Harper’s shadow public service

[Shwa]

Interesting article from the Toronto Star:

Goar: Harper’s shadow public service

Everyone knew it was happening, but no one knew how prevalent it was or how much it cost.

Economist David Macdonald decided to find out how many consultants, contractors and temporary workers the federal government was hiring and how much Canadians were paying for them.

It took him about a year. What he discovered was a burgeoning “shadow public service.” Last year it cost taxpayers $1.2 billion. That was 79 per cent higher than when Prime Minister Stephen Harper took power in 2006.

Despite a spending freeze in the federal bureaucracy, it is still growing by leaps and bounds.

I repeat: "Last year it cost taxpayers $1.2 billion. That was 79 per cent higher than when Prime Minister Stephen Harper took power in 2006."

Here is a link to the study: Federal outsourcing creating a shadow public service

[Moonbox]

Yes. The hack job that is the Toronto Star posts this sort of crap all the time.

Shouldn't we be thrilled that Harper is bypassing the government workers' unions and going to the public sector, where people have to actually, you know, perform their jobs adequately and only receive reasonable benefits?

Keep it up IMO.

[Shakeyhands]

Yes. The hack job that is the Toronto Star posts this sort of crap all the time.

Shouldn't we be thrilled that Harper is bypassing the government workers' unions and going to the public sector, where people have to actually, you know, perform their jobs adequately and only receive reasonable benefits?

Keep it up IMO.

79% higher costs? How does what you just said makes sense with those kind of increased costs?

[waldo]

I repeat: "Last year it cost taxpayers $1.2 billion. That was 79 per cent higher than when Prime Minister Stephen Harper took power in 2006."

Here is a link to the study: Federal outsourcing creating a shadow public service

shocked... I tells ya... I'm shocked! Excessive costs... lack of oversight... avoiding transparency requirements... "selective bulking up its own workforce, while preaching austerity"... further "weakening of one of the pillars of democracy: an impartial public service that serves all governments regardless of ideology with professionalism and integrity"..... not subject to government information requests through processes like Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP).

deception... thy name is the Harper Government™!

[Moonbox]

79% higher costs? How does what you just said makes sense with those kind of increased costs?

That's what the Toronto Star does. They like to trick you with the numbers. 79% higher costs of OUTSOURCING than 5 years ago. Did you read the entire article? This is likely money that would have been spent on permanent government employees instead anyways. Harper's government is letting full time gov't employees retire and he's not hiring to replace their positions. He's outsourcing their jobs instead. As such, you'd EXPECT outsourcing costs to go up significantly.

[bloodyminded]

Well, some Canadians are so irrational that they don't like the secrecy, and foolishly believe that they should be aware of large spending costs.

.

[Topaz]

This is why if people tuned in to the committee meetings on C-pac at night, you can see what is going on in the government. I think Harper's idea is to get rid of the union by hiring people on contract and as people retire, the union gets smaller but it cost US by doing this way.

[Moonbox]

Well, some Canadians are so irrational that they don't like the secrecy, and foolishly believe that they should be aware of large spending costs.

What was secret about it? It seems an economist from outside the government was able to put all the numbers together all by himself. The information appears to have been readily available. Words like 'shadow' however, have a negative connotation. The Star is good at that when talking about Harper.

Instead of outsourcing to private sector, it's called a "Shadow Public Service". Scaaary.

[waldo]

Well, some Canadians are so irrational that they don't like the secrecy, and foolishly believe that they should be aware of large spending costs.

Although austerity measures are being felt by federal employees, the most recent data suggest that outsourcing firms providing personnel services to the federal government continue to do a brisk business. Over the past five years, personnel outsourcing costs have risen 79%. Even the austerity measures of the 2010 federal Budget have not cut spending significantly in this area.

In certain instances, outsourcing of personnel may be appropriate. It would be justified, for instance, if a project needs a number of additional people for a short time to complete a project, or if specific outside specialties are required. However, with rapidly increasing personnel outsourcing costs, it is becoming increasingly clear that it isn’t the number of specialized tasks that are increasing, but rather that government departments are changing how they are resorting to outsourcing.

If the government wants to get serious about spending controls, it needs to look critically at why outsourcing costs are ballooning and what can be done to contain them. It is not only cost containment that is at risk, but also fair and transparent hiring, long-term flexibility, and Canadians’ privacy and institutional knowledge.

Bringing formerly outsourced services back in house can have ancillary benefits including retained institutional knowledge, more flexibility for future needs and stronger privacy protection for Canadians’ personal data. In many cases, these benefits are forgone as managers turn to outsourcing to circumvent the cumbersome public service hiring process, to reduce their own supervisory responsibilities, or just to get the job done given the limited tools at their disposal.

However, a concerted effort by the Treasury Board Secretariat could offer the right incentives for managers to spend less on outsourcing and instead provide the same services internally. Such a shift would only be possible if personnel outsourcing had defined compulsory cuts and if necessary reforms to the public service hiring process were implemented.

[Saipan]

Well, some Canadians are so irrational that they don't like the secrecy, and foolishly believe that they should be aware of large spending costs.

That's why they didn't accept Liberal "Cabinet Secret" or Rock's 1000% cost overrun and kicked the rascals out.

[bloodyminded]

That's why they didn't accept Liberal "Cabinet Secret" or Rock's 1000% cost overrun and kicked the rascals out.

So...do we agree that government secrecy is of concern, or do we only agree that Liberal government secrecy is of concern?

[Molly]

Harper's government is letting full time gov't employees retire and he's not hiring to replace their positions. He's outsourcing their jobs instead. As such, you'd EXPECT outsourcing costs to go up significantly.

Except... public service spending has been capped, not cut.

This is in addition to normal public service spending.

Soooo.... it's a way to pretend to be holding the line on costs while doing no such thing. (Not to mention a bunch of the rest of that stuff like stripping employees of job security and not giving a hoot about taxpayers information security and so on.)

[Shwa]

First, the government is bulking up its own workforce, while preaching austerity. Second, outsourcing is expensive. Finally, Harper is weakening one of the pillars of democracy: an impartial public service that serves all governments regardless of ideology with professionalism and integrity.

Of course hiring a strangely ineffective person to manage government whistleblowers - which she did by ignoring the lot of them; then paying her a half million to shut up and scram, now hiring outsourced staff...yep, sounds like "integrity" is what drives the Harper Regime.

[Shwa]

Yes. The hack job that is the Toronto Star posts this sort of crap all the time.

Shouldn't we be thrilled that Harper is bypassing the government workers' unions and going to the public sector, where people have to actually, you know, perform their jobs adequately and only receive reasonable benefits?

Keep it up IMO.

Or course, you completely missed the link to the report that was the source of the article from the Star? You know, the report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives? I suppose they are reporting on "this sot of crap" all the time too.

[Saipan]

So...do we agree that government secrecy is of concern, or do we only agree that Liberal government secrecy is of concern?

Of course, we do. And the devil is in the details. Like 40% vs. 1,000% or CLAIM of Cabinet Secret.

[bloodyminded]

Of course, we do.

Which one?

Look, we've established that concern over Liberal government secrecy is legitimate. There's no controversy between us on that. 100% agreement. You don't need to preach to the choir.

The question is whether we both share concern over Conservative government secrecy.

That's not so clear, because you'd much prefer to continually steer discussions away from potential Conservative wrongdoing, in order to malign the Liberals some more.

[madmax]

Yes. The hack job that is the Toronto Star posts this sort of crap all the time.

Shouldn't we be thrilled that Harper is bypassing the government workers' unions and going to the public sector, where people have to actually, you know, perform their jobs adequately and only receive reasonable benefits?

Keep it up IMO.

Its called masking the real figures for service. Governments do this all the time. They pay out HUGE MASSIVE CORPORATE CONTRACTS especially to TEMP AGENCY firms where costs are Significantly higher.

This has been government practice for over a decade and a half.

And while its 79% higher in costs, that means there has been a huge increase in government spending, soon, this spending will also be masked behind another layer.

This is no surprise. What is a surprise is that any one is even talking about it.

Yes, the pigs are at the trough.

[madmax]

Instead of outsourcing to private sector, it's called a "Shadow Public Service". Scaaary.

I agree, its scaaary in that Service and responsibility goes downhill fast. It really sux the taxes dry.

Costs don't go down, they go up. All the while the Public Sector is still there directing the Private Sector at the end of the day. Its totally Bullshit.

Again, no one should point the finger at the Cons, the Libs were nothing special and the Ontario Liberals are huge outsourcers much like the Harris Cons. There is a reason why we privatize a public service. So that some other corporate entity can get their belly up to the trough.

Its empire building.

Its not cheaper, but no one is working in the interests of Canadians. We cater to the corporations.

Ironically, some public sector employees enjoy being taken off the Front Line and replaced by a $10.50 per hour tempworker or corpworker who still relies on the Public Sector to give the answers. The only difference is some $10.50center gets treated like dirt instead of

1) The corporation who is making millions off the pie.

2) The Public Servant who used to take the brunt of the citizen complaints directly.

Many corporations are designed strictly for the purpose of receiving government contracts to deliver a service. They don't do anything else.

These corps make huge profits bleeding the government. And they pay their staff like crap.

However, I am waiting for Argus to be contracted out

[Moonbox]

And while its 79% higher in costs, that means there has been a huge increase in government spending, soon, this spending will also be masked behind another layer.

A huge increase? 1.2 billion per year in a time when we spent $50B in stimulus (which would have required enormous administrative/consulting expenses) over the last several years? What does that mean? How is it a lot more expensive? Does it take into account that the temps and contract workers aren't getting a golden pension like the rest of our overpaid public service?

This is standard Toronto Star garbage.

[GWiz]

Yes. The hack job that is the Toronto Star posts this sort of crap all the time.

Shouldn't we be thrilled that Harper is bypassing the government workers' unions and going to the public sector, where people have to actually, you know, perform their jobs adequately and only receive reasonable benefits?

Keep it up IMO.

Really?

And here I thought you didn't like things like "Sponsorship" (adscam) which when you come right down to it is EXACTLY like this...

Strange, very strange indeed...

[Moonbox]

And here I thought you didn't like things like "Sponsorship" (adscam) which when you come right down to it is EXACTLY like this...

Prove to us that the money is being spent on little to no service and then you can say it's exactly the same. Adscam was a total fraud of taxpayer's dollars where money was given away for pretty much NOTHING to Liberal cronies.

The fact that you can equate outsourcing to Adscam is scary...scary in how dumb the idea is.

[capricorn]

Interesting article from the Toronto Star:

Goar: Harper’s shadow public service

I repeat: "Last year it cost taxpayers $1.2 billion. That was 79 per cent higher than when Prime Minister Stephen Harper took power in 2006."

Here is a link to the study: Federal outsourcing creating a shadow public service

Harper's shadow public service?

Expenditures for temporary help services have increased over the last decade

Based on the PSC’s analysis of data from the Public Accounts of Canada for all PSEA organizations, expenditures for temporary help services nearly tripled over the 10 years between 1999-2000 and 2008-2009. Expenditures for temporary help services increased at twice the rate of those for indeterminate salaries. While expenditures for temporary help workers increased, expenditures for term and casual employment leveled off or decreased. The upward trend in expenditures for temporary help services reinforces the PSC’s concerns regarding the risks to the integrity of the public service staffing system.

Our analysis of 2007-2008 temporary help service contracts for our study organizations indicated that 37.3% were for professional or technical/operational workers; the remainder were for administrative services. Interviewees in our study identified a number of factors contributing to the use of temporary help services, including increased workload, lengthy public service staffing processes and the need to cover for absences due to turnover or leave.

---

Considerable growth in expenditures for temporary help services over the past decade

Temporary help services are reported in the Public Accounts of Canada as a subset of Professional and Special Services. Professional and Special Services include not only temporary help services but also management consulting, legal services and health and welfare services. In 2008-2009, expenditures for temporary help services across the public service represented approximately 3.4% of the Professional and Special Services category.

This section complements the data obtained from our 11 study organizations by discussing trends in expenditures for temporary help services across all PSEA organizations. Trends are presented for the period spanning 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.[29]

Temporary help service expenditures nearly tripled over the 10-year period, increasing more rapidly than overall government expenditures and expenditures for personnel

Expenditures for temporary help services increased 178%[30] over the 10-year period, from $108 million in 1999-2000 to $299 million in 2008-2009 (Figure 14). This was a faster rate of increase than that in overall government expenditures (35.5%). Expenditures for temporary help services increased at twice the rate of personnel costs.[31]

It is also worth noting that the increase in expenditures for temporary help services (178%) was almost three times the increase seen in the broader category of Professional and Special Services (a 60% increase over the same period; Appendix Figure 15).

http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/adt-vrf/rprt/2010/th-at/index-eng.htm#toc1

Scroll down to Table 3. Notice that managers cited "increased workload" to justify 50% of contract expenditures.

It's interesting to note that the term "shadow public service" is really the modification of a term coined by a federal public service union, i.e. "parallel public service".

Managers have been improperly using contract services to respond to long-term staffing needs, effectively creating a parallel public service.

http://www.pipsc.ca/portal/page/portal/website/news/magazine/autumn2010/8

It looks like Goar tweeked the data from the Public Service Commission's study and borrowed union terminology for publication by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

IMO this is more a case of managers not being able to manage their operations. Hopefully, action will be taken on the Public Service Commission's findings to address this long standing problem

[Black Dog]

How is it a lot more expensive? Does it take into account that the temps and contract workers aren't getting a golden pension like the rest of our overpaid public service?

Why do you think they are more expensive?

Y'know, a full accounting of the identities of all the various freelancers and consultants employed by the Harper Government would be interesting, if only for the time one could spend connecting them to Conservative causes and/or connections.

[capricorn]

The fact that you can equate outsourcing to Adscam is scary...scary in how dumb the idea is.

Especially when we know that outsourcing has been identified as a growing problem over the last decade by a federal central agency.

[GWiz]

Prove to us that the money is being spent on little to no service and then you can say it's exactly the same. Adscam was a total fraud of taxpayer's dollars where money was given away for pretty much NOTHING to Liberal cronies.

The fact that you can equate outsourcing to Adscam is scary...scary in how dumb the idea is.

Hmmm, scary? Yup!

I thought you just said that GIVING MONEY (taxbreaks and government service contracts) to Corporations for nothing (services performed by the public service anyway) to those same Corporations that SUPPORT the Government is somehow DIFFERENT than what happened with the Sponsorship scandal... How so?

Here's a much more DIRECT example...

Big bucks: Harper government's ad buy costs taxpayers $26 million

Sure looks like the EXACT SAME THING except a WHOLE LOT WORSE because it's a GOVERNMENT POLICY rather than just a FEW Liberal outsiders looking to PROFIT from a crisis (the breakup of Canada)...