Public Sector Unions

[Shwa]

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.

[Michael Hardner]

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?

Absolutely, yes.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

My evidence is anecdotal. If you have numbers, then have at it.

But you don't, and your response is to say that the system "isn't perfect" but nothing else...

I suspect Argus would be able to provide proof, but is bound by employer agreements not to.

As with healthcare, you point to legislation and rules as evidence that things are ok not to reality. At least, that is now I see it.

[hmmmph]

Hey MH, It's hmmmph. I need the link to the other board, sorry to hijack this thread but I tried to pm you but no answer....so link please and carry on!

[Jack Weber]

I take it that you must of read it the? That's good, but I haven't. Thanks for the pointer. I'll be sure to look it up. Nice to know that some one agrees with me, even if people with no logical argument do no.

Your arguement is'nt some flash of brilliance.It's simply the BS "Right to Work" arguement designed to but unions throught he back door.

Interesting...You,and other free marketeers,have an aversion to workers organizations,yet...

The NAM...National Association of Manufacturers...I'm guessing this is an association of like minded people in the manufacturing industry?...And I'm guessing to belong to this organization,"members" must pay some sort of "fee" which could be described as dues?...And I'm assuming these dues go to Political Action Committee's who lobby sympathetic minded politicians who would be in favour of legislation that would serve the purpose of said organization?...

Wow...The NAM sounds like a union for business.

So...

Union promoting union busting open shop policies=good

Union standing up for individual workers in collective form=bad

Got it....

[Renegade]

Your arguement is'nt some flash of brilliance.It's simply the BS "Right to Work" arguement designed to but unions throught he back door.

Interesting...You,and other free marketeers,have an aversion to workers organizations,yet...

The NAM...National Association of Manufacturers...I'm guessing this is an association of like minded people in the manufacturing industry?...And I'm guessing to belong to this organization,"members" must pay some sort of "fee" which could be described as dues?...And I'm assuming these dues go to Political Action Committee's who lobby sympathetic minded politicians who would be in favour of legislation that would serve the purpose of said organization?...

Wow...The NAM sounds like a union for business.

So...

Union promoting union busting open shop policies=good

Union standing up for individual workers in collective form=bad

Got it....

Except the National Association of Manufacturers doesn't force anyone to join their ranks as a prerequisite to manufacturing.

If you followed your logic and NAM acted like a union, a manufacturer who did not want to join NAM, they should leave the country in order to manufacture.

[Jack Weber]

Except the National Association of Manufacturers doesn't force anyone to join their ranks as a prerequisite to manufacturing.

If you followed your logic and NAM acted like a union, a manufacturer who did not want to join NAM, they should leave the country in order to manufacture.

Wrong...

The NAM was behind "Right to Work" legislation since the late '50's.Any business remotely interested in the idea would silly not to join.Businesses found that trying to bust a union head on is a non starter,so they try to do it throught he back door...collectively!

Where is RTW legislation popular?

The Mid-West and Southeastrn U.S

Where are industrial wages,benefit plans,and workplace safety the lowest an the worst?

In RTW states.

Open shop/"Right to Work" has nothing to do with individual freedom,it has to do with business busting union through the back door to drive down costs,and stamp out individual union locals under the guise of personal freedom.Yet these are the same types of people who were in favour of the free trade deals that have us in this standard of living downward spiral?

And individual who don't want to belong to a union do have a choice.It's to not seek out employment at a union shop,or,quit said union shop and go down the street to the non-union business down the street.They will probably take less money,have a worse benefit plan,have a greater cgance of getting hurt and/or killed on the job,and,have their working lives governed solely by the whims of their employer.But if they did this,it would be a much more honourable route than to expect to get the full ride of union membership without paying their "dues"...

Edited June 14, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Renegade]

Wrong...

Wrong? Nothing in your response contradicted what I said. Membership in the organization is voluntary.

The NAM was behind "Right to Work" legislation since the late '50's.Any business remotely interested in the idea would silly not to join.Businesses found that trying to bust a union head on is a non starter,so they try to do it throught he back door...collectively!

Of course the NAM would support Right to Work legislation. NAM would want the right to freely negotiate a supply of labour from multiple providers rather than a single provider.

How is this any different than a union being supportive of political legislation it favours?

Open shop/"Right to Work" has nothing to do with individual freedom,it has to do with business busting union through the back door to drive down costs,and stamp out individual union locals under the guise of personal freedom.Yet these are the same types of people who were in favour of the free trade deals that have us in this standard of living downward spiral?

And individual who don't want to belong to a union do have a choice.It's to not seek out employment at a union shop,or,quit said union shop and go down the street to the non-union business down the street.They will probably take less money,have a worse benefit plan,have a greater cgance of getting hurt and/or killed on the job,and,have their working lives governed solely by the whims of their employer.But if they did this,it would be a much more honourable route than to expect to get the full ride of union membership without paying their "dues"...

What you call "choice" is excactly the coercion I am talking about. Workers have other choices too. The could not decide not to work, they could move to a differnt country, they could change profession. That they have other choices doesn't alter tha fact that are denied a freedom to negotiate with ANY employer they choose including one in which workers are represented by a union.

Your argument is akin to stealing my car, but reasuring me that I still have the choice to bike or take the bus.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Renegade

[Jack Weber]

Wrong? Nothing in your response contradicted what I said. Membership in the organization is voluntary.

Of course the NAM would support Right to Work legislation. NAM would want the right to freely negotiate a supply of labour from multiple providers rather than a single provider.

How is this any different than a union being supportive of political legislation it favours?

What you call "choice" is excactly the coercion I am talking about. Workers have other choices too. The could not decide not to work, they could move to a differnt country, they could change profession. That they have other choices doesn't alter tha fact that are denied a freedom to negotiate with ANY employer they choose including one in which workers are represented by a union.

Your argument is akin to stealing my car, but reasuring me that I still have the choice to bike or take the bus.

Spectacular...

So let's turn this around...

Why should a unionized worker,who wants to remain unionized,sit by and let his/her particular union local be financially gutted by "Free Ride" members,because of legislation designed to do such a thing?

Because that's what is on the books in most RTW states...

How is it fair for an employee who works in a unionized environment,who does'nt pay dues and has refused union membership,to be represented by said union local?Should'nt that be waived?

Why is it fair that a union local must represent said non dues paying employee to the fullest it possibly can,and if it does'nt,it's leglly on the hook and could be sued for misrepresetation by said non dues paying employee?

Could you please explain the fairness in that?

[Argus]

Point out where I said that.

Furthermore, temporary contracts are awared for off-the-street mid and low positions all the time.

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.

Are you familiar with Sir Humphrey Appleby, by chance?

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."

Internal competitions are just as complex and time-consuming as externals. Sometimes moreso, actually, because people on internal competitions have the right to recourse and feedback external people don't have. As I said, I've just gone through one. It took about a year.

So what you are saying obviously points to incompetence at the managerial level because they can't do their job.

An interesting defense of HR. However, let's look at it. If there is general managerial incompetence that points to an extreme deficiency in... HR hiring and promotion policies.

No, the problem isn't so much incompetent managers, although I'm encountering a growing number of that type, but the growing mountain of paperwork HR is creating in its earnest desire to make hiring and promotions ever more complex and time-consuming. A new addition I've just encountered is an HR template sent to managers to fill out as a reference for an employee in a competition. The template requires the manager to answer to the employee's capabilities in ten separate areas, and requires the manager to include at least two examples of when the employee demonstrated the skills or competencies. It takes a couple of hours to fill out. Imagine if the manager has four or five employees in the competition!

And you want to give them the ability to simply hire off the street based upon whatever criteria they think fits.

Do you actually think HR has ANY ability whatsoever to know what skill and behaviour set is most required in a particular area?! HR know nothing, in most cases, about the work, and must always learn the criteria from the manager involved regardless. This normally requires numerous meetings and hours of negotiation and discussion over many weeks, of course.

The whole HR process now was devised to counteract that very concept because it doesn't work and creates unfair hiring practices.

Are you under the bizarre belief that current federal hiring DOES work!? You honestly think a one year time period to organize a competition, external or internal, is an indication of efficiency in hiring? Of course, even that one year period is no guarantee the competition will actually supply the people needed. In the three blondes example, HR took the better part of a year to hold a competition for AS1s and AS2s. They needed about 40-50 people. After HR was done the competition produced SEVEN. Just seven people able answer the somewhat bizarre test questions HR came up with. As a bit of irony, a friend of mine was acting AS2 - admin to the director general. Young, bright, competent, fluently bilingual and university graduate, she failed to pass even at the AS1 level.

Fortunately, she did pass an AS1 test elsewhere - at HR. So she left and the DG had to find someone else to train.

Needless to say, she didn't stay at HR long. She was appalled by the mentality there. No one even considered results. The process was all that mattered.

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.

What a good idea!!

You'd think we'd have thought of that!

Wait, we did.

Knowing HR's massive incompetence, and our future needs, we tried very hard to get them let us hold a competition to create such a pool. They refused. Why? There already was an existing pool which hadn't been fully emptied. Of course, by the time it was emptied and they were willing to start discussions on holding another competition, we had to wait well over a year before we could find any further employees.

Simply untrue. The only requirement for this appointments-without-competition is that the hiring poster be publicized for anyone that wants to grieve.

You're talking about call letters? We used that a couple of times but only within the directorate. The problem is the job type we usually run out of people in are lower level. If we need new CR4s, a call letter isn't gonna do it because we have no one lower than that. If we need AS1s, AS2s or PM2s we can get a half dozen applicants maybe.

And what rules specifically refer to "unit cohesion?"

When you've got a bunch of temps coming and going because HR is too incompetent to hold a competition in a timely manner unit cohesion breaks down.

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.

Sure it's gonna happen. But aside from one guy, every lousy employee I've encountered came through HR's competition process. And the manager who brought in that one guy never heard the end of it.

Come on Argus, what a silly question. Show us the hundreds of millions in HR oversight.

I said oversight, not merely HR oversight. I was speaking of financial oversight.

HR doesn't cost hundreds of millions in oversight, it costs hundreds of millions in wasted time and gross inefficiency.

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.

That's funny. Cause you know HR is ALWAYS grossly short staffed. Now why do you suppose that is? I mean, them being so capable of organizing hiring and promotion and all. I've been at my agency 10 years and HR has been notoriously overworked the entire time. IMHO, the reason is that HR uses clerks to do the bulk of the work (of course) but it turns up its nose at those clerks when it comes to promotion. HR believes you must have a university degree in order to rise above the level of clerks. So the clerks, most of whom don't have degrees, quickly realize they have no future there, and just as they're starting to really understand the work they're gone elsewhere, leaving HR to attempt to backfill (again).

HR has no difficulty filling the ranks of PEs, of course. It hires them straight out of university, no experience whatever, and has them telling the clerks how to do their jobs and managers how to do theirs. And those who can invent more and more arcane and complex processes get promoted!

Edited June 14, 2010 by Argus

[Renegade]

So let's turn this around...

So let's see. You don't answer my question but want to turn around and ask me.. OK. I'll play along.

Why should a unionized worker,who wants to remain unionized,sit by and let his/her particular union local be financially gutted by "Free Ride" members,because of legislation designed to do such a thing?

Because the finanical health of "his" union, is "his" problem, not that of other members who don't want to join. Just because a union will be finanically devestated because unwilling members will decline to join, doesn't entitle a union to coerce unwilling employees to join. At least not if you want to respect freedoms and rights.

How is it fair for an employee who works in a unionized environment,who does'nt pay dues and has refused union membership,to be represented by said union local?Should'nt that be waived?

It isn't. He shouldn't and isn't represented by the union. He should represent himself.

Why is it fair that a union local must represent said non dues paying employee to the fullest it possibly can,and if it does'nt,it's leglly on the hook and could be sued for misrepresetation by said non dues paying employee?

See my answer above. The union shouldn't represent any one but its members. It should have no obligation to represent non-paying employees. Those non-union employees can negotiate their own contract with the employer.

Could you please explain the fairness in that?

Just did. your turn.

[fellowtraveller]

Now we ahve the WRAP heavy industry slurpers in Alberta promoting the same type of legislation.In a province dominated by the impoverished oil and gas industry.

It is good to see that you admit that non-union shops pay less.It should be noted that in almost any sector of the economy,it's the union wage and benefit package that sets the bar.If that's gone,and that's what the open shop people want(always backed by employers),who's to say how low the bar gets set?

You need another example, that one doesn't wash.

Starting with the first mega-plant at Syncrude, the oil sands operations have been dominated by non-union operations after construction is done(nearly all of it was built with union workers). But operations are done almost exclsuively by non union staff. Those staff are very well paid, with great beneift packages and have repeatedly rejected union overtures.

Working, pay and saftey conditions today owe a lot to unions in the last century, but every province has plenty of safety, hours of work, pay and holiday statutes. Today the role of unions is to get the absolute maximum money and benefits for their members. They are no more a benefit to society that any corporation trying to gain profit for its shareholders.

It is trendy and noble of them to pretend otherwise, but that is the reality.

Personally, I am entirely capable of negotiating the price payable for renting my mind and money and have no need of representation. Unfortunately, the fascism of the Rand formula means many Candians do not ever have that choice.

[fellowtraveller]

How is it fair for an employee who works in a unionized environment,who does'nt pay dues and has refused union membership,to be represented by said union local?Should'nt that be waived?

Expain that circumstance. The long, long practiced law in Canada via the Rand formula is that you are not obligated to join any union, but you are obliged to pay full dues and your employer is further obliged to collect and submit them to the recognized collective bargaining agent, the union of the jobsite and you as an employee are bound by the provisions of the collectibve bargaining Agreement of a union to which you do not belong..

[Jack Weber]

So let's see. You don't answer my question but want to turn around and ask me.. OK. I'll play along.

Because the finanical health of "his" union, is "his" problem, not that of other members who don't want to join. Just because a union will be finanically devestated because unwilling members will decline to join, doesn't entitle a union to coerce unwilling employees to join. At least not if you want to respect freedoms and rights.

It isn't. He shouldn't and isn't represented by the union. He should represent himself.

See my answer above. The union shouldn't represent any one but its members. It should have no obligation to represent non-paying employees. Those non-union employees can negotiate their own contract with the employer.

Just did. your turn.

Interesting,because we might be near some agreement here.

I agree that individuals who do not want to be members of unions,should'nt pay dues.But that's not what the RTW crowd(represented by the NAM) advocates for.They advocate for,and indeed have been successful at,getting legislation on the books that forces union locals to represent non dues paying employee's.Even to the extent that if that employee feels he,or she, was not represented properly the local can be sued.Of course,this is all part of the divide and conquer mentality of the union busters,who also don't repect individual rights and freedom(freedom of association,for example).And it is designed to break the financial backs of individual union locals,so that they essentially go out of business.This,of course,has the long term effect of surpressing wages and benefit plans..Nevermind the fact that there is only the minimum legal standard for workplace health and safety.

These are known as "Free Ride" employee's,who enjoy the benefits of union membership,but don't pay for it.As far as I'm concerned these people can be free agents all they want,but if they get into a tight spot with that employer,they're on their own and don't deserve any assistance.

[Jack Weber]

Expain that circumstance. The long, long practiced law in Canada via the Rand formula is that you are not obligated to join any union, but you are obliged to pay full dues and your employer is further obliged to collect and submit them to the recognized collective bargaining agent, the union of the jobsite and you as an employee are bound by the provisions of the collectibve bargaining Agreement of a union to which you do not belong..

WRAPers have RTW as part of there agenda.In Canada,this is called Open Shop or Merrit Shop.Organizations that espouse these views are almost solely made up of employers,with only the employers well being in mind.

I suspect if the WRAP party gets its way,they will go after the Rand Formula AND the Check Off process to go the way of RTW states in the US.

Basically,it's legislated union busting...

[Jack Weber]

You need another example, that one doesn't wash.

Starting with the first mega-plant at Syncrude, the oil sands operations have been dominated by non-union operations after construction is done(nearly all of it was built with union workers). But operations are done almost exclsuively by non union staff. Those staff are very well paid, with great beneift packages and have repeatedly rejected union overtures.

Working, pay and saftey conditions today owe a lot to unions in the last century, but every province has plenty of safety, hours of work, pay and holiday statutes. Today the role of unions is to get the absolute maximum money and benefits for their members. They are no more a benefit to society that any corporation trying to gain profit for its shareholders.

It is trendy and noble of them to pretend otherwise, but that is the reality.

Personally, I am entirely capable of negotiating the price payable for renting my mind and money and have no need of representation. Unfortunately, the fascism of the Rand formula means many Candians do not ever have that choice.

I'm a tradesperson...

I disagree with you entirely...

[punked]

You can't have a Union where people who "don't want" to join don't have to. Then the Bosses will just fire those who want to join or are in the union. It doesn't work that way, that is why the workers have the right to create a union then vote on it. If you don't want to be in it, convince others or find a different place of employment because if 50-70% of the workers think their should be a Union their is probably a reason for it.

[Renegade]

Interesting,because we might be near some agreement here.

I agree that individuals who do not want to be members of unions,should'nt pay dues.But that's not what the RTW crowd(represented by the NAM) advocates for.They advocate for,and indeed have been successful at,getting legislation on the books that forces union locals to represent non dues paying employee's.

It has been my experience that virtually evey group advocates for legislation which is in their beneift, and then tries to couch their rationale in a righteous argument. The real test is not if the legislation gets passed, the test is if the rationale passes muster. This is true of unions as much as it is for NAM.

Even to the extent that if that employee feels he,or she, was not represented properly the local can be sued.Of course,this is all part of the divide and conquer mentality of the union busters,who also don't repect individual rights and freedom(freedom of association,for example).And it is designed to break the financial backs of individual union locals,so that they essentially go out of business.This,of course,has the long term effect of surpressing wages and benefit plans..Nevermind the fact that there is only the minimum legal standard for workplace health and safety.

As I've said, I'm not defending the right-to-work legislation that NAM is advocating, and I don't agree that unions should be forced to represent non-members any more than I believe other workers should be forced to be represented by the union.

These are known as "Free Ride" employee's,who enjoy the benefits of union membership,but don't pay for it.As far as I'm concerned these people can be free agents all they want,but if they get into a tight spot with that employer,they're on their own and don't deserve any assistance.

I certainly agree, that non-union employees are on their own, as they have chosen to be. If you agree that union membership should be optional and up to the employee (within that same employer), that woudl be contrary to the position of most unions. This also seems to be contrary to your previously stated position, that an employee's only other choice is to find other employment.

[Renegade]

You can't have a Union where people who "don't want" to join don't have to. Then the Bosses will just fire those who want to join or are in the union. It doesn't work that way, that is why the workers have the right to create a union then vote on it. If you don't want to be in it, convince others or find a different place of employment because if 50-70% of the workers think their should be a Union their is probably a reason for it.

If "the Bosses" don't want to enter a contract with a union, why should they be forced to. Let's say in your scenario, the 50%-70% of workers want to create a union, however "the Bosses", don't want to negotiate through collective bargning. They should be free to hire employees who want to sign individual contracts. They of course have to balance that option with the knowledge that they will need to go through the expense of hiring and retraining that 50-70% of employees.

If you don't want to join a union you shouldn't have to convince others or be coerced. Isn't that what freedom is?

[punked]

If "the Bosses" don't want to enter a contract with a union, why should they be forced to. Let's say in your scenario, the 50%-70% of workers want to create a union, however "the Bosses", don't want to negotiate through collective bargning. They should be free to hire employees who want to sign individual contracts. They of course have to balance that option with the knowledge that they will need to go through the expense of hiring and retraining that 50-70% of employees.

If you don't want to join a union you shouldn't have to convince others or be coerced. Isn't that what freedom is?

They are their are rules around that though so the Union is not put in a discriminatory place. You can look at Valve-Inco right now and they are doing just that.

If you want to join a Union you shouldn't be forced not to because you are threatened either and that is what would happen in your world. The reason why the labour are how they are is because other wise they would be abused. I am sure you are all for Union busting however that is really taking us back in time 100 years.

[Renegade]

They are their are rules around that though so the Union is not put in a discriminatory place.

Your grammer leaves a lot to be desired. I'n really not sure what kind of "discriminatory place" you are taking about.

If you want to join a Union you shouldn't be forced not to because you are threatened either and that is what would happen in your world.

You should be absolutely free to join a union, just as the employer should be free to choose who he deals with. A union should only represent workers when the workers want union representation, and an employer wants to negotiate through collective barganing.

Any agreement, is only freely entered into, when all parties do so voluntarily. Legislation which forces employees to join unions, or forces employers to deal with union is coercion, just as legislation which prohibited unions would be coercion.

The reason why the labour are how they are is because other wise they would be abused.

What exactly constitues "abuse" when contracts are freely entered into?

Edited June 14, 2010 by Renegade

[punked]

Your grammer leaves a lot to be desired. I'n really not sure what kind of "discriminatory place" you are taking about.

You should be absolutely free to join a union, just as the employer should be free to choose who he deals with. A union should only represent workers when the workers want union representation, and an employer wants to negotiate through collective barganing.

Any agreement, is only freely entered into, when all parties do so voluntarily. Legislation which forces employees to join unions, or forces employers to deal with union is coercion, just as legislation which prohibited unions would be coercion.

What exactly constitues "abuse" when contracts are freely entered into?

See we are at an impasse here for one reason. You want your right to assemble who ever you want and not join a union (fine i get that) I want my right to form a union with out fear of repercussion or discrimination. These things are mutually exclusive.

If you give people the right to negotiation with whoever they regardless of workers rights or opinions then they will always bust a union because they know in the long run the union will want the best situation for the workers. If you give unions the right to have first shoot of making a fair deal with enforcing certain laws then it is an all or none situation.

What we really should be arguing is if you believe the union has a right to exist, that is truly your position.

[Renegade]

I want my right to form a union with out fear of repercussion or discrimination. These things are mutually exclusive.

I believe you have the right to form a union. I don't believe you have the right to not being discrimmminated because of your decision to form a union. Ultimately the discrimmination is based upon someelses's right to choose and you should not be able to force him to restrict his choices.

If you give people the right to negotiation with whoever they regardless of workers rights or opinions then they will always bust a union because they know in the long run the union will want the best situation for the workers.

What you are basicly admitting to and I agree is that if unions wern't artificially protected by coercion they would cease to exist. They would cease to exist because most workers and most employers would not choose them.

If you give unions the right to have first shoot of making a fair deal with enforcing certain laws then it is an all or none situation.

I have no idea what you are saying here. First, unions don't have rights, only people do, so it is not logical to give union "rights". Second, who determines what is a "fair deal"? Certainly a union isn't interested in a "fair deal" they are interested in the best deal they can get. Neither is an employer interested in a "fair deal" they are interested in the best deal from their POV. What "all or none situation" are you talking about. Please take the time to articulate your position. Your sentence makes no sense.

What we really should be arguing is if you believe the union has a right to exist, that is truly your position.

Again a union doesn't have a "right" like people do, it is simply an entity.

People have the right to join a collective, (which they call a union). I've already stated that. What I don't believe is that they have the right to force people to deal with the union involuntarily.

A union which wants to survive should make a value proposition attractive enough to an employer so that the employer choose to deal with a union.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Renegade

[Shwa]

My evidence is anecdotal. If you have numbers, then have at it.

But you don't, and your response is to say that the system "isn't perfect" but nothing else...

I suspect Argus would be able to provide proof, but is bound by employer agreements not to.

As with healthcare, you point to legislation and rules as evidence that things are ok not to reality. At least, that is now I see it.

No, you are missing the point. Again. Let me re-iterate:

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.

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).

I look after the...call centre and right now I have about 82 terms...and I get about 10 appointments this way, a year, but there is such a huge turn-a-around there, that they don't stay very long...

The call centre usually hires every couple of months and it is between 15 - 30 people. They have just went through a huge renovation project and can now accommodate an additional 80 staff. They did the last hiring in January and I am sure they will have another one in September. This is actually the longest they have gone without hiring and they have just put 56 staff to part time in April and just increased them again as of June 28 for the summer.

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?

[Shwa]

Shwa wrote: Furthermore, temporary contracts are awared for off-the-street mid and low positions all the time.

Argus replied: To say people are given term contracts without competition "all the time" is simply not true in most federal departments and agencies.

Where did I say that people are given terms contracts without competition "all the time?" Or are you confused?

Are you familiar with Sir Humphrey Appleby, by chance?

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?

Internal competitions are just as complex and time-consuming as externals. Sometimes moreso, actually, because people on internal competitions have the right to recourse and feedback external people don't have. As I said, I've just gone through one. It took about a year.

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.

An interesting defense of HR. However, let's look at it. If there is general managerial incompetence that points to an extreme deficiency in... HR hiring and promotion policies.

"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.

Imagine if the manager has four or five employees in the competition!

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.

Do you actually think HR has ANY ability whatsoever to know what skill and behaviour set is most required in a particular area?! HR know nothing, in most cases, about the work, and must always learn the criteria from the manager involved regardless. This normally requires numerous meetings and hours of negotiation and discussion over many weeks, of course.

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.

Are you under the bizarre belief that current federal hiring DOES work!? You honestly think a one year time period to organize a competition, external or internal, is an indication of efficiency in hiring? Of course, even that one year period is no guarantee the competition will actually supply the people needed. In the three blondes example, HR took the better part of a year to hold a competition for AS1s and AS2s. They needed about 40-50 people. After HR was done the competition produced SEVEN. Just seven people able answer the somewhat bizarre test questions HR came up with. As a bit of irony, a friend of mine was acting AS2 - admin to the director general. Young, bright, competent, fluently bilingual and university graduate, she failed to pass even at the AS1 level.

Federal hiring does work for the most part. The work get done, the people get their services, their passports, their cheques, their goods.

You honestly think a one year time period to organize a competition, external or internal, is an indication of efficiency in hiring? Of course, even that one year period is no guarantee the competition will actually supply the people needed.

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.

What a good idea!!

You'd think we'd have thought of that!

Wait, we did.

Knowing HR's massive incompetence, and our future needs, we tried very hard to get them let us hold a competition to create such a pool. They refused. Why? There already was an existing pool which hadn't been fully emptied. Of course, by the time it was emptied and they were willing to start discussions on holding another competition, we had to wait well over a year before we could find any further employees.

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.

You're talking about call letters? We used that a couple of times but only within the directorate. The problem is the job type we usually run out of people in are lower level. If we need new CR4s, a call letter isn't gonna do it because we have no one lower than that. If we need AS1s, AS2s or PM2s we can get a half dozen applicants maybe.

No, I am referring to appointments without competition.

When you've got a bunch of temps coming and going because HR is too incompetent to hold a competition in a timely manner unit cohesion breaks down.

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?

Sure it's gonna happen. But aside from one guy, every lousy employee I've encountered came through HR's competition process. And the manager who brought in that one guy never heard the end of it.

Every good employee I've encountered came through HR's competition process.

HR doesn't cost hundreds of millions in oversight, it costs hundreds of millions in wasted time and gross inefficiency.

Dubious statement.

That's funny. Cause you know HR is ALWAYS grossly short staffed. Now why do you suppose that is? I mean, them being so capable of organizing hiring and promotion and all. I've been at my agency 10 years and HR has been notoriously overworked the entire time. IMHO, the reason is that HR uses clerks to do the bulk of the work (of course) but it turns up its nose at those clerks when it comes to promotion. HR believes you must have a university degree in order to rise above the level of clerks. So the clerks, most of whom don't have degrees, quickly realize they have no future there, and just as they're starting to really understand the work they're gone elsewhere, leaving HR to attempt to backfill (again).

HR has no difficulty filling the ranks of PEs, of course. It hires them straight out of university, no experience whatever, and has them telling the clerks how to do their jobs and managers how to do theirs. And those who can invent more and more arcane and complex processes get promoted!

Sometimes it is like that, sometimes it isn't. Somewhere in the middle is the average. And, as they say, its a management problem.