Dear Iggy, This is Not a Year for an Election

[Argus]

Checkbook Federalism.

Very good. Sums up the bankruptcy behind this government.

Unfortunately, it also describes the last several governments, and the mentality of the Liberals during the last election.

[Argus]

And you like your high government salary and being a part of that big government you love to criticise. Its like having your cake and eating it too. You are part of the problem, yet wish to point fingers at everyone else around you, saying they are the problem.

Your belly is at the trough Mr. Fiscal Conservative.

You're just snivelling because I have a better job than you do, with higher salary and better benefits.

You have no point, unless you are suggesting there should be no public servants. I have always said there is gross inefficiency in the federal government, and because of the bureacracy, we have too many public servants. That has nothing to do with my being employed by the public service, unless you think I design the processes and policies which require so many extra bodies to make things function.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You're just snivelling because I have a better job than you do, with higher salary and better benefits.

You have no point, unless you are suggesting there should be no public servants. I have always said there is gross inefficiency in the federal government, and because of the bureacracy, we have too many public servants. That has nothing to do with my being employed by the public service, unless you think I design the processes and policies which require so many extra bodies to make things function.

I rather like the idea of eliminating huge chuncks of the civil service. Too much bureaucracy and to many public sector employees translates into high levels of taxation and corruption from political types.

Argus, if you are in that line of work I am sorry, but you are on my payroll as a citizen, and I would like to start being a little more fiscally conservative and eliminate your job.

[Wilber]

I am not, nor have I ever said that I am for Big Government. I am for less government and it was why I questioned Harper's plan to have 30 more seats in the House of Commons. We don't need more, we need LESS! I also opposed his overstuffing the cabinet with higher salaries, limos, drivers, and perks.

We do need less but unfortunately the Constitution guarantees Quebec a minimum of 75 seats. Because of that, in order to maintain some semblance rep by pop with Canada's changing demographics, any governments only course of action is to increase the number of seats in faster growing provinces and therefore the total.

[madmax]

Sorry. I'm still learning how to navigate the board.

No problem.... just have fun.

[madmax]

You're just snivelling because I have a better job than you do, with higher salary and better benefits.

You really know how to sweet talk a taxpayer.

[Argus]

I rather like the idea of eliminating huge chuncks of the civil service. Too much bureaucracy and to many public sector employees translates into high levels of taxation and corruption from political types.

Argus, if you are in that line of work I am sorry, but you are on my payroll as a citizen, and I would like to start being a little more fiscally conservative and eliminate your job.

You can't eliminate my job. What actually needs to be done is to redesign the policies for how work is done. It is those policies, which are set in stone, which requires 27 steps to introduce a basic program change when there should only be 4 (for example). It is policy and procedure which says that if you need to hire someone you have to go through a 1-2 year long process of meetings, form changes, widespread consultations, competitions and delays that involve scores of bureacrats at all levels and cost a fortune in time and effort - instead of placing an ad in the paper or something and hiring someone in a week. It is procedure which says that if you want to do almost anything you need to consult with ten different groups and get approval from ten different managers and excutives, all of which involves masses of paperwork and meetings - and time - and which costs a fortune.

Just eliminating jobs means the work, even necessary work, won't get done, or will be even further delayed.

[madmax]

You can't eliminate my job.

[guyser]

You can't eliminate my job. What actually needs to be done is to redesign the policies for how work is done. It is those policies, which are set in stone, which requires 27 steps to introduce a basic program change when there should only be 4 (for example). It is policy and procedure which says that if you need to hire someone you have to go through a 1-2 year long process of meetings, form changes, widespread consultations, competitions and delays that involve scores of bureacrats at all levels and cost a fortune in time and effort - instead of placing an ad in the paper or something and hiring someone in a week. It is procedure which says that if you want to do almost anything you need to consult with ten different groups and get approval from ten different managers and excutives, all of which involves masses of paperwork and meetings - and time - and which costs a fortune.

Just eliminating jobs means the work, even necessary work, won't get done, or will be even further delayed.

I had to quote the whole thing for context.

Seems to me what you have described is a civil service structure put in place to specifically deny elimination of civil service jobs.

See if we implement A B and C, then it takes years for them to be rid of us , so they will give up and we keep our jobs. If that fails, we get all civil service employees to slow down so that things back up and we dont get eliminated.

I am not here to slag you about your job. No one likes to be told they should be eliminated, but what you posted says nothing but " I will keep it since our/my bureacracy will ensure it does". You would not be telling the truth if you cant look around and see the deadweight that exists in your workplace that should be let go.

[OddSox]

I had to quote the whole thing for context.

Seems to me what you have described is a civil service structure put in place to specifically deny elimination of civil service jobs.

See if we implement A B and C, then it takes years for them to be rid of us , so they will give up and we keep our jobs. If that fails, we get all civil service employees to slow down so that things back up and we dont get eliminated.

I am not here to slag you about your job. No one likes to be told they should be eliminated, but what you posted says nothing but " I will keep it since our/my bureacracy will ensure it does". You would not be telling the truth if you cant look around and see the deadweight that exists in your workplace that should be let go.

The thing is - they're not getting the job done, so why not fire them all? The job still isn't done, but we have more money for beer!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You can't eliminate my job. What actually needs to be done is to redesign the policies for how work is done. It is those policies, which are set in stone, which requires 27 steps to introduce a basic program change when there should only be 4 (for example). It is policy and procedure which says that if you need to hire someone you have to go through a 1-2 year long process of meetings, form changes, widespread consultations, competitions and delays that involve scores of bureacrats at all levels and cost a fortune in time and effort - instead of placing an ad in the paper or something and hiring someone in a week. It is procedure which says that if you want to do almost anything you need to consult with ten different groups and get approval from ten different managers and excutives, all of which involves masses of paperwork and meetings - and time - and which costs a fortune.

Just eliminating jobs means the work, even necessary work, won't get done, or will be even further delayed.

Now what would happen if we converted the public service into crown corporations? We offer two choices to the former employees; 1) you get a buyout of your pension contributions doubled to reflect the employer portion, or 2) you go to work for the new company and transfer your pension to a different plan of your own choice? Of course the new corporation may or may not be paying the same wqages and have the same work rules. There would have to be some radical rationalization of employment opportunity in a new not for profit company.

[Argus]

I had to quote the whole thing for context.

Seems to me what you have described is a civil service structure put in place to specifically deny elimination of civil service jobs.

Not really. First, you have to admit that all large organizations have large buracracies. It doesn't really matter if they're public or private sector. In large organizations, bureacracies will evolve, and the leaders of each bureacratic group will seek power and influence in order to advance themselves. The way you do that in a bureacracy is by taking control of things. For example, HR will assert its control over a wide variety of functions, such as hiring, promotions, transfers - all of which gives senior HR executives influence and power over other senior executives. IT will assert its control over all aspects of information technology and the hardware and software which encompasses it, giving it control over others. Finance and Administration will develop their own "rules" and "policies" which others must abide by for the same reason.

Then you have the evolving role of management in the public service. The keyword for new managers and executives today is "oversight". This translate into "cover your ass at any cost". Oversight in a bureaucracy comes from controlling everything. When you control everything, it slows everything down.

Example. At one point, when someone needed a new computer monitor, I would drive a few blocks up the street to Best Buy, pick one up on my credit card (having asked our local IT guy what to buy), and have it on someone's desk in half an hour. Minimum muss or fuss. IT then decided it had to have more control. The new process meant I had to fill out a complicated on-line form and send to them, then create a requisition on our SAP system. That requisision would be sent to the manager for release, then sent on to IT. IT would then send to Finance to have a Purchase Order created. When they got it, they would send it on to a vendor, who would ship the monitor to IT HQ, where it would be duly logged and registered, then shipped to our local IT officers, who would schedule a time for it to be installed on the employees desk. Time now rose from 30 minutes to approximately 6 weeks. Number of people involved went from 3 to about 20. Cost - well, let me put it this way, when I was last doing purchasing, last year, we were routinely paying three times more for monitors than I would have paid for a good, brand name monitor at Best Buy. But of course, you have to add the cost of all that bureacracy to that as well. I have no idea what that was, but it was substantial.

I can go on for pages like that. For example, we'd been using government credit cards to pay for things for years without a single incident. A new manager came in and wanted her fat butt covered. So she developed new procedures. All credit cards were to be locked up. Nothing was to be paid for until a form was submited to her for approval containing the signature of the manager of the group involved. Then each charge was to be separately logged onto a new recording system (even though every charge was already being recorded in SAP). Given it was possible for each of us to use our card dozens of times a day - and she was rarely available to sign anything, this forced us to hire two extra employees to cope with the paperwork, and delayed all payments, which resulted in late payment charges. All of this was for one reason; if at any point there was some kind of a mistake or problem made, she would be able to point to her new system and say "See how strongly I tightened oversight!?".

And don't even get me startd about HR.

But the point is, firing the guy who purchases the computer parts is just not an option, no matter how much you'd like it to be. If you want to save money and lower the body count you need to reform the system.

[Argus]

Now what would happen if we converted the public service into crown corporations? We offer two choices to the former employees; 1) you get a buyout of your pension contributions doubled to reflect the employer portion, or 2) you go to work for the new company and transfer your pension to a different plan of your own choice? Of course the new corporation may or may not be paying the same wqages and have the same work rules. There would have to be some radical rationalization of employment opportunity in a new not for profit company.

I work for CRA, which was converted into an Agency. All sorts of wonderful efficiencies were to be realized, including a splendidly efficient new HR system which wouldn't bog everything down in massive layers of red tape. We'd be free to do all kinds of things with new efficiencies!

We don't have the same wages, or the same work rules, but we're massively overbureaucratized, and it's getting worse, not better.

Crown Corporation? Do you really want the tax man to be have the corporate mentality that says "Get the most cash possible for us, no matter what"? You want executive bonuses based on how many foreclosures they sign off on, how many citizens' bank accounts seized, how many people put in prison?

Canada Post is a crown corporation. There were no rollbacks in the wages or benefits of the posties. In fact, they kept pace with government wage and benefit changes.

[Argus]

The thing is - they're not getting the job done, so why not fire them all? The job still isn't done, but we have more money for beer!

The job is getting done. It just takes more people more time than it should.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I work for CRA, which was converted into an Agency. All sorts of wonderful efficiencies were to be realized, including a splendidly efficient new HR system which wouldn't bog everything down in massive layers of red tape. We'd be free to do all kinds of things with new efficiencies!

We don't have the same wages, or the same work rules, but we're massively overbureaucratized, and it's getting worse, not better.

Crown Corporation? Do you really want the tax man to be have the corporate mentality that says "Get the most cash possible for us, no matter what"? You want executive bonuses based on how many foreclosures they sign off on, how many citizens' bank accounts seized, how many people put in prison?

Canada Post is a crown corporation. There were no rollbacks in the wages or benefits of the posties. In fact, they kept pace with government wage and benefit changes.

I am currently dealing with the CRA. They have had more than 3 months to do what they do and still have not got it done, so I know what you mean. On the other hand I am against income taxes in the first place and would gladly see an end to your agency. I think consumption taxes are the way to go, beside I would get to eliminate your job by doing so!

[madmax]

The thing is - they're not getting the job done, so why not fire them all? The job still isn't done, but we have more money for beer!

[madmax]

But the point is, firing the guy who purchases the computer parts is just not an option, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

Jerry wants to fire you

Odd Sox wants to fire you and use the money for beer.

Of course your position is replaceable. I also recognise that you are paid significantly higher then the private sector and based upon your own testimony, accomplish very little.

So, who needs you and why should we pay a premium for this poor service?

If we have to have tax cuts, you are going to have to take a pay cut. If we are going to continue in this deficit direction, we may have to force the government into terminating positions such as yours.

All business and industry make similar decisions based upon revenue and services.

[Argus]

Jerry wants to fire you

Odd Sox wants to fire you and use the money for beer.

Of course your position is replaceable. I also recognise that you are paid significantly higher then the private sector and based upon your own testimony, accomplish very little.

So, who needs you and why should we pay a premium for this poor service?

If we have to have tax cuts, you are going to have to take a pay cut. If we are going to continue in this deficit direction, we may have to force the government into terminating positions such as yours.

All business and industry make similar decisions based upon revenue and services.

Hey, Madmax, I had two weeks off over Christmas! I had a great time! You?

[madmax]

Hey, Madmax, I had two weeks off over Christmas! I had a great time! You?

Hard worker that I am, fed the poor in the morning of Christmas, and worked in the afternoon and evening, Christmas, Boxing day and straight through...... (I am for hire....union contractual neg is a specialty)

Glad to hear you enjoyed your 2weeks off..... your absense from your place of employment is not missed.

A common practice in the Private sector is to have everything packed and the police ready to escort the employee off the premises on their first day back from their paid vacation.

We can only wish

Happy New Year btw....

[capricorn]

Seems to me what you have described is a civil service structure put in place to specifically deny elimination of civil service jobs.

Guyser, sometimes it's just a case that it's always been done in a certain way, nobody really knows why and nobody takes the trouble to analyse ways to perform tasks in a more efficient way. The only way to conduct thorough and unbiased audits of procedures and practices is to hire an external consulting firm. Contrary to internal employees, outsiders don't have the loyalty and cronyism factors to deal with, and they can look at processes with a critical eye. Nothing freaks out managers and employees more than to learn that a group of consultants are coming in to review their operations. In my experience, those visits have always uncovered ways to cut red tape and increase productivity. Whether the recommendations submitted are implemented is another story.

[guyser]

Guyser, sometimes it's just a case that it's always been done in a certain way, nobody really knows why and nobody takes the trouble to analyse ways to perform tasks in a more efficient way. The only way to conduct thorough and unbiased audits of procedures and practices is to hire an external consulting firm. Contrary to internal employees, outsiders don't have the loyalty and cronyism factors to deal with, and they can look at processes with a critical eye.

I understand that one quite well.

Its just that everyone involved has a mandate not to disrupt the boat. For one, every single civil servant knows the money fund is still chugging along. There is no concern for the dept being shut down since we keep on paying our taxes. So there is no incentive for improvement.

The "layers" as mentioned earlier, are nothing but an extra blanket to protect their own jobs. CYA my ass, while they may achieve that, they are nothing but hooks to hang someone else with.

Nothing freaks out managers and employees more than to learn that a group of consultants are coming in to review their operations. In my experience, those visits have always uncovered ways to cut red tape and increase productivity. Whether the recommendations submitted are implemented is another story.

Consultants and the like in some cases can and do cut through the BS. But on the other hand , they too need to make what they do useful. So they put a lot of info down on the report, but keep it vague for the purposes of keeping the income rolling.

I work in insurance. Most of my companies use an evaluation programme (determines the replacement cost of your house) and /or have an inspection done by a outside firm. I have had more arguments with companies about this bullshit scandal than any other issue I deal with. A simple 2000sf home, in my view and in contractors that I deal with, should not be reported as $500-$600,000 range. It is wrong because (1) the ins co rates are geared to Repl Cost so the more they show your house is, the more they get. and (2) the companies who market to ins co's know that the above rule #1 is what they want.

The point is, at the govt level, the people have an vested interest to muddy the waters.

Numerous private enterprises hire slah and burn experts, and they come in and do exactly that, slah and burn the employees and move out dead weight. That they get paid handsomley for doing so,based of course on savings, is maybe something that needs to be looked at with our govt employees.

[capricorn]

Thanks for your interesting comments guyser.

The "slash and burn" approach is definitely the way to go to cutting bureaucratic wastage. The problem is finding senior bureaucrats and managers that see further than protecting their little empires. What would help is political will and action to lower the boom on some of those emperors. If they don't cooperate in finding better and more efficient ways to manage their fiefdoms, replace them with more willing actors. I suspect the Conservatives would be reluctant to push such an agenda as, once again, they would be accused of being anti-public service/public servant.

[guyser]

Thanks for your interesting comments guyser.

Your welcome!

The "slash and burn" approach is definitely the way to go to cutting bureaucratic wastage. The problem is finding senior bureaucrats and managers that see further than protecting their little empires.

How about this, the managers slash and burn, wait for a year to see the fallout with savings or overload, and in the end analysis, if a cost saving is achieved they get $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Aint a one of them will turn that down.

Look at licence bureau. Who the hell needs 8 people working that job anymore, and I refer to the local one in Etobicoke that I go to.

Everything is automated, and no one is moving very fast since the monopoly is there and I cant go to the competition can I? Nope.

When I am slow to respond, I lose, and it happens all the time. When the licence is slow to respond, who cares?

The banks were notorious for acting like civil servants. Go at lunch, and hey, so did they. Long lines, slow service, and you could see people in the back eating. Now? Much better. One because they automated, and two, they saw the frustration and competition was advertsing that they had the staff.

Licence issuance is easy, the rules may take awhile to learn, but part time highschool staff could easily be hired for the rush times, much like tha bank has done.

[capricorn]

How about this, the managers slash and burn, wait for a year to see the fallout with savings or overload, and in the end analysis, if a cost saving is achieved they get $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Aint a one of them will turn that down.

That would do it. I'd also add in an extra week's holiday for that one year. Money and time off, the two great motivators.

[Argus]

Your welcome!

How about this, the managers slash and burn, wait for a year to see the fallout with savings or overload, and in the end analysis, if a cost saving is achieved they get $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Aint a one of them will turn that down.

Life is so simple if you just - think simplistically.

Every manager has a budget to meet, every year. Contrary to what you might think, they treat these budgets with the greatest of importance. The ideal is to come withina few % points of their budget. God help the manager who overspends. You want to see panic in the higher ranks? Have a look when they see they're overspending. It's not all fun and games.

By the same token, no manager wants to underspend. If you significantly underspend your budget this year then you'll be expected to get by with significantly less next year, leaving you less room for error or manoeuvring. So if a manager finds he has extra funding, the first thing he starts thinking about is what projects he might want to fund so a to hire more bodies and use up that funding.

That's just the way bureacracies work, public or private sector, they're all the same.