Civil Service Culture..Alf says..

[0bserver]

49 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

It’s not really about political colours or an ideological wish for a smaller government though is it? It’s about a system that is corrupt and which is universally acknowledged as corrupt being reformed. As I’ve said above the retirements and the departures so far are clearly liability led and I certainly wouldn’t discount us reading stories a year down the line about ‘former’ senior government people being prosecuted for various things. So the only political agenda he’s pursuing currently is one of liability management. Hopefully he will be encouraged to go wider than this over the next few months though. 

Ridding Government of corruption  and government reform go hand in  hand with smaller government. 

The problem  at the moment is there are too many hiding places for the corrupt and workshy to hide. They've grown government so much that there are so many stones for them to hide under. 

Rip away all the unnecessary parts of government and there's nowhere left for them to hide.

[Newsdesk]

4 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Rip away all the unnecessary parts of government and there's nowhere left for them to hide.

If it were me what I’d be doing right now is updating the whistleblower rules and legislation and bringing in a secure whistleblower portal. People have seen that they are happy to push people out the door so what they should be doing now is giving workers a voice and encouraging everyone to rat out the bullies and the fraudsters. It wouldn’t take much. Instead we are seeing ‘morale officers’ being appointed when the best way to improve morale is by allowing honest workers to rat out the scumbags they work for in a quick but protected way. 

[P.K.]

31 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Yes. That's where is gets complicated. Everyone hails, make them all redundant. It's a process fraught with complications.

As you say you have to lose the role. Then you have to offer anyone who is identified as 'at risk' the opportunity to take alternate roles. There are long consultation periods and it's a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare. At the end there is also the spectre of the possibility of tribunal/unfair dismissal.

As it happens in this case it's much more complicated than that.

Usually you follow the individual outputs up the food chain to discover the why's (the 5 x why's) and wherefores of what is being produced and to what purpose? This is easier in public service due to their slow, clumsy, out-moded pyramid structures.

If, like me, you think the organisation is severely over-manned then unfortunately it's not just a case of valuing and streamlining processes. Yes redundancy has always meant that the role goes and not the individual. I lost count of the number of times I had to re-apply for what was essentially my current role thinly disguised.

If you find that the outputs of a certain group are a value-add then all well and good. However how many of the team are actually doing the heavy lifting? Eventually it comes down to how much work can you expect an individual to complete in a reasonable timeframe? In other words are there simply too many of them?

That's when it gets tricky. Especially in an organisation that has no bottom line...

 

[Non-Believer]

Of course there's always the additional aspect of; if there's a large culling of CS positions there's going to be a knock-on to the Island's economy and possibly the population figure, if they all piss off because they're unemployed with no prospects here.

I've oft thought that Govt was using CS/PS employment numbers to help keep that figure up (critical mass-type thing). But maybe that's no longer economically viable too...which would raise an eyebrow in the direction of the public finances maybe...?

[SleepyJoe]

15 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

A huge number of posts have been created within Govt in recent years, look at Cabinet Office currently for a prime example but there's plenty of others. What nobody on the outside knows is, what is the driver for this and are all these jobs needed or of real value?

I'm aware of at least 2 posts that were vacated under MARS where the incumbents had literally done nothing for years and were happy to admit it.

On becoming CM Mr Cannan told the media that all the people were needed in departments to achieve 'the plan'

Presumably the plan has now been modified

Edited June 19, 2022 by SleepyJoe

[Newsdesk]

7 hours ago, Non-Believer said:I've oft thought that Govt was using CS/PS employment numbers to help keep that figure up (critical mass-type thing). But maybe that's no longer economically viable too...which would raise an eyebrow in the direction of the public finances maybe...?

Personally I think we hit the tipping point a few years ago and the pandemic situation has made it worse. We have a government we can’t afford. The number of people paying in don’t compensate for the number of people taking out even when you factor in artificial spend (ie, giving people well paid government non-jobs in the hope that it generates spend that wouldn’t otherwise exist). When you de-link your economy that much from reality it’s only going to go one way.

[Albert Tatlock]

Alf will pay it all lip service...nothing more.

[Newsdesk]

On 6/20/2022 at 4:33 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Alf will pay it all lip service...nothing more.

Well as we’ve seen in IOM Newspapers today the Lole situation was clearly preempting the bad publicity surrounding a truly terrible assessment of his capabilities as a senior civil servant. I suppose he was technically correct. There was nothing legally stopping him ignoring everyone who worked for him and deliberately polluting Peel Bay. But that’s not really the point when you clearly did ignore advice and allow Peel Bay to be polluted.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Newsdesk

[Happier diner]

10 hours ago, Newsdesk said:

Well as we’ve seen in IOM Newspapers today the Lole situation was clearly preempting the bad publicity surrounding a truly terrible assessment of his capabilities as a senior civil servant. I suppose he was technically correct. There was nothing legally stopping him ignoring everyone who worked for him and deliberately polluting Peel Bay. But that’s not really the point when you clearly did ignore advice and allow Peel Bay to be polluted and then apparently played a key role in bullying a whistleblower out of a job. 

Wasnt that before his time. When it started I mean and the decision was taken. 

[Newsdesk]

59 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Wasnt that before his time. When it started I mean and the decision was taken. 

Perhaps you should buy the paper and read it? It clearly states what his role and involvement was.

[Derek Flint]

Around 1993, whilst with Lancs Police, I suggested the formation of a “what the fuck do you do?” Department. From what I had seen, across a force of 3500 officers, I reckoned we could return around 300 to the streets. The plan was a member of the team would interview every officer in the force and if they couldn’t come up with a clear and credible answer within 30 seconds the had to present themselves at clothing stores for a new uniform and parade on for nights at the next possible opportunity.

Alas it was never implemented, and the piss taking continued until Mrs May ran a scimitar through the whole organization. That has proven to be a step too far.

the IOM force thankful wasn’t really like that. Maybe half a dozen or so ‘non-jobs’ and the senior management team has grown too big. But the civil service? Well, I think my idea might have some traction, with the modification that if you can’t answer the question you are down the road. 

I’d e pleased to pop over this semester and get it underway. Should be done and dusted for my return on Freshers Week.

 

Just a thought.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Wasnt that before his time. When it started I mean and the decision was taken. 

It was a question not a statement. I don't need to buy the paper now👍

[Banker]

13 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Around 1993, whilst with Lancs Police, I suggested the formation of a “what the fuck do you do?” Department. From what I had seen, across a force of 3500 officers, I reckoned we could return around 300 to the streets. The plan was a member of the team would interview every officer in the force and if they couldn’t come up with a clear and credible answer within 30 seconds the had to present themselves at clothing stores for a new uniform and parade on for nights at the next possible opportunity.

Alas it was never implemented, and the piss taking continued until Mrs May ran a scimitar through the whole organization. That has proven to be a step too far.

the IOM force thankful wasn’t really like that. Maybe half a dozen or so ‘non-jobs’ and the senior management team has grown too big. But the civil service? Well, I think my idea might have some traction, with the modification that if you can’t answer the question you are down the road. 

I’d e pleased to pop over this semester and get it underway. Should be done and dusted for my return on Freshers Week.

 

Just a thought.

It’s called a lean excercise & often used in private sector, however whenever it’s attempted in public sector senior civil servants manage to get it binned or not started!!

[0bserver]

16 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Around 1993, whilst with Lancs Police, I suggested the formation of a “what the fuck do you do?” Department. From what I had seen, across a force of 3500 officers, I reckoned we could return around 300 to the streets. The plan was a member of the team would interview every officer in the force and if they couldn’t come up with a clear and credible answer within 30 seconds the had to present themselves at clothing stores for a new uniform and parade on for nights at the next possible opportunity.

Alas it was never implemented, and the piss taking continued until Mrs May ran a scimitar through the whole organization. That has proven to be a step too far.

the IOM force thankful wasn’t really like that. Maybe half a dozen or so ‘non-jobs’ and the senior management team has grown too big. But the civil service? Well, I think my idea might have some traction, with the modification that if you can’t answer the question you are down the road. 

I’d e pleased to pop over this semester and get it underway. Should be done and dusted for my return on Freshers Week.

 

Just a thought.

Most public sector organisations can shed 10 - 25% of the workforce without impacting in front line services. 

There are obvious exceptions to this like ATC where the seemingly genius decision by DOI to freeze recruitment had bitten the island on the arse.

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, 0bserver said:

Most public sector organisations can shed 10 - 25% of the workforce without impacting in front line services. 

 

Is that a fact or an opinion?