Shwa

A rose by any other name is still a rose. "general beliefs, morals and social experiences" I would say this is a good start to a defintion of common sense.

But what I am seeing from the article is that the legislation passed June 2002 and she was let go in July. So there was no retroactive application.

I think common sense exists within small cultural or social groups, but is difficult to apply on a larger societal scale where competing interests from other culture groups makes things a little more complex. Does a moral code exist outside of a particular culture group or does it have to be written down to be authentic or authoritative?

That is an interesting take Oleg, please elaborate. Especially about the 'training' part. Do you think this initiative is part of some explicit program or is it a general psychological trend in society?

Fair enough. The article states: And then, She is entitled to the pension she signed up for and not a penny more.

Where did I say that people are given terms contracts without competition "all the time?" Or are you confused? Vaguely, from Yes Minister or some Britcom like that. Now, are you familiar with the Peter Principle? That - that alone - is the single biggest problem with the Federal Public Service, it's hiring practices and whatnot. Wouldn't you agree? There are so many dependencies and qualifications to be applied to this statement that, while true for you, might not be true in the majority of cases. I know of comeptitions that took a year, in one case more than that due to a bugger in the process. But I also know of competitions in several departments that took a few months which resulted in several internal pools of more than 25 candidates - one pool was over 50 candidates! The pools are usually effective for 2 years. "extreme deficiency" is hyperbole. Besides, the ugly side of the pooling process is that Peter Principle manager will select certain candidates based on specific qualifications. That is, a pool is not the same thing as a queue. Yeah that is 8-10 hours less time that week to read the newspaper, dick around on the computer or chat up the newly hired blondie secretary. Hey, I agree that some HR paperwork and processes are bewildering at times, no doubt about that. But don't give me the 'poor manager' schpiel when there are 37 hours in a work week. Managers also have to fill out performance evaluations too and they might take four hours per employee. But so what? That's their job. Yes, and this process becomes much less efficient when you have Peter Principle manager trying to explain what he/she wants without knowing what he/she really needs because they don't understand the nature of the work. Brutal. Luckily, there are things called 'statement of qualifications' as a baseline for HR to try and figure it out. PS - HR has their share of Peter Principle managers as well, so I am not exonerating them at all. Federal hiring does work for the most part. The work get done, the people get their services, their passports, their cheques, their goods. Using you specific example or one from your particular location as a general rule is dishonest. One year for a hiring process may or may not be worthwhile given the nature of the job and the available number of suitable candidates. For a large, billion dollar engineering project, a year long hiring process might be useful. But I wouldn't say so for a call centre hire. Sounds like hell. But I know that in some other departments, when the pools reach a certain threshold, they renew the pool or create another one. Can't speak to every instance though. No, I am referring to appointments without competition. I've seen this. But I have also seen a bunch of temps leave because they found a better paying job. Or leave because the manager was incompetent. And I have seen situations where a bunch of temps got permanent status, went on to worthy, progressive careers, bought houses, had families, etc. What was your point again? Every good employee I've encountered came through HR's competition process. Dubious statement. Sometimes it is like that, sometimes it isn't. Somewhere in the middle is the average. And, as they say, its a management problem.

No, you are missing the point. Again. Let me re-iterate: Do you get why I am saying that the present system isn't perfect now? That is, do you fully comprehend the context in which I use that phrase? I find it amusing that you protest the lack of openness with respect to government data holdings, yet are fast and quick to latch on to anecdote as a worthy replacement or somehow indicative as to the whole truth of the matter. Come on now. Here's a few comments from a friend of mine who works in HR in one of the largest Federal departments. My question was with regard to how long it takes for a temporary (term)employee to become a permanent appointment (3 years. It used to be 5). But of course, you want numbers, not anecdotes. You saw the Audits and Data Services links when you visited the Public Service Commission website right? You know, the link that will lead you to the reports and datasets for hiring practices in the Federal Public Service? You didn't ignore that link and all those reports to try and score some point about "posted policies" helping us in the discussion did you?

OK Argus, not really on topic, but when I popped over to the CBC, I found this hilarious: RCMP to get new oversight agency Enjoy.

Your reply leads me to believe that you know very little about the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, their use and requirement. Is this true?

Which is my point. Argus' description and your own knowledge is flawed. That would naturally lead your opinion. You're kidding me right? You give your opinion about "government process" yet you do not even know what they process actually consists of. That is a titch dishonest in my books. One would think that since you think there are "problems with hiring people quickly" that you would have that information already, so please, do share.

And they hire off the street or make street-hires available. Or make new University grad recruiting possible. Or create policies which address the short terms needs of critical workloads to front line or back end staff. Or intake from provincial governments, etc. Point out where I said that. Internal competitions have the benefit of getting employees who are oriented, familiar with some aspect of the bureaucracy and sometimes even highly trained in a specific area of technical expertise This affects the "quality" of the internal hire versus the external hire, thus a "benefit." So what you are saying obviously points to incompetence at the managerial level because they can't do their job. And you want to give them the ability to simply hire off the street based upon whatever criteria they think fits. The whole HR process now was devised to counteract that very concept because it doesn't work and creates unfair hiring practices. I would not go about recommending an HR overhaul because of simple middle management incompetence. I "know" several managers in a very large federal department who have created pools of candidates that they dip into for new hires or internal competitions. They created these pools in anticipation of several factors of workload, attrition, etc. They process hundreds of applications, interview dozens of candidates and place them in the pool once they are qualified. Then, when a job comes up, they go to the pool for a suitable candidate. Now, once they pools get to a certain point, they start another process. I believe many private sector corporations do the exact same thing. Simply untrue. The only requirement for this appointments-without-competition is that the hiring poster be publicized for anyone that wants to grieve. The reason they don't use this method often is because it is seen as unfair. Like your three blondes example. However, acting appointments can be made permanent without competition so long as certain criteria is met. And what rules specifically refer to "unit cohesion?" The same rule that states you must blame HR for middle management incompetence? Again, the frequent refrain of the jilted public employee. Yep, seen plenty of that over the years. I have also seen plenty of instances where certain employees were forced upon a work unit to the detriment of the productivity. I have also seen cases where pools were created in two weeks out of local folks and the work went smoothly and the task was completed as required. None of these is a postive indication that the overall process is in peril or broken beyond repair. Come on Argus, what a silly question. Show us the hundreds of millions in HR oversight. If you are going to assert something don't use dodgy red herrings to try and wrangle yourself out of the mud. No, the present HR practices don't stop the rule breakers, but make it difficult for them on any effective scale. Those practices are in place for a reason and they have been pretty reasonable over the years compared to what they replaced. If it forces a few whiny middle managers to actually do their job instead of sitting on their hands or playing Solitare all day, well tough. If they don't like it, McDonalds is always hiring, but if they can't gut it through a little paperwork to score some new hires, then I believe they will be only qualified to flip the burgers.

No one is saying that an MBA is bad for some government processes. And if you want statistics and such, then I presume you are well aware of the Access to Information Act and how to go about getting information you want?

First of all, I am certainly not "defending the status quo of how big government works" but pointing out the flaws in the information that is being relayed which are likely specific instances used to generalize, which creates a wildly inaccurate picture. The hiring practices of the government are not perfect, but they are one heck of a lot better than what they used to be, even with the flaws. If you don't think so, then ask yourself what they bother to change them. You can cite your brief experience all those years ago mixed with some insider information, but when was the last time you had a go over of the Public Service Commission? Here is the link. Have a read and find me some large changes you would make to the current processes. Be radical even. Then we can have a rational discussion instead of a mere bitchfest. Here is the PS jobs link for Ontario. Go at it.

There's the problem. You say that common sense can dictate right and wrong. Well when the 'common sense' - as deemed by the elected majority who happens to be from one religion or another - results in policy, your consent isn't required. You've had your say via the vote. It might be easier to view the problem by changing the saying a bit: to each their own.

I am not sure how you got from Reeve and municipal elections to volunteers and home health care. Is this a big issue with your local politics that low property taxes would effect somehow?

This sir, is the insight that most people miss and is right on the money. Quite a few federal & provincial hiring practices use the MBA as the mother of all qualification for the executive level. And when you have MBA's devising social policy, you run into problems I think.

Complete and utter nonsense. Your local municipal slate includes school trustees that hold public meetings, your local school board has community representatives as well as any local schools in your area will have a school community councils - most of which have public meetings. It is a participatory system and the choice is yours, like it is for everyone else.

So what you are saying, in effect, is that very people that screwed up with all this inefficiency, have the right to hire off the street. In fact, I know several senior bureaucrats that were 'recruited' from the private sector without any competition process. I suspect this practice is fairly common and the timeline for such 'efficiencies' would coincide with the CPC government. Furthermore, temporary contracts are awared for off-the-street mid and low positions all the time. Some of these temporary contracts are hired on full time, others are not renewed. This particular practice has been going on for a very long time in the federal and provincial governments. So your argument is missing a little something. Not quite Argus. I have seen first hand the hiring practices of a large international automotive manufacturer, and simply don't hire in a week. In fact, there is as much bureaucracy in this particular corporation as I have ever seen in the federal or provincial government. They have job fairs, lengthy vetting of qualifications and interview processes. Sometimes a new hire takes months. Luckily, they also have an inventory of experienced workers who get first crack at those jobs. We don't want to run the bureacracy like Sears or Home Depot. There is a little more at stake than curtains or tool sheds. Yes it does work. It isn't perfect, but it works far better than perpetuating the glass ceiling or old boys club which it was designed to replace. The oft heard refrain of the jilted public employee. The problems of the world have already been solved in the taverns and bars across the nation; and those of Canada in the cafeterias in most federal departments. Completely untrue. There are several hiring instruments available for the various levels of government including temporary contracts within and outside the organization, not to mention interal acting positions and contracts. In fact, most departments now are modernizing their processes to expediate the movement of employees within or between the departments, which is far more efficient and cheap than hiring off the street. Small lossess? Are you referring to the hundreds of thousands of dollars lost to fraud, theft, misuse every year? How about those EI employees that 'help' their family and friends get EI faster than the average Jill or Joe? How about those small 100k computer contracts that PWGSC employees slip to their neighbours or buddies? How about those canoe contracts from DND? And you want looser hiring practices. Right. You say yourself that people will get around systems like that. Then why make it easier for them?

I agree, but would extend it further to mean that by saying "God says so" as to be a face-saving way of admitting one does not know. In the tradition of the philosophy of the past few thousands years. The problem is that society has built upon these sorts of moral justifications into what it presently is. And it wasn't all too long ago that not fully knowing the justifications (or implications) was no obstacle for advancing certain moral imperatives anyways. In fact, we see the results of this in the news everyday. It will be a very long, long time before religious aspects to mainstream politics are minimized.

But you are only speaking for yourself as you are an admitted moral relativist. The problem is, those masses of religious followers, who believe their morals to be somewhat more objective and sound are in the vast majority, even IF their morality is disguised as a sort of arms-length or unwitting relationship with whatever particular religion they lightly adhere to. In some case, this religion - to them - is their culture. And I am not talking about Muslims and Aboriginals, I am talking about Catholics and Protestants. They believe that their morality has a duty to belong in politics. You - as a moral relativist - must grant them this duty because, you know, to each his own.

Now insofar as it would be a stretch to consider this board as having the same sort of religious demographic as mainstream Canada, your missive above does bear some resemblance to your usual take on religious followers and in the same sense appears to be a form of moral condemnation.

No, I am trying to discover if you assert that belief in a deity or religiousness are immoral positions.

I wish I had read that quote before I was suckered into voting for Mike Harris and his "Common Sense Revolution!"

So what you are saying, in effect, is that your a moral relativist? That it is 'right,' but mostly 'right' for you. Is that about how you see it?

Your views can be applied to practically any cultural insitution over the past 2,000 years, not just religion. And if it is a societal consenus that determines morality - knowing what we know about the religious and spiritual demographics of our present society - are you admitting to being immoral?