind......., carry on.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I was particularly talking about the owners of the companies.

 

Ahh I understand now. You're a complete and utter mentalist with no idea of how the real world works. You're probably gay as well just to be radical and different!

 

Time to get back to the real world, I just thought for a moment it might be worth giving some insight on here as to how the local civil service actually works. Never mind......., carry on.

 

Gay is radical and different? Oooh I thought that was bisexual, shit.

 

Well why not explain how it works. But I am in the real world, that is why I see some preferences for working in government than in having a job that exist to make profit for the employer. I only mentioned it because I can see there to be more motivating factors in working for the civil service. But maybe I know nothing about the civil service and you do.

[Dunroamin]

I was particularly talking about the owners of the companies.

 

Ahh I understand now. You're a complete and utter mentalist with no idea of how the real world works. You're probably gay as well just to be radical and different!

 

Time to get back to the real world, I just thought for a moment it might be worth giving some insight on here as to how the local civil service actually works. Never mind......., carry on.

 

Gay is radical and different? Oooh I thought that was bisexual, shit.

 

Well why not explain how it works. But I am in the real world, that is why I see some preferences for working in government than in having a job that exist to make profit for the employer. I only mentioned it because I can see there to be more motivating factors in working for the civil service. But maybe I know nothing about the civil service and you do.

 

No point trying to argue with a left wing groupie that if there were no employers putting up the risk money to start the businesses, there would be no employment. Or that employees tend to be employees because they like a wage rather than risking their families future by starting their own business.

 

So I will not try....................