Shwa

Supply and demand. No demand, then no supply. I am sure there are literally tons of reports available internally. If you want access, that is what the Access to Information Act is for. Most likely they do. And you can access most of that information on-line and, if not on-line, then through the Access to Information Act. Really? Show me how I can access their service level reports of Bell and Rogers since I am a stakeholder. Or did you mean shareholder? You got me wondering about those "stakeholders" in Bhopal again. The model for government doesn't provide...what?

How so?

You have a 'history' so what? So does everyone else, it just proves you can remember. But can you forget? Here is a passage from Nietzsche's 'Uses and Abuses of History.' Enjoy the link too!

But don't you see? You saying "world of slavery" is merely the fetters of language you have slipped yourself into. Being free is certainly not "cutting yourself from the herd" but actually joining it in a real and meaningful way.

This also occurred to Nietzsche and he called it the 'Transvaluation of Values.' The key here, other than he was writing from the perspective of a 19th century European, is that if you can recognize this transvaluation of values, then you are a step closer to being able to shake it off and go beyond the fetters of language constructed to keep you in bondage.

I think the pressing issue here is should we challenge your argument which, on the surface, appears to be somewhat specious. It seems to me that you have arrived at the question by way of the first statement. Therefore, can you explain how this particular course is a "step towards additional pieces of Sharia being introduced" in Canada in such a way as to "circumvent Canadian laws?"

Interesting story in the Star: Access to information not a constitutional right, Supreme Court rules Long-awaited decision leaves Canada behind other countries Should access to information for ordinary citizens - including the media - be a "broad constitutional right" as opposed to mere law it already is?

No I was referring to your somewhat tragic outlook on things. Or at least a recognition of the Tragic. 'I think therefore I am' - 'Je pense donc je suis' - 'Cogito ergo sum' is actually Descartes, not Nietzsche.

Seems to me that anyone interested in international business relations - especially with Middle Eastern countries - might benefit from a course such as this. This might also be useful for domestic bank personnel to gain an edge in immigrant communities.

It is interesting that you would reject the it's-complicate line of defense yet readily admit to not being able to "see" how you would go about getting more statistics or accessing more information. Surely in your business experience you enounter the saying that 'the devil is in the details?' If not, you may want to look that idiom up. "It's complicated" is another way of saying that perhaps there is actually more to the plan than that contained in the executive summary. Besides, what companies do you know that handle Indian Land Claims, issues Canadian passports or collects taxes? Yes. Let's run the federal and provincial bureaucracies like McDonalds. The fast-food answer to the fast-food generation. Although I would tend to treat municipal bureaucracies more like Harveys. A Beautiful Thing. Efficient like GM, Rogers, Bell? How about as efficient as British Petroleum? Or Union Carbide? The federal bureaucracies are not Home Depot or Walmart. Or McDonalds.

I am not saying or making you do anything. If you are concerned, good for you. What I am saying is that perhaps the resultant energies from this concern might better be used to develop a deeper understanding of the actual issues. Gawd, now I understand your keen interest in health care wait times. Good thing you are not up for brain surgery! Because what you are actually doing is pointing out your opinion "...that our government...etc." As for proof of utter failure, well, you haven't done that. Actually I believe that sort of attitude is prevalent in the provincial and federal governments. That is, they are already doing this or at least looking at it. There are risks associated with it of course, but you never know until you try. Where the government fails in this sort of thing - along with many other "projects" is they fail the contingency test. You know: fail to plan then plan to fail. Unclean and tepid. You got me nailed right there. Yep, that is the usual rationalization. Providing there are proven gains from contracting out. But to find out you would have to do a little digging. Not recommended for those who don't like to get their hands dirty with the detail. Figures. Unclean, tepid and now to-blame for Michael Hardner's latest crusade. I officially apologize to all MLW posters now: Sorry about that!

Hey bloodyminded! I am 'bloodyminded' too! A fine compliment that dear old sadistic-type-retard Leafless has bestowed on me. I am humbled.

This would be a prime example of a 'foregone conclusion' had I asked you. Which I didn't. This works against you on a couple of different levels. Firstly, since you have proven yourself to be a 'sadistic type retard' then your opinion would bear that out. Which is does by you trying to antagonize and the subject of your antagonistic comment. Secondly, since it is established that you are indeed a 'sadistic type retard.' then your relationship with Homolka would be akin to Bernardo, another sadistic type retard. So the Leafless irony continues with you mentioning Homolka.

I am not dismissive of "the information." I am dismissive of your "concern." What I meant by "participating" is "concern" enough - as a member of the public - to generate some actual action as opposed to making simple statements about complex issues which ends up sounding like helpless whining. For instance, why not contact your MP or MPP with your discoveries about hiring metrics in the government, engage them in a dialogue and then report on that dialogue here for discussion. I am certain that your local reps will agree with you that something needs to be done. But what exactly? Strike down the PSEA in one fell swoop? Riiiiight... Then so the cancer would be as well, but from your "concern" it doesn't appear that you believe even your own assertion.

You see? Oleg knows Nietzsche! Life is indeed tragic. But Oleg, are you sure you were not before you thought you were?

Point out where I dismissed the information. What is my "position?" Red Herring. Allowing managers discretion to hire is a slippery slope. Here is the Public Service Employment Act - it is law, go complain to your MP and participate in the actual system. Here is the Public Service of Ontario Act - it is law, go complain to your MPP and participate in the actual system. Tell me where you live, and I can get you in touch with the political authorities who are responsible for the hiring practices in that municipality. Kill the patient to cure the cancer. You old radical!

Which you have done nicely, thank you. But I find this highly interesting and somewhat ironic: Had Leafless said, "This is a movie made about sadistic type retards" it would be, in a small way, truthful! Yet he chose to transpose a characterization of the antagonist(s) into a general statement of the audience. As if to say anyone who is fascinated by Mein Kampf is a Hitlerite, anyone who reads crime novels is a criminal or anyone who sees King Lear is Edmund (or Goneril depending on one's gender). But wait! There's more... What would cause this sort of bizarre literary transposition? Well, Leafless' comment was entirely antagonistic! He didn't express his opinion about the movie, but about the audience of such movies which includes yourself, myself and a few others who - if I might be allowed the liberty - would fill the role of this thread as the protagonists. Since most people would identify with the protagonists in a story, identifying oneself with the antagonist - generally - is a conscious act. So not only did Leafless make the transposition based upon the protagonists in the actual movie, he willingly identified himself with the antagonist's role in this thread. And that would be enough if there wasn't just one more telling, little piece, the most ironic of all. By making this literary transposition of the antagonist to the audience and then willingly identifying himself as the antagonist of this thread, well you know how satisfying narratives usually go right? On top of that Leafless has exposed himself to thoughtful analysis which would result in a negation of his opinion. When confronted with such an analysis, he comes back for more. In the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, who keeps on coming back for more? Leatherface. See where I am going with this? Leafless has identified himself as a sadistic type retard! Which is all to say, in the end, he must have liked the movie.

By 'secular dogma,' do you mean something along the lines of scientism?

No, the patient isn't dead and you appear to lack an understanding of the physiology to make any sort of reasonable diagnosis. Argus has enough insight to merit a discussion about specifics, the complexities, the advantages and disadvantages. I'll ignore your last comment and keep the discussion "clean."

You've provided data and concluded that we need to kill the patient to cure the cancer. What's wrong with this picture?

You see, here you go again, thinking I am somehow "defending the status quo of how big government works" when I have clearly stated that looser hiring practices are not the answer. Using the words "relative" and "average" betrays a sort of lack of understanding of the complexities required to staff federal PS positions. For instance, how long "should" it take to hire a nurse or teacher on a remote Indian reserve? Do you have the hiring metrics for that? Or how about a pensions officer who has to canoe into remote locations to pick up CPP applications? Do you have the metrics on that? How about 15-20 call centre temps in the GTA, do you have the metrics on that? All of these positions - and locations right across a large country such as Canada - go into decisions required for federal PS staffing. And all of those extraordinary and unique positions, locations and cicumstances factor into timing for the sake of statistics. But the most important tidbit of information from the PSC study was conveniently ignored: that time to hire times are decreasing. Are you kidding me Michael? Really, you blame the object when your eyesight fails? You must save a ton on eye glasses. Concerned about what? That the hiring process is as complex as it is, or that Argus has an opinion admittedly informed by a wee bit of experiential data? Or should I be "concerned" because you are "concerned." Or should I be concerned that the hiring times on AVERAGE are DECREASING? Why because I won't join your crusade like the next lemming? BTW - do you have the hiring metrics to staff a Parks Canada project to study lemmings? Oh, they'll give you "more" and you will pay for it too. I am not "making" you "think" anything, you are doing it all on your own. Which reminds me of the often heard saying that along with a Bill of Rights, we should also have a Bill of Responsibilities. In this case, you would be responsible for your own thoughts and not blame others.

Abysmal according to what criteria? Are you equating the BC public service with the federal public service? The report you quoted is from October, 2009. Are you looking for real time data for hiring metrics? Keyword: "should"

The freezer scene was disturbing. It still is. But then again, when you make the best Texas BBQ...

I agree, which is why blindly using "common sense" as any sort of ethical determinant on any scale outside of what is meant by "common" can end up being a nasty trap. I see common sense having its primary use within smaller social or culture groups, but I am very wary of anyone who spouts on about "common sense" outside of the scope of that particular and limited group. Almost as if "common sense" is thought to be transcendent when all it does is limit ones view in the face of social and cultural complexities. That seems like kind of a delusion to me. Yep. And the problem becomes more accute when mere "common sense" is dressed up and repackaged as rationalism, or worse, democracy. Which is one of the reasons why religion in politics is so insidious and almost impossible to root out since many people get their "common sense" from their religion. I mean, even 100 years later, the populus is still is not ready for Nietzsche.

The PSC website has data on time-to-hire studies they have done. Check out the data. No contempt at all. I know some very good middle managers and I know some very bad ones and I know a bunch in between. By and large I find bad managers tend to surround themselves with less competent staff in order not to stand out and risk their career path. I know some managers that email from home on a Sunday night because they think it is expected of them or that if they don't keep on top of it all, their career path will suffer. Now, would you call this a good manager or a bad manager? (I know of several Directors, DG's and ADM's who do the same thing) I have seen these sorts of muck-up as well. Some brutally run competitions that were astonishing in their breadth of incompetence. But the exceptions do not prove the rule. By and large I have also observed well run competitions, postings, appointments, job fairs, etc in which the managers responsible guide the process with their expertise and are supported in their endeavours by professional HR folks. Both private and public sectors. You tell me about that and I will tell you about the fly-in CEO's and CIO's for several large departmanets who were basically appointed on spec. Too bad Franks magazine in Ottawa went under eh? Agreed. Some in top positions. An unfair condemnation unworthy of you. Not quite the same thing. Again, an unfair and unworthy comment. As if the world turns on your anger and disrespect. There are no departments - provincial or federal - that are staffed "with temps." It is a ridiculous question. Argus, you must be careful not to misread what I type. I said "every good employee" which corresponds to your notion of an evaluation of some sort. Of course, I have met some WTF doozers who have come through the competition processes too, in both public and private sectors. I never question HR when good employees arrive, only when the bad ones show up. Luckily those types are the shrinking minority of workers.