Public sector want inflation busting rises again

[P.K.]

The stupidly over-generous and totally unnecessary MARS scheme demonstrated to me that there is no way that the Manx PS/CS should ever be trusted to internally manage their own staffing levels and financials. Basically they have shown that they simply don't take value for taxpayers money into any kind of consideration at all.

So the obvious place to start with sorting it out is an immediate freeze on hiring/promotions/incremental pay rises. If folks don't like it and vote with their feet it's a win/win. This is necessary because the CS/PS need to be made to understand that they work for the taxpayer and not the other way around...

Frankly I've always been of the opinion that the way CS/PS positions are graded by comparisons to the UK are totally flawed. The function may look the same but the levels of responsibility are in totally different leagues. My favourite is the fact that the island has a Chief Fire Officer. Heathrow Airport has a Chief Fire Officer. They are both on the same pay scale but I know which one earns their salary and which one simply does not.

Then internal productivity needs to be measured on their output streams. Not only if the output has value and is necessary but if it is necessary then is it being produced in the most efficient manner? If any staff are found that are surplus to requirements, like layers of managers sitting in a very out-moded, out-dated, slow, cumbersome, useless pyramid-style organisation then they can then be re-deployed elsewhere - like the jobs market...

The hospital is a very difficult one. There must have been a catchment study to justify the build but I've no idea what it was like.

[Jarndyce]

13 minutes ago, P.K. said:

The hospital is a very difficult one. There must have been a catchment study to justify the build but I've no idea what it was like.

If I recall correctly, at least part of the driver to move to the Braddan site was the difficulty and expense of expanding on the old site, including compulsory purchase of large chunks of Hillside Avenue.   Also the need to demolish the old surgical ward block due to so-called “concrete cancer”.

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

If I recall correctly, at least part of the driver to move to the Braddan site was the difficulty and expense of expanding on the old site, including compulsory purchase of large chunks of Hillside Avenue.   Also the need to demolish the old surgical ward block due to so-called “concrete cancer”.

Not sure of the relevance of a catchment study to justify the build on staffing, in any case.  Catchment of what, staff or patients?  The best place for staff catchment would be the UK, but not great for patients.  You would expect the catchment for either would not vary greatly no matter where on the island the hospital was sited.  Nor would it affect any pay awards, you would think.

But I may have missed something.  

[Jarndyce]

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

You would expect the catchment for either would not vary greatly no matter where on the island the hospital was sited.

Indeed, since the hospital was/is intended to serve the whole island population - maybe PK could explain the reference?

Edited June 12 by Jarndyce
Clarification

[philwebs]

The overpaid fuck up merchants whose hubris knows no bounds need to be held to account for every fuck up.,They should directly be named pay for the consequences of their actions.

They are out of control and a millstone. Until it is fixed it continues unabated.

 

 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

20 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

You're really arguing against yourself here.  If you need an HR Department to restructure an organisation and that HR is incompetent and inefficient or corrupt or whatever, then by definition the place you have to start is with HR.  And IOMG HR haven't even managed to produce their own (legally-obligated) Annual Report for two years.  The most recent is for 2020-21.

That is a PCS report isn't it?  Looks like a senior leadership issue not solely HR.

It's the Public Service Commission Annual Report, but it's produced by HR from their data.  It ought to be fairly easy to do so - they always managed to get it and its predecessors out in the past when they had less centralised systems and many fewer people (and the reports contained more information).  If you look at it it's mainly the sort of information you would expect any organisation to be using internally all the time.   So either there's stuff they're trying to hide or they're unable to fulfil their most basic functions.

In a sense this is all about leadership and the Cabinet Office Minister and PSC members ought to be acting to make sure that the department carries out its most basic requirements.  But they are limited by a system that puts politicians in charge but not in power.  And we know what happens to Ministers who try to do anything beyond acting as a mouthpiece for their civil servants.

[Manx Bean]

23 hours ago, HeliX said:

You are entitled to take a real terms pay cut should you wish. Presumably there are reasons you accepted that rather than looking for work elsewhere. But there's nothing wrong with people demanding fair pay rises.

I can’t disagree. The thought of jumping ship for the sake of money didn’t figure for me. I enjoy my job and my colleagues, and also respect the transparency of the owners of the business I work for. 
 

People can demand what they want. Getting it, or in some cases deserving it, is another matter.

[Moghrey Mie]

Still looking forward to a big diagram on the floor of the Villa Marina showing who works for IOM Government and what they do.

[Banker]

23 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Still looking forward to a big diagram on the floor of the Villa Marina showing who works for IOM Government and what they do.

Floors not big enough to fir all the staff on!!

[Derek Flint]

On 6/12/2024 at 3:43 AM, Roger Ram said:

Jeez.  They did a 2 percent increase on the higher rate and look at the uproar that caused despite still leaving us less taxed than most of the rest of the world.

People want it all for nothing. 

It was a 10% increase

On 6/12/2024 at 6:51 AM, manxman1980 said:

If things are as bad as you suggest then you need to start by changing top leadership.  

If those ultimately responsible are not providing effective leadership and decision making then you start there.

Otherwise you might as well give up as things will not change.

That is a PCS report isn't it?  Looks like a senior leadership issue not solely HR.

Leaders are not bound to accept guidance from HR.  Neither are they bound to accept any other form of legal advice. 

 

 

I like this from the practice guidance on armed policing 

"The role of a tactical advisor is to advise and not to make command decisions. The responsibility for the validity and reliability of the advice lies with the advisor, but the responsibility for the use of that advice rests with the commander."

[Roger Ram]

10 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

It was a 10% increase

 

I always find that a good way to endear yourself to others is to be smug and pedantic.

You, and everyone else knew what I meant.  No need to be a bit of a dick bit people who chose certain professions in life seem to find it very difficult to refrain.

 

Edited June 13 by Roger Ram

[Banker]

Perhaps we should bring this guy over to slash civil servants 😂

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c255zdlde92o

[Derek Flint]

5 hours ago, Roger Ram said:

I always find that a good way to endear yourself to others is to be smug and pedantic.

You, and everyone else knew what I meant.  No need to be a bit of a dick bit people who chose certain professions in life seem to find it very difficult to refrain.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

Perhaps you'd have preferred me to just deal with approximations and thereabouts in respect of evidence in my 'certain profession'?

Accuracy matters. A 2% increase is a great line if you are a politician. Not so much if you are trying to fathom out how you have been told one thing but are more skint than you thought you'd be.

I apologise if it came across as smug or pedantic, but stuff like that is why people aren't held to account.

[Banker]

3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Thanks for the feedback.

Perhaps you'd have preferred me to just deal with approximations and thereabouts in respect of evidence in my 'certain profession'?

Accuracy matters. A 2% increase is a great line if you are a politician. Not so much if you are trying to fathom out how you have been told one thing but are more skint than you thought you'd be.

I apologise if it came across as smug or pedantic, but stuff like that is why people aren't held to account.

The tax increase is to fund your pension which went up 10.1% last year & wasn’t it 7.5% this year, absolute scandal.

[Derek Flint]

7 minutes ago, Banker said:

The tax increase is to fund your pension which went up 10.1% last year & wasn’t it 7.5% this year, absolute scandal.

Yep, earned every penny of that and paid substantially in to it. Funded in an entirely different model to the CS pension.

You could, of course, have served yourself,  seen things you can't unsee, endured the PTSD, depression etc. 

But you chose not to. Don't be bitter. 

If it does make you feel any better, we did endure an extended wage freeze. At the time I retired my salary was somewhere around 15-17% down on where it would have been had it kept pace with inflation. So swings and roundabouts, ultimately.