Your Tax Dollars at Work

[Argus]

I spent twenty years in the private sector before going to work for the feds. I'm still bemused and sometimes outraged by the amazing waste of money.

Let me use a few examples.

HR: HR in the public sector is INSANE. It's populated by social science grads who think they know everything but generally have zero real world experience. They are hired straight out of university into "officer level" positions. Which means that they never do any of the real work. The real work in HR is done by HR clerks, but those overworked clerks have no input into policy and cannot be promoted unless they have a university degree (the rest of the government doesn't work like that). HR worships policy to the exclusion of all else. Nothing matters but policy, and they spend long, long hours around board room tables thinking up long and detailed policies on everything. It takes nine months to hire anyone for even the most junior tasks, and internal competitions take even longer, and grow ever more complex and arcane. Once hired it takes 6 weeks to push through the paperwork to get them their first cheque. Every disciplinary action, however minor, has to follow policy, which makes it stunningly cumbersome.

Last year IT Security got a report an employee was downloading porn. They investigated, found it false, but discovered all kinds of joke emails in his mail - most from years back. Then they investigated the people who sent the jokes. This led to an ever widening investigation as every person they examined had "unacceptable" emails in their box. The term "Unacceptable" came from HR, and means, basically, any email which might conceivably offend anyone. Think of the most politically correct interpretation you can place on that: blonde jokes, for example, or newfy jokes, jokes about old people or unkind comments about colleagues or any sexual reference (one girl called her fiancee horndog in an email, which was "unacceptable"). The ever widening investigation grew to thousands and took many months before they were told to knock it off. But the first few dozen were charged with sending or having in their possession unacceptable emails. While it was clear no one had any clue just how broad the term was, how much it encompassed, the government proceeded with formal disciplinary hearings for all of them. It then began to hold mandatory sessions for all employees on what was and wasn't acceptable at the same time it was charging people for sending jokes years earlier.

Now in the private sector, something like this would have caused the manager to simply tell the employee to stop sending jokes. Not in the public sector. Every person had to have a formal disciplinary hearing with a director or director general, HR staff relations and union representation. In the end, most got a letter of censure in their files, while a few were suspended for up to two weeks. This triggered grievances by the union which will involve all sorts of time from HR, from senior executives, and eventually, legal work if they go to the Labour Relations Board. The cost of all this? Unknown but immense. All of these people make good money and when they're doing this crap they're not working.

Speaking of cost, we have a large and complicated computer system from SAP, but almost no training for it. Managers, who are supposed to be able to go into the system to get budget and HR data shrink from it in terror, and have to be provided with Excel spreadsheets and reports from Administration instead. Finance and HR clerks who input and work with the data are trained by whoever was in the job before them - learning as much as they can remember to tell them, depending on time, and how good their predecessor is at teaching. Naturally they make mistakes all the time, and there are untold delays as they try to figure out how to do a variety of tasks. And most often, by the time they start to understand how the system works, and become fairly comfortable in its use, they wind up being transferred or promoted to something else, leaving another new and befuddled clerk to flail away for the many months it takes to start to understand SAP.

Purchasing.

I started out doing purchasing, and let me tell you, the difference in just the last five years is immense. Used to be, someone wanted a scanner or monitor, I took a cab to future shop and bought one on my credit card. Now there are forms to be filled out, approvals sought. For example, before buying a scanner or printer or photocopier, you need to get an official form from the manufacturer attesting to the environmental impact the device will have, whether it has any dangerous materials in it, whether it gives off noxious gases, etc. The process takes weeks, and involves at a half dozen different groups and requires creating a requisition and purchase order (the cost of creating a purchase order and paying something by it has been calculated at approximately $200). In addition, we have deals with specific vendors in order to uphold standards, but the cost of computers, monitors, etc, is well above what you would pay at Future Shop. You can get a name brand 22 inch widescreen monitor at Best Buy for about $300, but we pay $500 for a regular nineteen inch monitor. Generally speaking we spend at least 2-5 times the actual prices of a low dollar item on the bureaucracy surrounding its purchase.

I once calculated we were spending more money in man hours on processing cell phone payments (the various approvals and sign-offs and attestation from the employee about how much personal use they made of the device) than the actual cost of the cell phone service.

Five years ago if we needed a temp clerk I'd call up an agency or two we worked with and we'd have someone within a couple of days. Earlier this year I spent months working with one manager trying to hire some temp clerks, months of redoing and rewriting statements of work and security requirements to please the new centralized procurement group, arguing with them about policy and regulations, appealing their idiotic decisions all the way up to the assistant deputy minister level before getting them ironed out, and in the end, the manager gave up and scrubbed the project.

In the private sector there is a level of empowerment on lower level management which allows all the routine stuff to get done fairly quickly. But in the federal government senior management is terrified that someone below will make a mistake or do something wrong and they'll be blamed. Most of the newer policies and requirements seem designed to protect senior management from this by requiring senior managers approve of almost everything. The level of micromanaging going on would stun anyone in the private sector. We have assistant deputy ministers spending their time personally approving monthly cell phone bills.

I once sent a memo out telling staff to return instruction manuals to the library as the person responsible for the library wanted to replace the worn-out binders and was chided for not having involved the Senior Management Committee in the decision first. The SMC manages a $200 million budget but they worry about worn-out binders. The culture of senior management is more and more becoming geared to this. One mid-level manager canceled the signing authority of lower level managers because she didn't trust their judgment, insisting she approve every purchase and expenditure personally - although she didn't understand what any of them were for. So each purchase had to be approved in advance, with forms and sign-offs provided of the manager or supervisor who wanted the purchase. There is now an ongoing shortage of basic office supplies in that directorate as she doesn't have time to approve everything and is always in meetings. There are some senior managers who are so shy of committing themselves to anything that the won't answer email or their phones, and people have to travel across town to drop in on them unannounced in order to discuss things and force them to make a decision. Meanwhile, we are unable to find junior managers because the pay isn't worth the tremendous hassle and stress the job brings.

The cost of all this is immense, in the hundred of millions, if not more, every year, but it doesn't appear on anyone's balance sheet as an item, so no one worries about it.

[madmax]

I spent twenty years in the private sector before going to work for the feds. I'm still bemused and sometimes outraged by the amazing waste of money.

Let me use a few examples.

I hear that alot of federal employees post messages on bulletin boards while on the tax-payers dime. Waste of money and bandwidth.

So, you left the Private Sector for a cushy government job.

[RB]

I spent twenty years in the private sector before going to work for the feds. I'm still bemused and sometimes outraged by the amazing waste of money.

No surprises Argus - its the difference between the corporate sector and the public sector

Corporate sector: count each penny and set off to increase profit

Public sector: if you did not spent each penny your department is at risk for failure to perform (so taking a long time to make decisions, hiring/involving more people to make the same decisions stretches the imagination, and buying pricey product makes much more sense)

[Shakeyhands]

No surprises Argus - its the difference between the corporate sector and the public sector

Corporate sector: count each penny and set off to increase profit

Public sector: if you did not spent each penny your department is at risk for failure to perform (so taking a long time to make decisions, hiring/involving more people to make the same decisions stretches the imagination, and buying pricey product makes much more sense)

Untrue, the corporate sector does the same budget spending as the public sector before the end of their fiscal.

[GostHacked]

Untrue, the corporate sector does the same budget spending as the public sector before the end of their fiscal.

But it is done in a very timely manner. Or else the business can't operate.

[capricorn]

But it is done in a very timely manner.

Speaking of timely, I don't know if the process is the same today but it used to be that goods purchased in one fiscal year had to show an invoice date before the end of the fiscal year, i.e. March 31 in order to be paid from that fiscal year's budget. In one department I worked in, if it was known that the goods purchased could not be delivered and invoiced prior to the March deadline, managers colluded with suppliers to deliver empty boxes just so the purchase could make the deadline for payment. The merchandise was delivered later and no one said a peep. The object of this exercise was to enable managers to spend any unexpended funds in their budget allotment. If managers ended the year in the black, they risked having their budgets for future years scaled back. At times, stuff which was not really required was purchased just to liquidate the funds.

I don't approve of that type of deception which oftentimes included wasteful and unnecessary purchases. But I can understand the motivation behind it. As others have said, the red tape associated with purchasing goods and services is burdensome. I would add the budgetary process as I knew it did not motivate for the proper allocation of funds and penalized managers who were careful with public money. I suspect not much as changed.

[August1991]

The cost of all this is immense, in the hundred of millions, if not more, every year, but it doesn't appear on anyone's balance sheet as an item, so no one worries about it.

Argus, when I left the federal public service several years ago, I wrote a list of 50 points in case I was ever invited to work once again for the government.

IMV, the fundamental problem of the public sector is that the money coming in is not related in any way to the money going out. Unless pay cheques (money going out) are connected to voluntary payments of clients (money coming in), an organization will soon turn into a wasteful, pointless exercise. (The Canadian federal government works like the Soviet Union circa 1975 when oil prices were high.)

Others may disagree but IMV, life is too short and too precious to waste it working for such an organization.

Edited July 14, 2008 by August1991

[Leafless]

Others may disagree but IMV, life is too short and too precious to waste it working for such an organization.

I agree with you.

But you mean you actually found someone that hired you in the private sector?

Generally speaking no employer will touch you with a ten foot pole once they find out your previous employer was the federal government.

That is why most public servants are 'lifers' and stay within the ranks of the federal public service.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Leafless

[Michael Hardner]

It's a terrible waste of money and resources, and people on the left and the right should be demanding that something is done about this. Instead, we have elections where the candidates scream about irrelevant things.

If the federal government wasn't so mismanaged, we could have much better services or spend the budget where it's needed such as education or healthcare.

It's a terrible shame.

[RB]

It's a terrible waste of money and resources....It's a terrible shame.

Shameful indeed, I think anxious hard working people see the means and ends of the flaws especially if they have a prior experience working in the corporate sector. But also, the issues are rooted in a culture since the existence of government. I often wondered about corporate Canada taking charge of the financial affairs and labor for the government.

Leafless Posted Yesterday, 07:10 PM

But you mean you actually found someone that hired you in the private sector?

Generally speaking no employer will touch you with a ten foot pole once they find out your previous employer was the federal government.

This is not true. If you are good, nothing changes this fact, you can only get better.

[eyeball]

There is no art that hath bin more canker'd in her principles, more soyl'd and slubber'd with aphorisming pedantry then the art of policie.

Milton

Don't forget that shit runs down hill. Government mismanagement results from the endless cascade of political corruption from above. Outlaw secrecy at the very top echelons of power, and accountability transparency and honesty should trickle down through the rest the way wealth does, at least in theory. Who knows, a trickle down effect of decency and honesty might actually get the money flowing a little more freely too.

[NorthGuard]

IMV, the fundamental problem of the public sector is that the money coming in is not related in any way to the money going out. Unless pay cheques (money going out) are connected to voluntary payments of clients (money coming in), an organization will soon turn into a wasteful, pointless exercise.

To a certain extent, I agree. I think you'll find employees with no concept of customer service in most industries, the key difference is that the insulation you describe combines with negative effects of unionization to create a work culture that sometimes incentivizes that attitude. Poor and mediocre performers recieve promotions and advancement that they might not if they were employed in the private sector.

[Argus]

To a certain extent, I agree. I think you'll find employees with no concept of customer service in most industries, the key difference is that the insulation you describe combines with negative effects of unionization to create a work culture that sometimes incentivizes that attitude. Poor and mediocre performers recieve promotions and advancement that they might not if they were employed in the private sector.

Actually, where we are, work performance has no relation whatsoever to promotions and advancement. It doesn't matter how bad your work habits or attendance are, or how much your manager hates you. Promotion and advancement is guided by the competitions held by HR. Those competitions do not include input from your manager or colleagues. More and more they don't even involve testing. HR has fallen in love with something called PQP, which basically means you apply, then you do a 5 minute quiz to see if you have the "potential" to have certain skills. If you pass the quiz you then write out (no more than 7 single spaced pages please) an event which happened within the last 5 years which shows (with witnesses) how you demonstrated this particular skill - ie, Customer Service Orientation, Analytical Thinking, Teamwork and Cooperation, etc. Each competition can require from 3 to 9 such skills be demonstrated. You write out page after page of this crap, and send it to HR and they read it out and argue amongst themselves, then with you about whether this properly demonstrates your capability in that particular skill. It's really quite, quite insane and takes an insane amount of time and money. And since you can get whoever you want to help you write it out, and make stuff up so long as you can get a witness to agree, it really demonstrates nothing in the end other than a desire for promotion.

[madmax]

, it really demonstrates nothing in the end other than a desire for promotion.

Hr like you describe above exist in the Private Sphere, not soley Public. I am not a fan of them.

Do you use federal computers to post these messages?

[Michael Hardner]

Don't forget that shit runs down hill. Government mismanagement results from the endless cascade of political corruption from above. Outlaw secrecy at the very top echelons of power, and accountability transparency and honesty should trickle down through the rest the way wealth does, at least in theory. Who knows, a trickle down effect of decency and honesty might actually get the money flowing a little more freely too.

eye,

Outlawing secrecy isn't possible. But more accountability and transparency would be very easy to achieve, given that there is almost none now.

This is a passion of mine, which I like to blog about from time to time.

If you're interested in contributing a little, I noticed a new group that is organizing projects to increase government accountability in Canada:

Visible Government