The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Will Abbott abolish Labor's Peter Principle ?

Will Abbott abolish Labor's Peter Principle ?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All
I am very much on board with this incompetent public servant thing. Just this morning I have been using the "Incompo Meter" to sus out incompetent public servants.

I have taken the liberty of drawing up a short list of incompetent PS's, starting with the "A"'s.

AARDVARK Alowishus... Head Dept of Sunshine and Lollipops $200,000 pa
ARRON Aristole....... Head Dept of Tomfoolery $300,000 pa
ABBOTT Tony.......... Head Dept of Useless Government $500,000 pa

If you should encounter any of the above listed PS's DO NOT APPROACH they are highly incompetent call triple "0" immediate and have your self vaccinated incompetency is highly contagious.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 23 September 2013 7:48:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul1405,
I have no problem with pruning the public service although I feel that we are doing a great disservice when we lump police, nurses, firemen etc in with the suited PS leeches.
I have no problem with seeing them and their families on the scrap heap and losing their homes and fat car cars. Let them starve like the rest of us pensioners instead of gloating about their exulted positions funded by the public purse.
I think "Yes Minister" now comes home to roost.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Monday, 23 September 2013 8:36:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whenever I read attacks on public servants I remember an experience I had working for a state department. We had to monitor our work by filling out a daily timetable over two weeks, broken down into categories eg admin, report, field work. I told my staff to do this honestly (yes, I was a 'manager'). The returned forms, as I expected, included many hours outside 9-5, since we were perpetually understaffed for the work demanded of us, there was a lot of travelling, so it was often necessary to work at night or weekends to meet deadlines. People had amazing commitment, and would often not take available rostered days off, to finish a job.

I wrote a covering memo saying the forms were genuine and proof was available.

Our forms were rejected. We were ordered to redo them, only including work done 9-5. The resulting data was meaningless. My staff's genuine commitment to their work went unrecognised.

A couple of posts imply that incompetent public servants cannot be sacked. I was personally involved in the removal of three people for incompetence/misbehaviour, but it's very important that there is hard evidence and formal processes are followed, to avoid charges of incompetence being used as a cover for firing people due to personal (or political?) animosities.

The biggest problem in my experience is the wholesale removal of good people when governments change. Heads of departments are targeted, not necessarily because for incompetence but because they are seen as a threat (they might not meekly toe the new line, but attempt to give serious advice). There is often a cascade effect, where junior managers are also disposed of as a general clean-out of people with integrity, or where really competent people, who can easily get other jobs, jump before they are pushed.

The result is a loss of good staff when governments change so maybe you should blame politicians rather than public servants. My experience (both state and federal) is that Coalition Governments are more ruthless that Labour (and end up with worse staff). I could give examples, but ... (libel laws apply!)
Posted by Cossomby, Monday, 23 September 2013 10:51:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Public service run institutions are by their very nature less efficient, as their prime objectives are seldom cost saving. A prime example of public service incompetence is Juliar / Dudd's BER school halls disaster.

A survey in 2010 showed that buildings built under the control of the public service cost twice as much as similar buildings built under the control of the independent schools funded by the government.

A recent article also showed that there is an "executive manager" in the public service for roughly 2 people on the ground.

Surgical procedures done in private hospitals are on average about 25% cheaper than in comparable public hospitals,

There is a federal department for education, that does not run a single school.

There was a climate change department whose job was to recycle information from others and justify the carbon tax lie.

The list goes on and on.

Public departments should be restricted to delivering "public" good
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 23 September 2013 11:25:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM,

Have you noticed the new government has a rather ecclesiastical ring to it, with an abbott and a couple of bishops, all being run by a cardinal. As you know a cardinal always outranks an abbott, even an incompetent one.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 23 September 2013 11:35:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister: Can you give the source of the 'recent article also showed that there is an "executive manager" in the public service for roughly 2 people on the ground.'?

I just did a rough count of the staff in the local office of a department I used to work in and now sometimes do contract work for - 1 manager : ca 15 staff. Now one of those people also has the word 'manager' in his job title, but 90% of what he does is hands-one work; another is a short-term 'project manager' which means he also does most of the work. I also know other regional offices and the HO of this department, and I can't think where the all the 'executive managers' can be (the figures given indicate that 1/3 of the total staff are executive managers.
Posted by Cossomby, Monday, 23 September 2013 1:52:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy