Public Sector Unions

[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.

You have to post a competition, run it, and select your candidate then go through any appeals.

That's already too much bureaucracy, and the benefit of such a process isn't evident.

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.

See my example above. There was a good position in one area, and I knew of a candidate who didn't receive the position... The appeal process took a long time, and there was also an investigation of whether the process was fair.

That was a year or more....

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Of course, I hate anecdotal information but in the absence of anything else whatsoever what are we to do ?

Even Argus' information, which though anecdotal is replete with detail and knowledge, isn't enough for you.

Our hands are tied by a government that keeps its inefficiencies secret.

Here's a few comments from a friend of mine who works in HR in one of the largest Federal departments. My question was with regard to how long it takes for a temporary (term)employee to become a permanent appointment (3 years. It used to be 5).

But of course, you want numbers, not anecdotes. You saw the Audits and Data Services links when you visited the Public Service Commission website right? You know, the link that will lead you to the reports and datasets for hiring practices in the Federal Public Service? You didn't ignore that link and all those reports to try and score some point about "posted policies" helping us in the discussion did you?

3 years seems like an awfully long time. For call centre people, where I used to work they reviewed someone at 3 months and hired or let go at that time.

The first link I went to outlined the practice, which sounds fine in the abstract but as with anything what are the results ? If there was a link to performance benchmarks or stats, please re-post as I apologize if I missed it.

[fellowtraveller]

The hiring process is mental in the federal civil service. By the time you get through months or years of applications, screening, competitons and appeals to hire a file clerk you have adapted operations so you no longer need the position. If the Public Sevice Commission is involved, triple all timeframes.

That is why managers hire term employees, then extend them endlessly. Actually filling the postion is such a nightmare they just cannot be arsed.

[fellowtraveller]

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.

?????

What on earth are you talking about?

In Canada, we have the right of association, which also means that we have the right not to asscoiate too. You or any other fascist cannot oblige me to join anything I choose not to join- not your church, not your union, not your political party. Of course workers have the right to form unions, and the legal right to seek a collective agreement.

But your little fascist world resents that others have no need or desire and certainly no legal obligation to join you in ypour endeavour. Simply working beside you does not mean that I am like you. The Rand formula was the greatest accomplishment ever for unions, because it assured the money kept coming to the union with no effort at all, no accountability to employess, staff or membership.

I'm quite capable of negotiating my own terms of employement, and quite willing to accept that I may have a contract that is better or worse than yours. But the fascists won't allow it, little me threatens the little empires built and fiercely protected down at the hall.

And please stop pretending unions are some kind of 'social conscience', those days are long long gone. Their purpose is twofold 1) to get absolutely as much money and benefit and job security for their members, and 2) to provide jobs for union executives at all times. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[fellowtraveller]

You have to post a competition, run it, and select your candidate then go through any appeals.

That's already too much bureaucracy, and the benefit of such a process isn't eviden

There are several benefits. Managers can spend weeks writing job descriptions, HR people can spend months tinkering, everybody can spend gobs of time advertising, screening, selecting applicants for interview, interviewing, appealing, training etc etc. That bumps the job count required significantly, even if you never hire anybody. The benefit?- every moment of the whole charade is done by dues-paying union members, and it takes plenty of them, and every one of them is deicated to continuing the dog and pony show that pays all the bills.

It does not reall matter at all who you hire anyway, there is simply no management accountability whatsoever.

In the private sector, if I hire even a few idiots, my boss will very soon realize that I am the problem and fire me and all the other idiots.

In the public sector, you can make a career of hiring and promoting idiots. Nobody is going to get fired by anybody, ever. No consequences.

Edited June 15, 2010 by fellowtraveller

[dre]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Its the right of the EMPLOYER to only hire from within a union if they so choose. If they sign a collective bargaining agreement that stipulates they wont hire outside the union then nobody has been "forced" into anything. Two parties negotiated a voluntary contract.

Are you suggesting we remove the right of an employer to sign a CBA that stipulates they will only use union workers?

[Jack Weber]

Its the right of the EMPLOYER to only hire from within a union if they so choose. If they sign a collective bargaining agreement that stipulates they wont hire outside the union then nobody has been "forced" into anything. Two parties negotiated a voluntary contract.

Are you suggesting we remove the right of an employer to sign a CBA that stipulates they will only use union workers?

I think he's supporting some sort of provision that would allow employers to circumvent any bargaining process after a positive certification vote.In essence,disregard the current labour legislation on the books in every province...

Edited June 15, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Renegade]

Its the right of the EMPLOYER to only hire from within a union if they so choose. If they sign a collective bargaining agreement that stipulates they wont hire outside the union then nobody has been "forced" into anything. Two parties negotiated a voluntary contract.

Are you suggesting we remove the right of an employer to sign a CBA that stipulates they will only use union workers?

No, I completely agree that any employer who signs a CBA completely voluntarily is obligated to live by it. What I don't support is that employers do not have a choice but to deal with a union. If more then a threshold of workers decide to be represented by a union, does an employer have a choice? Possibly his only legal choice is to go out of business, as Walmart did. An employer should have the option of either contracting with other workers who do not wish to be union represented, or deal with the union for those who wish to be represented by the union and independantly with those who don't.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Renegade

[Renegade]

I think he's supporting some sort of provision that would allow employers to circumvent any bargaining process after a positive certification vote.In essence,disregard the current labour legislation on the books in every province...

Right. So if I understand your defense: "It's on the books in evey province, so that must make it just". Did I get that right?

Unfortunately laws are driven by self-interest by those who have power, not necessarily by what is just.

[Jack Weber]

Right. So if I understand your defense: "It's on the books in evey province, so that must make it just". Did I get that right?

Unfortunately laws are driven by self-interest by those who have power, not necessarily by what is just.

Yes..

It's the law...

At least you've just admitted you want legally enshrined union busting...

What your proposing is also self interest...Corporate self interest.I've seen their kind of "workplace justice"...Not interested...

[Renegade]

Yes..

It's the law...

OK, but the RTW is also the law in 22 states, yet you have issue with it. How is it that you can on one had say "It's the law so it must be right, but then take issue with RTW laws. Your stand lacks credibiity.

At least you've just admitted you want legally enshrined union busting...

I never shied from addmitting it. Union law as it is currently written is a coercive set of rules which use force to protect an instutuion which in the absense of force to protect it would "bust".

What your proposing is also self interest...Corporate self interest.I've seen their kind of "workplace justice"...Not interested...

How so? How do you even know what my self-interest is? I would say it is in my self-interest to be free, so yes when I propose freedom it is in my self-interest. Moreover I don't just think it is in my interest to be free, I think it is my right and that of everyone else, both workers and employers.

Your position is in your self-interest too (I'm assuming you are a unionized worker), but it is at the cost of someone else's freedom.

[Jack Weber]

OK, but the RTW is also the law in 22 states, yet you have issue with it. How is it that you can on one had say "It's the law so it must be right, but then take issue with RTW laws. Your stand lacks credibiity.

I never shied from addmitting it. Union law as it is currently written is a coercive set of rules which use force to protect an instutuion which in the absense of force to protect it would "bust".

How so? How do you even know what my self-interest is? I would say it is in my self-interest to be free, so yes when I propose freedom it is in my self-interest. Moreover I don't just think it is in my interest to be free, I think it is my right and that of everyone else, both workers and employers.

Your position is in your self-interest too (I'm assuming you are a unionized worker), but it is at the cost of someone else's freedom.

RTW is about union busting under the guise of freedom.It would be one thing if it was about someone simply not wanting to belong to a union,but it is'nt.It's about breaking the financial backs of union locals through the back door.In essence,it's legalized union busting.I suggest you look where the lowest stanbdard of living is,by region,in the U.S

Your supposition that unions only exist because of some legalistic jargon is laughable.It is almost always the poor treatment given to employee's that brings on any union drive.What your asking for is some sort of legal means to either effectively neuter organized labour,or eradicate it all together.

Your coercion arguement is ridiculous because it presupposes that there are no option for employee's who don't want to belong to a union,almost as if there is 95% of the workforce is organized.It is, in fact,the opposite.So they do have alternative options of employment,if they feel they are being coerced and extorted.Your pro business/free market supposition is simply incorrect.

Your freedom arguement is the convenient cover of a free marketeering union buster.It's the union busting your after,not personal freedom.I like the personal freedom my union bargained wage allows me.

[Renegade]

RTW is about union busting under the guise of freedom.It would be one thing if it was about someone simply not wanting to belong to a union,but it is'nt.It's about breaking the financial backs of union locals through the back door.In essence,it's legalized union busting.I suggest you look where the lowest stanbdard of living is,by region,in the U.S

Yet, it is the law in some states. What happened to your justification, "It's the law so it must be just"?

Your supposition that unions only exist because of some legalistic jargon is laughable.'

Great. Then you should have no objection to the removal of laws which protect unions. Those laws prevent employers from dealing with labour outside the union.

It is almost always the poor treatment given to employee's that brings on any union drive.What your asking for is some sort of legal means to either effectively neuter organized labour,or eradicate it all together.

No, there is no need for me to eradicate it. It would itself die without legislative protection.

Your coercion arguement is ridiculous because it presupposes that there are no option for employee's who don't want to belong to a union,almost as if there is 95% of the workforce is organized.It is, in fact,the opposite.So they do have alternative options of employment,if they feel they are being coerced and extorted.Your pro business/free market supposition is simply incorrect.

You simply don't understand the meaning of the word coercion. It is coercion when some of your choices are taken away. It is irrelevant if you still have other choices.

Your freedom arguement is the convenient cover of a free marketeering union buster.It's the union busting your after,not personal freedom.I like the personal freedom my union bargained wage allows me.

Yet you have not been able to refute my argument.

You seem to think that calling me "free marketeering" is some kind of insult. I don't have any issue with the term. Any one who supports voluntary contracts, and consequently freedom, would be comfortable with free markets. Only those who collude to fix prices or restrict supply or demand would be against free market priniples.

Of course you like the "personal freedom my union bargained wage allows me" but it derived at the cost of some other's freedom. I'm sure the plantation owner enjoyed the personal freedom supported by the wealth derived from the labour of slaves too.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Renegade

[Argus]

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.

Oh I'm willing to concede the possibilty federal HR departments might occasionally work with some efficiency. After all, there are a lot of departments and agencies. It's possible that a few occasionally have reasonable success in what they do.

I'm just not familiar with them. I'm only familiar with the ludicrously expensive, time-wasting practices of the departments and agencies I do know, with competition after competition which took far longer than they should have and resulted in far fewer people being hired than were needed.

"extreme deficiency" is hyperbole.

Not at all, not given your evident contempt for middle management, who you seem to feel are unfailingly incompetent and have nothing much to do with their lives but blow bubbles.

eah 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.

Most of the managers I know don't have time to eat, much less read newspapers at work. Even foregoing breaks and lunch most of them work overtime - unpaid - every week.

Hey, I agree that some HR paperwork and processes are bewildering at times, no doubt about that. But don't give me the 'poor manager' schpiel when there are 37 hours in a work week. Managers also have to fill out performance evaluations too and they might take four hours per employee. But so what? That's their job.

Yes, managers had a 37 hr work week which generally had 40 hrs of work in it. But since HR has been pouring more and more work onto their heads, particularly in my agency (ever heard of the absurdly complex system called PQP?) they have more like 50 hours of work each week.

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.

Uh huhh. The last discussion I'm aware of had a manager and her top team leader trying to explain to the nitwits at HR that all the questions they thought were absolutely necessary to determine the qualifications of potential lower level managers were ridiculously out of place and likely to result in almost everyone failing the competition. HR wouldn't budge and they wound up with a pool of 2 people - where they needed about twenty. It was such a muckup higher management ordered another competition to be run immediately, as quickly as possible. I think this one went faster, only about ten months, and wound up with 6 people.

Should I tell you about the PM5 which ran almost two years? The CR3/4 competition in which we had all seven people working as temps at our agency fail to qualify even at the CR3 level, despite the fact they were excellent workers who did their jobs very well indeed?

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.

What HR has are people who couldn't be employed anywhere else, people of no substantive talent, ability, skill or imagination, who are generally both intellectually and physically lazy, the worst employees in any department or agency, with the social skills that make IT geeks seem personable. They don't do anything right, be it staffing, compensation or employment policy and discipline.

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

This reminds me of a statement by someone about the US invasion of Grenada. To paraphrase, "People say that, despite all the complaints about incompetence and cowardice, the US Army is to be congratulated because, after all, we won. The problem is the New York Police Department would have won on Grenada, and probably faster.

Given the massive amounts of funding poured into HR they do manager to actually run a halfassed, incompetent staffing program that, yes, does eventually see people hired. But even the Kremlin at the heights of soviet inefficiency still managed to hire staff. Eventually.

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?

My point was that it is the nature of temps to have a very high, rapid and unpredictable turnover. Staffing a department with temps is a recipe for disaster, for incompetent work at high expense.

Are you going to disagree?

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

And how do you know where every employee you met came from?

For a long time most of the employees in that section where I worked - admin - came in as temps first, then eventually got into an HR process and were hired. Now does that mean they're part of your group who "came in through HR's competition process? I suppose so, but we got them because we brought them in the back door first, as known products, then were able to evaluate them before they got into the HR competition process.

[Michael Hardner]

Uh huhh. The last discussion I'm aware of had a manager and her top team leader trying to explain to the nitwits at HR that all the questions they thought were absolutely necessary to determine the qualifications of potential lower level managers were ridiculously out of place and likely to result in almost everyone failing the competition.

Great post, Argus.

I remember now that I did do an IT exam for Ontario - Ministry of Social Services, because they were asking for both large system skills and web application skills. Looking around the room, I looked at least 10 years younger than any of the other applicants, which likely meant I had an edge in the web skills area. The large system questions were softball - very easy.

The only thing that had me worried was that there were errors in the exam. Things you were supposed to use as a basis for your answers that couldn't possibly have worked.

As I continued I found more of these. In the end, I didn't get even get called.

Ah well, I probably dodged a bullet.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[bloodyminded]

No, I completely agree that any employer who signs a CBA completely voluntarily is obligated to live by it. What I don't support is that employers do not have a choice but to deal with a union. If more then a threshold of workers decide to be represented by a union, does an employer have a choice? Possibly his only legal choice is to go out of business, as Walmart did. An employer should have the option of either contracting with other workers who do not wish to be union represented, or deal with the union for those who wish to be represented by the union and independantly with those who don't.

????

Eeryone keeps talking about "choice"...unless it's a big business--WalMart in this case--who suddenly, magically have no choice.

They chose to shut down a branch in the face of employee organizing. Nobody made them do it.

[Renegade]

????

Eeryone keeps talking about "choice"...unless it's a big business--WalMart in this case--who suddenly, magically have no choice.

They chose to shut down a branch in the face of employee organizing. Nobody made them do it.

Yes they made a choice, between available options. The point is they had fewer options available because of legal restrictions.

Let's put it this way, everyone - workers, unions, corporations, ALWAYS have choices almost no matter what the circumstance, however force can be used to restrict their choices so the available choices are not very attractive.

Even slaves had choices, they could have tried to run away and risked punishment, they could have refused to work and risked the consequences, or they could choose to work under enslavement. The fact that they have SOME choice doesn't excuse the fact that their options were LIMITED due to coercion.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Renegade

[bloodyminded]

Yes they made a choice, between available options. The point is they had fewer options available because of legal restrictions.

Let's put it this way, everyone - workers, unions, corporations, ALWAYS have choices almost no matter what the circumstance, however force can be used to restrict their choices so the available choices are not very attractive.

Even slaves had choices, they could have tried to run away and risked punishment, they could have refused to work and risked the consequences, or they could choose to work under enslavement. The fact that they have SOME choice doesn't excuse the fact that their options were LIMITED due to coercion.

All true enough, but the slave analogy, while talking about monumentally rich and powerful companies, is not a worthwhile one. It's kinda hard to shed tears for poor, suffering little WalMart. They're doing just fine, even as they struggle heroically against the yoke of Law and Big Government.

Edited June 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Oh I'm willing to concede the possibilty federal HR departments might occasionally work with some efficiency. After all, there are a lot of departments and agencies. It's possible that a few occasionally have reasonable success in what they do.

I'm just not familiar with them. I'm only familiar with the ludicrously expensive, time-wasting practices of the departments and agencies I do know, with competition after competition which took far longer than they should have and resulted in far fewer people being hired than were needed.

The PSC website has data on time-to-hire studies they have done. Check out the data.

Not at all, not given your evident contempt for middle management, who you seem to feel are unfailingly incompetent and have nothing much to do with their lives but blow bubbles.

Most of the managers I know don't have time to eat, much less read newspapers at work. Even foregoing breaks and lunch most of them work overtime - unpaid - every week.

No contempt at all. I know some very good middle managers and I know some very bad ones and I know a bunch in between. By and large I find bad managers tend to surround themselves with less competent staff in order not to stand out and risk their career path.

Yes, managers had a 37 hr work week which generally had 40 hrs of work in it. But since HR has been pouring more and more work onto their heads, particularly in my agency (ever heard of the absurdly complex system called PQP?) they have more like 50 hours of work each week.

I know some managers that email from home on a Sunday night because they think it is expected of them or that if they don't keep on top of it all, their career path will suffer. Now, would you call this a good manager or a bad manager? (I know of several Directors, DG's and ADM's who do the same thing)

Uh huhh. The last discussion I'm aware of had a manager and her top team leader trying to explain to the nitwits at HR that all the questions they thought were absolutely necessary to determine the qualifications of potential lower level managers were ridiculously out of place and likely to result in almost everyone failing the competition. HR wouldn't budge and they wound up with a pool of 2 people - where they needed about twenty. It was such a muckup higher management ordered another competition to be run immediately, as quickly as possible. I think this one went faster, only about ten months, and wound up with 6 people.

I have seen these sorts of muck-up as well. Some brutally run competitions that were astonishing in their breadth of incompetence. But the exceptions do not prove the rule. By and large I have also observed well run competitions, postings, appointments, job fairs, etc in which the managers responsible guide the process with their expertise and are supported in their endeavours by professional HR folks. Both private and public sectors.

Should I tell you about the PM5 which ran almost two years? The CR3/4 competition in which we had all seven people working as temps at our agency fail to qualify even at the CR3 level, despite the fact they were excellent workers who did their jobs very well indeed?

You tell me about that and I will tell you about the fly-in CEO's and CIO's for several large departmanets who were basically appointed on spec. Too bad Franks magazine in Ottawa went under eh?

PS - HR has their share of Peter Principle managers as well, so I am not exonerating them at all.

Agreed. Some in top positions.

What HR has are people who couldn't be employed anywhere else, people of no substantive talent, ability, skill or imagination, who are generally both intellectually and physically lazy, the worst employees in any department or agency, with the social skills that make IT geeks seem personable. They don't do anything right, be it staffing, compensation or employment policy and discipline.

An unfair condemnation unworthy of you.

This reminds me of a statement by someone about the US invasion of Grenada. To paraphrase, "People say that, despite all the complaints about incompetence and cowardice, the US Army is to be congratulated because, after all, we won. The problem is the New York Police Department would have won on Grenada, and probably faster.

Not quite the same thing.

Given the massive amounts of funding poured into HR they do manager to actually run a halfassed, incompetent staffing program that, yes, does eventually see people hired. But even the Kremlin at the heights of soviet inefficiency still managed to hire staff. Eventually.

Again, an unfair and unworthy comment. As if the world turns on your anger and disrespect.

My point was that it is the nature of temps to have a very high, rapid and unpredictable turnover. Staffing a department with temps is a recipe for disaster, for incompetent work at high expense.

Are you going to disagree?

There are no departments - provincial or federal - that are staffed "with temps." It is a ridiculous question.

And how do you know where every employee you met came from?

For a long time most of the employees in that section where I worked - admin - came in as temps first, then eventually got into an HR process and were hired. Now does that mean they're part of your group who "came in through HR's competition process? I suppose so, but we got them because we brought them in the back door first, as known products, then were able to evaluate them before they got into the HR competition process.

Argus, you must be careful not to misread what I type. I said "every good employee" which corresponds to your notion of an evaluation of some sort.

Of course, I have met some WTF doozers who have come through the competition processes too, in both public and private sectors. I never question HR when good employees arrive, only when the bad ones show up. Luckily those types are the shrinking minority of workers.

[Renegade]

All true enough, but the slave analogy, while talking about monumentally rich and powerful companies, is not a worthwhile one. It's kinda hard to shed tears for poor, suffering little WalMart. They're doing just fine, even as they struggle heroically against the yoke of Law and Big Government.

So then, your argument is not based upon the principle of the restriction of choice. It is based upon how much sympathy you feel for the person or organizatoin which has its choice restricted?

What is your criteria for determining who is in an unsympathetic enough situation that it is ok to restrict their choices?

Edited June 16, 2010 by Renegade

[bloodyminded]

So then, your argument is not based upon the principle of the restriction of choice. It is based upon how much sympathy you feel for the person or organizatoin which has its choice restricted?

What is your criteria for determining who is in a sympathetic enough situation that it is ok to restrict their choices?

If a company is the most successful company on Earth, to suggest they face unfair restrictions doesn't even make sense. The argument is a non-starter.

In fact, there is de facto political clout which is every bit as important as on-its-face political clout; so WalMart, by the very fact of its tremendous success and monumental wealth, already has an advantage that most businesses (much less individual human beings) simply cannot have.

[Renegade]

If a company is the most successful company on Earth, to suggest they face unfair restrictions doesn't even make sense. The argument is a non-starter.

So, according to you it is not possible for a company to be unfairly treated if it is successful? Really? What you seem to be saying is that it is ok to use force on successful entities. Is that right?

In fact, there is de facto political clout which is every bit as important as on-its-face political clout; so WalMart, by the very fact of its tremendous success and monumental wealth, already has an advantage that most businesses (much less individual human beings) simply cannot have.

So what if it is successful? The set of rules and principles which apply to successful entities (or individuals) should be the same set of rules which apply to unsuccessful ones.

BTW, in case you didn't notice, the rules wich apply to unionization in organizations which are successful, are the SAME rules which apply to unsuccessful organizations. So your proposition that it is ok to apply restrictions because an entity is successful doesn't hold any water.

[Michael Hardner]

The PSC website has data on time-to-hire studies they have done. Check out the data.

Hey Shwa - I did find this:

PSC - time to hire

It's abysmal - 24 to 31 WEEKS to hire.

Here's a paper from a private consultant in 2002 - which arguably should be longer than today, given improvements that have happened since then - LinkedIn, Monster, etc. were only marginal services if they existed at all:

Alan Davis Inc

Executive 15 weeks

Management/Professional 9 weeks

Technical 7 weeks

Clerical Support 4 weeks

But that's not government. So let's look at the BC Civil Service:

BC Budget Site

Performance Measure

2008/09

Forecast

Average time to hire in calendar days 60

2009/10

Target

Average time to hire in calendar days 55

2010/11

Target

Average time to hire in calendar days 50

2011/12

Target

Average time to hire in calendar days 45

And look at the federal site - the statistics are years old... and everywhere on the PSC site are the names of dozens of individuals tasked with tracking all this stuff. Argus' posts are right on the mark, and depressingly so.

To add: 2 years to hire should never happen.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Pliny]

Believe it or not, those who run those corps are often very bright, sometimes even brighter than those on here.

Hmmmm.... Got it! More malevolent than your usual self though.

I am not questioning the intelligence of those "accountants". I am only pointing out that by the nature of their education their strong point is generally accounting and not entrepreneurship - not that they couldn't have a talent for it.

If people are willing to pay for it, then it works. The gas station I go to doesn't charge for bikes, just for cars.

I thought it a great opportunity to complain about the degradation of service in our "capitalist society" due to capitalistic greed.

In orders of magnitude it may seem small but it is still a symptom of the basic disease - lack of knowledge regarding what is economical in the long run - and the human cost.

Whoopy, your gas station doesn't charge for bikes - how very accommodating. Are bike riders their customers? They don't mind appearing politically correct while putting the boots to their real customers.

[bloodyminded]

So, according to you it is not possible for a company to be unfairly treated if it is successful? Really? What you seem to be saying is that it is ok to use force on successful entities. Is that right?

No, that is not right.

So what if it is successful? The set of rules and principles which apply to successful entities (or individuals) should be the same set of rules which apply to unsuccessful ones.

They are. And as an inevitable consequence, since, as the saying goes, "money is power," the successful entities have more power, when the same rules apply.

I'm surprised you take issue with this assertion, since it's a totally uncontroversial truism.

BTW, in case you didn't notice, the rules wich apply to unionization in organizations which are successful, are the SAME rules which apply to unsuccessful organizations. So your proposition that it is ok to apply restrictions because an entity is successful doesn't hold any water.

I do not hold any such proposition. You're reading into it, as certain types of people do whenever WalMart is even faintly criticized; why they are so defensive about these fundamentalist Christian hypocrites is quite beyond me.

But no, despite my well-earned, educated animosity towards the company (since I worked there, and so understand that it is owned by self-righteous moral degenerates), I do not think, and never said, that different rules should apply to the successful.

I merely pointed out that to lament poor little WalMart's terrible Struggles Against the Man seems, well, kind of amusing.