Provisional Driving Licence

**Scram** · 01/08/2006, 11:38 AM

All Provisional Drivers Licences should be decommissioned now.

**Macy** · 01/08/2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by pete

Government should advertise for driving testers tomorrow, double the numbers as there is huge demand & no chance not be suitable busy. If the unions moan tell them to p!ss off & sack them.

Well done pete, do exactly what the unions have been calling for for years. Cullen delayed the whole thing by pushing for privatisation that the Labour Court found was a breach of the last national wage agreement and the Government then came up with the Dept of Agriculture staff as they've tied their own hands with regard to Public Sector numbers. But somehow it's all the unions fault.

The solution is the obvious one, which this Government is fundamentally opposed - employing more people in the areas that need them!

**Student Mullet** · 01/08/2006, 2:00 PM

The problem there Macy is that if you hire enough staff to clear the backlog quickly you'll have a lot of idle staff once it's cleared. What's needed is a lot of temporary staff to clear the waiting list and a smaller number of permanant staff to make sure that it doesn't build back up.

**BohsPartisan** · 01/08/2006, 2:17 PM

The demand for driving tests is not temporary. Outsourcing in this case is privatisation by stealth and it is begining in other areas of the public service too.

**Macy** · 01/08/2006, 2:21 PM

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

What's needed is a lot of temporary staff to clear the waiting list and a smaller number of permanant staff to make sure that it doesn't build back up.

Yes, but there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have been employed as temporary public servants to clear the backlog (which would've lead a temp increase in the numbers), rather than try and privatise the whole process for ever (which is what cullen was trying to do, which the unions correctly disputed)

Bottom line, the whole mess is because of a failure to employ enough testers, which is a result of Government policy, which Cullen, Bryne and the right wing media have successfully managed to portray as being the unions fault. No embargo on recruitment, no crisis brought about by not enough staff to meet demand. See also Road Traffic Enforcement brought about by lack of Gardai.

**Student Mullet** · 01/08/2006, 2:53 PM

Fair point, Macy, about the temporary staff.

Are you correct when you say that he's trying to outsource the whole thing forever? My understanding (from the media, right wing or otherwise) is that he wanted to outsource 40,000 tests. Do you know more than I do or are you extrapolating his motives from there?

The unions came up with a plan which would presumably have worked but what you have to remember is that the unions weren't elected to run this country. The government is in charge of coming up with these plans and the unions blocked the one they decided on without any strong (non-ideological*) reasons for doing so.

*note, I don't have much time for arguments about who's right wing and who's left wing.

**BohsPartisan** · 01/08/2006, 3:05 PM

The government's plan to privatise is an ideological one.

**Macy** · 01/08/2006, 3:11 PM

That is Cullens plan now, however originally it was open ended outsourcing.

The union only managed to block it by successfully arguing in the Labour Court that his original plan was against the National Wage Agreement (The Government signs up to this as one of the social partners). The unions have been backed into a corner and have had to accept this new limited outsourcing as the PR battle has been lost.

And sorry to harp on about it (but it's being totally ignored elsewhere)....

The reason for the backlog is not enough testers.
The reason for not enough testers is because of flawed Government policy of arbitrarily restricting public sector numbers that doesn't take into account the growing population.
The reason for this Government policy is to create the right environment to out source the public service
Purely on this issue, we can see this with both driver testing and enforcement.

**pete** · 01/08/2006, 7:05 PM

Originally Posted by Roverstillidie

the government have an embargo on new driving testers, like all civil servants.

but its easier to somehow blame the unions isnt it pete.

Hire private contractors. I am sure they will be able to test more than average civil servants testers 3.5 people per day.

**pete** · 01/08/2006, 7:19 PM

I have no problem hiring more civil servants as driving testers as there is huge demand & it is only growing so no chance that guys will have no work to do unless they just lazy. If somehow no work for them then introduce 10 year test.

Privatisation has the advantage that is possibly cheaper & more productive. I quote the figure of 3.5 tests per work day per tester which is just plain daft.

**Dodge** · 01/08/2006, 8:06 PM

Youp;ve absolutely no basis for saying any group would be more productive than the other...

**pete** · 02/08/2006, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Youp;ve absolutely no basis for saying any group would be more productive than the other...

I am not saying all civil servants unproductive but 3.5 tests a day is a joke. Obviously would be no point contracting to the private sector at the same productivity.

**Dodge** · 02/08/2006, 10:58 AM

Where did you get that figure?

**BohsPartisan** · 02/08/2006, 1:32 PM

Originally Posted by pete

Privatisation has the advantage that is possibly cheaper & more productive.

There is a myth that needs to be dispelled about private enterprise - that it is more productive/efficient than publicly run services. Private enterprise is efficient at one thing I.E. MAKING PROFITS. This, more often than not does not mean a better service in fact it often means a worse service (as the example of privatised transport in Britain will testify to, or foundation hospitals, or privatised schools in thhe north.) A private company charged with driving testing would put the emphasis on churning out the tests one after the other with little regard for standards.

**pete** · 02/08/2006, 1:37 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

A private company charged with driving testing would put the emphasis on churning out the tests one after the other with little regard for standards.

If you ensure standards are set into their contracts then this cannot happen.

Ryanair v Aer Lingus

Air Coach v Bus Eireann

I could go on.

**BohsPartisan** · 02/08/2006, 1:41 PM

Originally Posted by pete

If you ensure standards are set into their contracts then this cannot happen.

Ryanair v Aer Lingus

Air Coach v Bus Eireann

I could go on.

Are you saying Ryanair provides a better service than aerlingus? Given the choice I'd fly aerlingus every time.
The only experience of Aircoach I have is trying to get one to Drogheda from the airport only to be told by the driver that he wasn't stopping in Drogheda even though it clearly said so on the timetable. Having said that comparing a company that serves one route only to one that serves the whole country is an unfair comparison.

**Macy** · 03/08/2006, 7:33 AM

Another example of the under staffing heading into the LRC this morning, where Our Lady of Lourdes will be crippled if staff do an overtime ban. But sure tax payer supported private hospitals are the only solution.

**pete** · 03/08/2006, 9:43 AM

Private companies do not get state funding so you just have to ensure no private monopolies like public ones. Competition is the customers friend. Anyway i think we going well off topic...

**BohsPartisan** · 03/08/2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by pete

Private companies do not get state funding so you just have to ensure no private monopolies like public ones. Competition is the customers friend. Anyway i think we going well off topic...

Thats where you're wrong mate. Private companies get massive subsidies from the state. Ryanair is a major recipient of taxpayer funded subsidies. Welfare for the rich is the term coined by Chomsky for such subsidies. That does not include the indirect subsidisation by the PAYE sector of the low level of corporation tax.