Dear Iggy, This is Not a Year for an Election

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

That is exactly why they need a new mandate of service delivery. These bureaucracies need to be rationalized to the point where there is complete accountability and responsibility. From the top down the public service needs to understand that they live on our wages, and are as a result our employees. It is we who tell them how to do their jobs. It is we who determine what their jobs are.

[guyser]

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.

Yes of course he wants to spend the money so that he does not short change himself for the following year.

Therein lies the problem. Rigidity and unaccountability.

As a blanket statement saying private sector works that way, you are wrong. Plain and simple.

From all my various jobs over the years, from accounting and kille floor supervisor at an abbotoir to insurance, a savings goal met was a positive for advancement.

I work in what is called a cluster, many "owners" sharing the costs of running this place. We have budgets, and when the office manager tells the owners at the end of the year he was able to bring everything under budget, he gets a bonus and everyone gets money back.

[guyser]

From the top down the public service needs to understand that they live on our wages, and are as a result our employees. It is we who tell them how to do their jobs. It is we who determine what their jobs are.

That can never happen, and frankly should not ever happen. We pay in good faith that the money ios properly allocated . It is not our job to "tell" anyone what to do.

If that atitude exists, then go outside and tell a cop you want him to shovel your driveway, you hand the Border Guard the washer fluid and tell him to top it up.

[Pointillist]

I think he overestimated the intelligence of Quebecers - something very easy to do. Sometimes they seem even human.

Excuse me!?

[madmax]

From all my various jobs over the years, from accounting and kille floor supervisor at an abbotoir to insurance,

..... accounting, killing and Insurance....

All you are missing from your CV is Politician, Lawyer, Used Car Saleman and devil worshipper.

I will overlook these career choice character faults for the greater good of your posts, in making the bureacracy, accountable, efficient, smaller, with wages, benefits, sickdays, hours of work, paid holidays, and pensions that are inline with the private sector.

[guyser]

..... accounting, killing and Insurance....

All you are missing from your CV is Politician, Lawyer, Used Car Saleman and devil worshipper.

Oh....one of those four above I did , many many years ago.

Wanna pick which one?

[Pointillist]

..... accounting, killing and Insurance....

All you are missing from your CV is Politician, Lawyer, Used Car Saleman and devil worshipper.

I don't know who this guy is, but I'm guessing he's some kind of clerk

[madmax]

Oh....one of those four above I did , many many years ago.

Wanna pick which one?

How is Satan doing, I guess you haven't seen him in awhile since he trained you for the insurance business : )

Ok, I backtrack....

CarSales??

Edited January 8, 2009 by madmax

[madmax]

I don't know who this guy is, but I'm guessing he's some kind of clerk

He is someone who talks sanely, and I might even do business with some day..... but never let him put my real name and MLW handle together.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That can never happen, and frankly should not ever happen. We pay in good faith that the money ios properly allocated . It is not our job to "tell" anyone what to do.

If that atitude exists, then go outside and tell a cop you want him to shovel your driveway, you hand the Border Guard the washer fluid and tell him to top it up.

I place my faith in God, not the government. When I used the word we, I meant as citizens. Citizens are represented in government by elected officials. Elected officials are in fact accountable to the citizens. We make them responsible through a system of laws and policies. All of those laws and policies are subject to change at the whim of the government. Therefore by extension the people tell the civil service what to do, and yet these are huge and rambling bureaucracies that leave the perception that they are in control when little could be further for the truth.

When was the last time a bureaucrat was fired for going over the budget allotted to that department? How about his boss the Minister in charge? Where is the accountability in this regard? It does not exist. It exists to the same extent that I place my faith in a government composed of greedy bureaucratic sheep.

We need leadership on the order of Harry Trumans "the buck stops here".

[madmax]

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.

Private Sectors bureaucracies eventually have to deal with financial restrainst, deficits, and an inability to change, with cuts, downsizing, and new efficient hiring practices. As well as concessions if necessary.

The Public Sector continues on the path you laid out above and deal with problems by tax increases, and deficits.

The system above allows you to maintain a secure job, and an above average pay with demonstratable poor results and inefficient service.

Cuts to your position and others would be effective. Pay rates and benefits on par with the private sector set goals and maintain a wage parity. The idea that you can produce so little yet maintain so many perks is absurd.

And with the recession coming down the pipes, the Harper Governments inability to deal with the above incompetence and irrational budget behaiver, suggests that there are plenty of ways to cut wages, benefits, and pensions if every other aspect is how "bureaucracies work ....they're all the same".

[Topaz]

The news today is that Harper isn't going to push for an election instead his plan is to get more Cons into the Senate. Right now there's 58 Libs, 35 Cons, 3 PC's 4 independants and 1 NDP senators. By the end of 2009, the Cons will have 49 , the Libs 50 but the Libs will lose one in 2010 and it will be to the Cons then having 50 to 49 Libs. BUT, there are 4 Independants and 1 NDP and whose knows which way the 3 PC's will vote. I have a feelin' that GG told Harper don't come back.

[madmax]

The news today is that Harper isn't going to push for an election instead his plan is to get more Cons into the Senate. Right now there's 58 Libs, 35 Cons, 3 PC's 4 independants and 1 NDP senators. By the end of 2009, the Cons will have 49 , the Libs 50 but the Libs will lose one in 2010 and it will be to the Cons then having 50 to 49 Libs. BUT, there are 4 Independants and 1 NDP and whose knows which way the 3 PC's will vote. I have a feelin' that GG told Harper don't come back.

There are 5 independants not 4. There are no NDP Senators.

[Argus]

Private Sectors bureaucracies eventually have to deal with financial restrainst, deficits, and an inability to change, with cuts, downsizing, and new efficient hiring practices. As well as concessions if necessary.

Do they? All of them? You know, Dilbert wasn't written by a guy who'd ever worked for the government. All his experiences with insane, incompetent management were in the private sector.

The Public Sector continues on the path you laid out above and deal with problems by tax increases, and deficits.

Not really. It's more a matter of continually relocating resources between the winners and losers, depending on who's more convincing. Remember that the actual staffing portion of the federal budget is fairly small compared to the amount of money spent - mostly on various entitlements.

The system above allows you to maintain a secure job, and an above average pay with demonstratable poor results and inefficient service.

Yes, but from my perspective, that's a good thing.

Cuts to your position and others would be effective.

In doing what? I have been fairly explicit in explaining to you that it is not individual worker cuts you need, but a change in the various policies and procedures. I think your continued mulish insistence on simply firing workers stems not from any real desire to improve efficiencies but bitterness and jealousy over the better wages and benefits these workers have obtained as compared to yourself.

[Argus]

That is exactly why they need a new mandate of service delivery. These bureaucracies need to be rationalized to the point where there is complete accountability and responsibility. From the top down the public service needs to understand that they live on our wages, and are as a result our employees. It is we who tell them how to do their jobs. It is we who determine what their jobs are.

Ahh, yes, ACCOUNTABILITY!

A lovely term, but it has different meanings for different people. It is ACCOUNTABILITY which has caused the public service to implement a whole series of new policies and procedures so senior management can micromanage every aspect of what's going on - thus ensuring that efficiency declines and costs and timelines rise.

Watch out for what you ask for.

[madmax]

Do they? All of them? You know, Dilbert wasn't written by a guy who'd ever worked for the government. All his experiences with insane, incompetent management were in the private sector.

HELP!!! I have been outflanked by the DILBERT DEFENCE!!! How could I have been so naive....... (where are the forum rules)

Yes, but from my perspective, that's a good thing.

Enjoy that 35 hour week.

In doing what? I have been fairly explicit in explaining to you that it is not individual worker cuts you need, but a change in the various policies and procedures.

And those changes aren't going to come, unless handled in a Mike Harris Manner and go much further. This is no time to be worried about the backlash of Public Sector Unionists like yourself who are speaking only to defend that you should keep excessive wages, benefits and pensions.

I think your continued mulish insistence on simply firing workers stems not from any real desire to improve efficiencies but bitterness and jealousy over the better wages and benefits these workers have obtained as compared to yourself.

mulish

This is the difference between an operation that cuts the fat and realigns wages and benefits to the current market and those who have had the comfort of a government that has unlimited taxing capacity and the ability to run deficits if fiscally irresponsible. This government needs to get its act together, especially if it is going for the tax cuts as a solution for stimulus.

It's time to bring in the knife

Have a good weekend.

Edited January 9, 2009 by madmax

[guyser]

Dilbert wasn't written by a guy who'd ever worked for the government. All his experiences with insane, incompetent management were in the private sector.

Dilbert was written by Adams , and his info was gathered by emails and notes sent to him about the working conditions and situations from readers.

[Argus]

Dilbert was written by Adams , and his info was gathered by emails and notes sent to him about the working conditions and situations from readers.

Yes, but he worked for a bank before his success. He developed Dilbert and its characters from his experiences working there. There's also a fun notation in his wiki entry which says:

In 1997, at the invitation of Logitech CEO Pierluigi Zappacosta, Adams, wearing a wig and false mustache, successfully impersonated a management consultant and tricked Logitech managers into adopting a mission statement that Adams described as "so impossibly complicated that it has no real context whatsoever."

Idiotic management and policies lampooned in Dilbert are easily recognizable to people who work in government, but they're not at all out of place in the private sector either.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Argus