I’m not clear what the email denial Michael seeks would be. What, exactly, is the CDC to deny? The study was not done by CDC. Perhaps Michael could respond and clarify this point.

The author provides no evidence to counter the revelations in the email. A simple denial from the CDC would be good enough, but apparently that denial does not exist.

That is the only piece of relevant evidence that would be worth anything to the authors argument, it is the one thing he doesn’t offer

Thank you for responding.

As it happens, even though, at one point in my career, I negotiated on behalf of companies with Trade Unions, I recognise that there is an important role to be played by the Unions to the benefit of the public.

Unfortunately, they’re stuck in an anachronistic mode of creeping “improvement” to conditions of narrow groups of members. It is a useful tactic, in a short-term context. However, in the medium to long term it is toxic for members (who’ve now had to take substantial hits in income, partly as a result), and for society in general – which has to fund these “improvements”.

For example, it leads to the situation where the exact same role has different wages and conditions depending on where you are in the country – from working hours, to expenses, to range of duties, and so on. Managing this profusion of difference renders efficiency impossible. (This was why the PPARs project ran into the sand – not because consultants were involved, and not because the project was poorly conceived, but because trying to capture the constellation of different terms and conditions for the vast number of different roles requires “Rocket Science” levels of investment. Far better to cut the complexity, simplify the organisational structure to manageable levels.

It also leads to crazy situations where Unions sit on hiring panels, and Union exams have to be passed in order for people in the public service to advance.

The situation in which managers are part of the same Union structure creates a conflict of interest situation.

But the main problem is that when an organisation is averse to absorbing the cost of losing an Unfair Dismissals claim, then there can be no performance management – because managers won’t make decisions that the organisation won’t back. There is a tendency for the EAT to lean towards workers in such cases – to do with which party has the deepest pockets, and in attempts to drive “best practice”. Tnis is all very well, but the balance has swung too far in one direct.

So, if there is no willingness in the public service to dismiss people for failing to perform, or for misconduct, or refusing to engage in change, then no real change is possible, because management have no ultimate authority.

I know of many situations in the public health service where monumental waste is tolerated – from complete lack of control in supply chain management, leading to overstock and then wastage – to archaic practices such as paper form filling where replacement technology has existed for decades. The impact of this last activity is enormous. No management information of any use can be generated. Any information generated is obsolete. Too many manual interventions are required – increasing the likelihood of data loss, or data degradation. Effectively – no proper management is possible in this kind of situation.

This leads to overresourcing in some places, under-resourcing in others. It means that when cuts have to be made, they’re made in the most obvious places – and this means at the front line of service delivery.

This is a recipe for mass demoralisation, inefficiency, cost inflation, and the like.

What we’re witnessing with the so-called “reforms” in progress will produce little or nothing in actual reform. The game continues as it always has, with a temporary blip downwards in costs for a few years – as natural wastage through retirement and resignation reduces the wage bill.

No improvement to the quality of public health services delivered will result, or for that matter, to the quality of public services in general.

Incidentally, in general, when operational transformation is successfully implemented, up to 30% cost reductions can be achieved. This doesn’t necessarily involve redundancies – merely the idenfitication of wasteful activities, and their removal from the processes. 30% is not an overly ambitious target in such projects. But even a 15% reduction in the cost of the public service bill would be far in excess of what the government can achieve in their current approach – because it would be a 15% cheaper public service every year.

Root and branch reform is required. This government doesn’t have the bottle, or it seems the imagination or ambition – even though they’ve the biggest mandate any government has ever had in the history of this state to achieve real change.

The Unions are still locked in their anachronistic narrative, and will not be capable of moving outside it.

It is a shame.

Cormac.

Despite these issues, however I could always recognise how talented he was and I could respect the huge amount of work he did with the boys. We had fantastic fun producing Baron Bolligrew, on a shoestring budget, and I am sure that countless boys have been inspired since. I was greatly saddened to hear of Gerry’s death, and the genuine upset and sadness among my classmates who had just met up for the play 8 years after our last reunion was very obvious.

I am reluctant to pass any comments on other contributors to this blog, but I would like simply to say to Christian Morris, that I thought his comments ungracious at this time. I am sure he is not the only person who didn’t see eye to eye with Gerry, but surely he can recognise what he brought to many boys who might otherwise never have learnt to appreciate English, or to discover hidden talents. It is precisely because Gerry never said “Achieve this and you achieve enough” (as you do above) that he was so successful and so admired. His refusal to restrict himself to just teach English and fulfill his primary duties was precisely what made him such an inspiration to many. Every school needs someone like Gerry Haugh to help them educate, develop and extend their students.

I don’t wish to suggest that you are anything less than an excellent teacher; simply that there are many different ways to help and inspire children. Gerry’s way and your way may be different, and any teacher should be proud to have a similarly positive collection of comments on retiring from teaching. I hope you are more charitable to your pupils whose opinions and styles differ from yours than you have shown in your comments here.

Paul Clinch

When evaluating a conventional post-primary teacher the most important criterion is how well that person implemented the terms of their contract of employment. Other work by the teacher (school productions, trips to the country, plays, etc), while superficially commendable, should take second place to how well the teacher performs professionally.

Mr. Gerard Haugh was employed by Belvedere to be a teacher (of English and History) and a form tutor (mine for six years). In both professional capacities he underperformed. A shtick like:- “I don’t agree with the points system” etc can be used as a smokescreen for simply mediocre teaching, which is what I believe Mr. Haugh did. He was typical of so many Irish post-primary teachers insofar as his teaching only suited those who knew the subject inside out anyway and, even so, was far less than inspiring. As a form tutor he was always quick to mount pressure upon us but slow to actually help (I remember, in particular, two speeches of his – one, that if we did not “get involved” in extra-curricular activity we would be brought before the Board of Management and, another, telling us fourth year students that those going on a trip to France would have to bring O-Level work with us). He fed the constant atmosphere of anxiety and general nonsense that was endemic in Belvedere while simultaneously lacking the moral courage to confront either the more aggressive students in his own form or bullying by teachers (I can cite a specific instance).
Unable to corral a clique of “yes men” he had to settle instead for a clique of “yes boys” – a group of students who were utterly uncritical of his amazing and invincible talents. If you weren’t in this group, you weren’t in.

As a drama and musical director he fitted the clíché of “keen amateur”, full of gusto with no actual training in theatre, staging work of variable quality and questionable benefit to the children involved.
His tireless dedication to extra curricular work disguised his essential narcissism and basic weirdness – ten years after I left Belvedere (every second of which I hated) he was still badgering me to attend his class reunions and buy CD’s and other tat being peddled by the school. When I wrote and asked him to stop contacting me, he refused, in a rambling, passive-aggressive letter which I have kept to this day.

I am a secondary teacher of English myself and my core duties are to teach the subject as well as possible while getting the best exam results possible for everyone concerned (this and inspirational teaching are not mutually exclusive) while also being the king of my classroom and dealing effectively with indiscipline and bullying. Achieve this and you achieve enough.

I was talking to someone last Monday who said, “oh Chris, Gerry gave his life to the place.” I replied:- “yes, but nobody asked him to”.

I had the privilege of being able to attend part of the funeral. I arrived at communion and the boys choir was signing “On Eagles Wings”- it was just beautiful. Would like to say a big thank-you to all who organised such a special send off to a great man.

I wasn’t able to obtain the list of hymns on the day. If anyone could post that somewhere, that would be great as it really brought me back.

RIP Gerry & thanks for being a teacher of so much to so many.