Jump to content

Public Sector Unions


Recommended Posts

Hey Shwa - I did find this:

PSC - time to hire

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

Abysmal according to what criteria?

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

BC Budget Site

Are you equating the BC public service with the federal public service?

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.

The report you quoted is from October, 2009. Are you looking for real time data for hiring metrics?

To add: 2 years to hire should never happen.

Keyword: "should"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When you DON'T have MBAs administering services and watching costs, it's also a problem.

Yes...that doesn't say much for MBA's.

MBA's are, undeniably, valuable assets in a company. In large corporations or governments any employee can lose sight of the overall purpose of the corporation, and even have trouble relating their activities to a contribution to that purpose. The game can, especially in government, become more about office politics than performing a function. An MBA may wish to advance his career, nothing worn in that, but he has to become noticed. The purpose of his position in the corporation is lost to personal ambition and may or may not result in inefficiencies regarding operations.

If one is making policy one has to consider the purpose of the company not just from the perspective of "save money" or "make money" but what is desired overall and how other areas within the company are impacted.

I know our accountant makes suggestions like, "Can you get your materials cheaper from another supplier?" We can get materials cheaper but of lesser quality and we don't want that. In a large company someone may say they will look for a cheaper product and something is found that looks similar but is short of something in fulfilling the needs of those in the company who use them or sell them.

But staying on the topic of public sector unions, they only have the perspective of the employee and getting the best benefits they can for their members. In the private sector they may myopically make the company uncompetitive in the market and it isn't uncommon they do. The public sector union doesn't have the concern of competition but they can still bankrupt a government. It must be noted that Non-union Bureaucrats also contribute to this. The public service will bloat itself given the opportunity but to an economy it can be devastating. Greece, California and a few other places in the news are current examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abysmal according to what criteria?

I guess relative to the benchmarks provided by industry, and BC's provincial government.

If your position is that 6 months on AVERAGE to fill a position is fine, then you're seriously in denial that there is a problem, and you won't ever complain about government service.

Are you equating the BC public service with the federal public service?

Equating them ? No, but there's no reason I can see that their service levels should differ by that much.

The report you quoted is from October, 2009. Are you looking for real time data for hiring metrics?

The data I see if from 2008. Fair enough, I guess that's not that bad...

Keyword: "should"

Somehow I doubt you're concerned, though.

It's time to move on. Argus' stories, and now the data I have found provided you metrics and anecdotal evidence that things are... terrible.

Your complacence is baffling to me.

I want Canadians to demand more from their government.

You are making me think that the entire thing needs to be destroyed and started over again. Governmant Operations should likely be contracted out in their entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know our accountant makes suggestions like, "Can you get your materials cheaper from another supplier?" We can get materials cheaper but of lesser quality and we don't want that. In a large company someone may say they will look for a cheaper product and something is found that looks similar but is short of something in fulfilling the needs of those in the company who use them or sell them.

The accountant should care about long-term costs too. Who cares if you save 1% on something that offers 50% less service time ? Sounds pretty stupid to me.

But staying on the topic of public sector unions, they only have the perspective of the employee and getting the best benefits they can for their members. In the private sector they may myopically make the company uncompetitive in the market and it isn't uncommon they do. The public sector union doesn't have the concern of competition but they can still bankrupt a government. It must be noted that Non-union Bureaucrats also contribute to this. The public service will bloat itself given the opportunity but to an economy it can be devastating. Greece, California and a few other places in the news are current examples.

Well, people need to understand that working in a do-nothing job costs everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The accountant should care about long-term costs too. Who cares if you save 1% on something that offers 50% less service time ? Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Very. While I take Pliny's point about large organizations suffering from an inevitable lack of total consensus and direction (which I suspect goes directly back to human nature in some ways), I'm not too sure about the accountant example. A good accountant will be more cognizant of important long-term goals than of short-term savings, I should think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The accountant should care about long-term costs too. Who cares if you save 1% on something that offers 50% less service time ? Sounds pretty stupid to me.

yep.

Well, people need to understand that working in a do-nothing job costs everyone.

There are do-nothing jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want Canadians to demand more from their government.

Better watch what you wish for demanding more from government can too easily be interpreted as a lack of resources.

Governmant Operations should likely be contracted out in their entirely.

I can agree with that..well...almost their entirety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your position is that 6 months on AVERAGE to fill a position is fine, then you're seriously in denial that there is a problem, and you won't ever complain about government service.

Actually, I'd be delighted at an average staffing time of six months. I work for CRA, and if someone told us they were going to run a large process, either internal or external, within six months, we'd laugh at them.

I've been here ten years and I have never seen a process, external or internal, which took less than nine months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess relative to the benchmarks provided by industry, and BC's provincial government.

If your position is that 6 months on AVERAGE to fill a position is fine, then you're seriously in denial that there is a problem, and you won't ever complain about government service.

You see, here you go again, thinking I am somehow "defending the status quo of how big government works" when I have clearly stated that looser hiring practices are not the answer. Using the words "relative" and "average" betrays a sort of lack of understanding of the complexities required to staff federal PS positions. For instance, how long "should" it take to hire a nurse or teacher on a remote Indian reserve? Do you have the hiring metrics for that? Or how about a pensions officer who has to canoe into remote locations to pick up CPP applications? Do you have the metrics on that? How about 15-20 call centre temps in the GTA, do you have the metrics on that? All of these positions - and locations right across a large country such as Canada - go into decisions required for federal PS staffing. And all of those extraordinary and unique positions, locations and cicumstances factor into timing for the sake of statistics. But the most important tidbit of information from the PSC study was conveniently ignored: that time to hire times are decreasing.

Equating them ? No, but there's no reason I can see that their service levels should differ by that much.

Are you kidding me Michael? Really, you blame the object when your eyesight fails? You must save a ton on eye glasses.

Somehow I doubt you're concerned, though.

Concerned about what? That the hiring process is as complex as it is, or that Argus has an opinion admittedly informed by a wee bit of experiential data? Or should I be "concerned" because you are "concerned." Or should I be concerned that the hiring times on AVERAGE are DECREASING?

Your complacence is baffling to me.

Why because I won't join your crusade like the next lemming? BTW - do you have the hiring metrics to staff a Parks Canada project to study lemmings? :lol:

I want Canadians to demand more from their government.

Oh, they'll give you "more" and you will pay for it too. <_<

You are making me think that the entire thing needs to be destroyed and started over again. Governmant Operations should likely be contracted out in their entirely.

I am not "making" you "think" anything, you are doing it all on your own. Which reminds me of the often heard saying that along with a Bill of Rights, we should also have a Bill of Responsibilities. In this case, you would be responsible for your own thoughts and not blame others.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good accountant will be more cognizant of important long-term goals than of short-term savings, I should think.

Yes. It's when they decide they can determine what the long term goals are that is the problem. It generally is related to business practices that improve your bottom line not your customer base or their satisfaction - of which, it cannot be denied, there is a cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, here you go again, thinking I am somehow "defending the status quo of how big government works" when I have clearly stated that looser hiring practices are not the answer. Using the words "relative" and "average" betrays a sort of lack of understanding of the complexities required to staff federal PS positions. For instance, how long "should" it take to hire a nurse or teacher on a remote Indian reserve? Do you have the hiring metrics for that? Or how about a pensions officer who has to canoe into remote locations to pick up CPP applications? Do you have the metrics on that? How about 15-20 call centre temps in the GTA, do you have the metrics on that? All of these positions - and locations right across a large country such as Canada - go into decisions required for federal PS staffing. And all of those extraordinary and unique positions, locations and cicumstances factor into timing for the sake of statistics. But the most important tidbit of information from the PSC study was conveniently ignored: that time to hire times are decreasing.

When people point out egregious examples of per performance, you come back with questions and I don't remember ever seeing you say "You are right, those numbers are terrible."

There's no reason why hiring for federal government should be that different than for another large company.

Your excuses ring hollow - other companies do it, and they should do it instead of the government.

Hire times are decreasing but not enough..

Concerned about what? That the hiring process is as complex as it is, or that Argus has an opinion admittedly informed by a wee bit of experiential data? Or should I be "concerned" because you are "concerned." Or should I be concerned that the hiring times on AVERAGE are DECREASING?

Now we've provided data, and you deride that is a wee bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. It's when they decide they can determine what the long term goals are that is the problem. It generally is related to business practices that improve your bottom line not your customer base or their satisfaction - of which, it cannot be denied, there is a cost.

Sure. I was only thinking aloud; your post, to which I responded only in part, was one I agreed with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people point out egregious examples of per performance, you come back with questions and I don't remember ever seeing you say "You are right, those numbers are terrible."

There's no reason why hiring for federal government should be that different than for another large company.

Your excuses ring hollow - other companies do it, and they should do it instead of the government.

Hire times are decreasing but not enough..

Now we've provided data, and you deride that is a wee bit.

You've provided data and concluded that we need to kill the patient to cure the cancer.

What's wrong with this picture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Renegade, this is exactly how corporations work these days, however. Corporations have been given " rights " , and they are collectives, yet employees have not one iota of ability to demand to negotiate their contracts with their individual employers, the individual shareholders, yet by your own description that is the only thing that would be right. Our entire system is built this way. So why should only one side of the coin get all the rules in their favour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renegade, this is exactly how corporations work these days, however. Corporations have been given " rights " , and they are collectives, yet employees have not one iota of ability to demand to negotiate their contracts with their individual employers, the individual shareholders, yet by your own description that is the only thing that would be right. Our entire system is built this way. So why should only one side of the coin get all the rules in their favour?

:) True. "Negotiate contracts"....ha ha.

I've even had debates with self-styled "free marketers"--often code for "Dewy-eyed worshippers of wealthy and powerful men"--who informed me, that when I got hired at WalMart a few years back, I was "negotiating my contract with them." :)

"Negotiating" meaning that they lay out undebatable terms, and I could accept them or walk away.

And whatever one wants to say about this process, it is NOT "negotiation."

Not only does "economics trump virtue," as one of our posters claims; economics also trumps actual definitions and meanings of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong is your analogy. The patient is dead and I'm trying to hire his replacement.

Will you please come clean and indicate what your connection is to the civil service ?

No, the patient isn't dead and you appear to lack an understanding of the physiology to make any sort of reasonable diagnosis. Argus has enough insight to merit a discussion about specifics, the complexities, the advantages and disadvantages.

I'll ignore your last comment and keep the discussion "clean."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the patient isn't dead and you appear to lack an understanding of the physiology to make any sort of reasonable diagnosis. Argus has enough insight to merit a discussion about specifics, the complexities, the advantages and disadvantages.

Because there is so little information released. We found some, finally, provided by you yourself and you dismissed it.

I'll ignore your last comment and keep the discussion "clean."

I think your connection to the civil service is relevant to the discussion.

As it is, I find your position so incredible that I can't believe an objective person would hold it.

An average time to hire that is 24 weeks, compared to an already low (w.r.t. industry) figure of 9 weeks for the BC government is unacceptable, pure and simple. 2 years to hire is unacceptable.

The PSC graph showed that this number went from bad to worse from 2000 to 2006. So, ten years now with these bad numbers, and we haven't even got back to the 2000 numbers.

This is incompetence and the system needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there is so little information released. We found some, finally, provided by you yourself and you dismissed it.

Point out where I dismissed the information.

As it is, I find your position so incredible that I can't believe an objective person would hold it.

What is my "position?"

An average time to hire that is 24 weeks, compared to an already low (w.r.t. industry) figure of 9 weeks for the BC government is unacceptable, pure and simple. 2 years to hire is unacceptable.

Red Herring.

The PSC graph showed that this number went from bad to worse from 2000 to 2006. So, ten years now with these bad numbers, and we haven't even got back to the 2000 numbers.

Allowing managers discretion to hire is a slippery slope. Here is the Public Service Employment Act - it is law, go complain to your MP and participate in the actual system. Here is the Public Service of Ontario Act - it is law, go complain to your MPP and participate in the actual system. Tell me where you live, and I can get you in touch with the political authorities who are responsible for the hiring practices in that municipality.

This is incompetence and the system needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up.

Kill the patient to cure the cancer. You old radical! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point out where I dismissed the information.

This is dismissive:

Concerned about what? That the hiring process is as complex as it is, or that Argus has an opinion admittedly informed by a wee bit of experiential data? Or should I be "concerned" because you are "concerned." Or should I be concerned that the hiring times on AVERAGE are DECREASING?

Allowing managers discretion to hire is a slippery slope. Here is the Public Service Employment Act - it is law, go complain to your MP and participate in the actual system. Here is the Public Service of Ontario Act - it is law, go complain to your MPP and participate in the actual system. Tell me where you live, and I can get you in touch with the political authorities who are responsible for the hiring practices in that municipality.

I'm participating in the system as a member of the public, which is the last resort when those inside the gate - as you appear to be - don't see an issue with performance benchmarks far in excess of industry.

Saying "go complain about the law to your MPP" is good advice. Or, we (that is, Argus & I - if you're not interested) can generate concern and disgust by posting metrics and pointing out to people how abysmal the system is.

Kill the patient to cure the cancer. You old radical! :P

The patient is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is dismissive:

I am not dismissive of "the information." I am dismissive of your "concern."

I'm participating in the system as a member of the public, which is the last resort when those inside the gate - as you appear to be - don't see an issue with performance benchmarks far in excess of industry.

What I meant by "participating" is "concern" enough - as a member of the public - to generate some actual action as opposed to making simple statements about complex issues which ends up sounding like helpless whining. For instance, why not contact your MP or MPP with your discoveries about hiring metrics in the government, engage them in a dialogue and then report on that dialogue here for discussion. I am certain that your local reps will agree with you that something needs to be done. But what exactly? Strike down the PSEA in one fell swoop?

Riiiiight...

The patient is dead.

Then so the cancer would be as well, but from your "concern" it doesn't appear that you believe even your own assertion. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...