Fordtopia: Year Two

[Michael Hardner]

But perhaps the rate of spending increases didn't totally reflect the increase in population.

Of course not.

I'm considered by most to be a liberal, but I can't understand why liberals support the continuing bloated corporatism that drapes itself in the clothing of public services. These organizations have all the hallmarks of corporations except one - they aren't owned by private individuals.

But private ownership isn't the only thing that's wrong with corporations. They increase the span of grasp naturally, for one. They are hierarchical, and concentrate power for another. They are secretive, and terrible at being responsive, and bad at self-reporting.

Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards" is every bit about the workings of Toronto City Hall as it is about Enron. There are egghead know-it-alls selling government on what is good for the people in both cases, and at the back end there is always a bailout when it fails: whether it's Skydome or Goldman Sachs.

[Black Dog]

But perhaps the rate of spending increases didn't totally reflect the increase in population.

Why would it?

[Black Dog]

Of course not.

I'm considered by most to be a liberal, but I can't understand why liberals support the continuing bloated corporatism that drapes itself in the clothing of public services. These organizations have all the hallmarks of corporations except one - they aren't owned by private individuals.

But private ownership isn't the only thing that's wrong with corporations. They increase the span of grasp naturally, for one. They are hierarchical, and concentrate power for another. They are secretive, and terrible at being responsive, and bad at self-reporting.

Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards" is every bit about the workings of Toronto City Hall as it is about Enron. There are egghead know-it-alls selling government on what is good for the people in both cases, and at the back end there is always a bailout when it fails: whether it's Skydome or Goldman Sachs.

And the alternative is....?

[Michael Hardner]

And the alternative is....?

IMO, we need to explore leapfrogging into the new modes of working that have come with new media. These are more participatory, egalitarian, open and cheaper or than what came before.

The key to breaking the hierarchy is to slay the king. This means making the big kahuna, or whomever it is in charge, directly accountable to his/her stakeholders - which in this case is the public, and those who use the services as two separate groups.

[Boges]

John Tory on his radio show doesn't think it's the front line employees that's the problem. He claims there are middle management at City Hall that do nothing but send reports to each other to justify their existence.

Now that's gravy.

[Black Dog]

John Tory on his radio show doesn't think it's the front line employees that's the problem. He claims there are middle management at City Hall that do nothing but send reports to each other to justify their existence.

Now that's gravy.

Strange, you'd think KPMG would have found some of this stuff in their big gravy hunt this year. But hey, I'm sure Tory has his sources and I'm sure they are completely unimpeachable, which is why he named them and quantified the amount of gravy, right?

[Black Dog]

IMO, we need to explore leapfrogging into the new modes of working that have come with new media. These are more participatory, egalitarian, open and cheaper or than what came before.

The key to breaking the hierarchy is to slay the king. This means making the big kahuna, or whomever it is in charge, directly accountable to his/her stakeholders - which in this case is the public, and those who use the services as two separate groups.

C'mon Michael: this is buzzword stuff. Be specific.

[Michael Hardner]

John Tory on his radio show doesn't think it's the front line employees that's the problem. He claims there are middle management at City Hall that do nothing but send reports to each other to justify their existence.

Now that's gravy.

I believe he's right. A tall hierarchy also confounds the ability of the organization to respond quickly, and to be effective in doing whatever it's supposed to do. It's not just the wages of the middle managers involved. Of course, the top stakeholders are comforted by having lots of these people around to respond to their whims, questions, catcalls and so on.

[mentalfloss]

Strange, you'd think KPMG would have found some of this stuff in their big gravy hunt this year. But hey, I'm sure Tory has his sources and I'm sure they are completely unimpeachable, which is why he named them and quantified the amount of gravy, right?

And even if KPMG did find "gravy", I highly doubt it would be worth anything more than the cost of privatizing the Metro zoo.

[Michael Hardner]

C'mon Michael: this is buzzword stuff. Be specific.

Certainly not my intention. I'll break it down:

IMO, we need to explore leapfrogging into the new modes of working that have come with new media.

This means bringing government organizations forward 50 years, from the bureaucratic militaristic organizational structures that dominated into the 1960s into the flatter structures that we have today.

New Media is involved because the web is married to the new modes of working in many ways. It's more interactive and participatory, and allows people to do things such as collect information directly from people using services, to work from home, and to operate more efficiently and with less oversight.

These are more participatory, egalitarian, open and cheaper or than what came before.

The costs for feedback via the web are much lower, and you can cast a wider net. You can ask people who use services to directly comment about how they use them, what their needs are and so on. So these modes are more participatory and open.

They're more egalitarian because the hierarchy is reduced. You don't need 'supervisors' so much, nor is there as much prestige or responsibility in being higher on the food chain. Managers are more like first-among-equals.

Finally, these organizations are cheaper for many reasons. They require less specific skills, if the roles are organized properly. Roles can be eliminated entirely once they're automated. Does that mean layoffs, budget cuts and tax cuts ? Maybe. If that's what people want. It can also mean redirecting people into other services but the public should decide that: it's a separate question.

The key to breaking the hierarchy is to slay the king. This means making the big kahuna, or whomever it is in charge, directly accountable to his/her stakeholders - which in this case is the public, and those who use the services as two separate groups.

Government departments are the domain of those involved, and those people increase the size and scope of their responsibility as time goes on. That's just how it works, there's no moralizing there. They do this by getting bigger budgets from the politicians who are their patrons. If they can convince the politician that something is required, then they can make it happen.

But outside of all of this, we have citizens demanding more services and lower costs. They put these demands on the revolving door holders of political office, whose only goal is to win the election. The public holds these people responsible rather than those who are in charge of government departments.

This structure worked really well for a long time, but a combination of factors have resulted in the public being disconnected (to varying degress) from the departments that serve them.

This is a general description about my feelings about corporate structure in our age, and how we could do better. How to make that happen is an entirely different, and more difficult problem. I welcome your comments.

[Black Dog]

But outside of all of this, we have citizens demanding more services and lower costs. They put these demands on the revolving door holders of political office, whose only goal is to win the election. The public holds these people responsible rather than those who are in charge of government departments.

This structure worked really well for a long time, but a combination of factors have resulted in the public being disconnected (to varying degress) from the departments that serve them.

Among them the notion that the public service is a nest of leeches and fat cats.

[eyeball]

They give the existing union a huge raise of course.

Because right-wingers love unions.

I'm surprised they don't encourage more volunteers to do police work. I'm reminded of two cranky old farts in my region who wile away their time with a traffic radar and speed indicator on the side of the road. They wave and glare at speeders and pass their licence numbers on to the police.

I'm pretty sure our local neighbourhood watch committee would be thrilled with the idea of carrying out investigations and take downs themselves.

[Black Dog]

This is a general description about my feelings about corporate structure in our age, and how we could do better. How to make that happen is an entirely different, and more difficult problem. I welcome your comments.

Generally speaking, I don't disagree that there's room for innovation and greater efficiency in government. But that's kind of beside the point: that's simply not something the right-wing Fordists care about. We're talking about an ideology centered around curbing the size of government for the mere sake of it. In this worldview, government is bad not because it's inefficient, but because it's the government.

[mentalfloss]

Moar laughs..

Mayor Ford's press secretary quits for media gigs

The lone woman standing between Mayor Rob Ford and the media is quitting her job to become a member of the press herself.

Adrienne Batra announced Tuesday that she's resigning as the mayor's press secretary to become the Comment Editor at the Toronto Sun(roflcopters).

She also shared plans to become a "frequent contributor" on talk radio channel Newstalk1010 as a Municipal Affairs Correspondent (what an appropriate title).

"I want to thank Mayor Ford and all of my colleagues for such a unique experience at City Hall," said Batra in an emailed statement. "It has been a real privilege to work in the Office of the Mayor."

Batra has held her position since Ford's election win in 2010.

She's handled the notoriously media-resistant Ford during a maelstrom of public attention during tense budget talks, marathon meetings and frustrating labour disputes.

"Adrienne has been a vital part of our Administration and I want to thank her for her dedication," Mayor Ford said in a statement.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111129/mayor-ford-press-secretary-resignation-111129/20111129/?hub=TorontoNewHome&cid=top

[Black Dog]

Moar laughs..

Mayor Ford's press secretary quits for media gigs

We'll always have the memories....

[Michael Hardner]

Generally speaking, I don't disagree that there's room for innovation and greater efficiency in government.

Beyond that, they should consider rebuilding it from the ground up. As I said, it's set up as a corporation which isn't conducive to serving the public, especially in a city.

But that's kind of beside the point: that's simply not something the right-wing Fordists care about. We're talking about an ideology centered around curbing the size of government for the mere sake of it. In this worldview, government is bad not because it's inefficient, but because it's the government.

That said, there's room for some common ground to at least reset the connection between public and government. Whether or not people want to spend more or less, or do more or less is beside the point. The structure is interfering with the relationship between government and people.

I don't think Fordists really understand this, but I don't think liberals do either, really. The discussions always fall into the same old left/right paradigm. The liberals want to know if you're going to cut, and are suspicious of any change whatsoever. And the conservatives brandish prejudices about government employees, and hold archaic views of the workplace too.

[Archanfel]

Closing shelters in a recession is ludicrous, especially when it's just been made illegal for people to sleep on sidewalks/subway grates, they can't sleep in parks ... where do the homeless sleep?

Outside Toronto maybe? Living in Toronto is a privilege, not a right. You want to live in the one of most expensive cities in North America, you better work for it. There are many hard working taxpayers who can't afford to purchase a home in Toronto.

And please spare us the talk on how homeless is not by choice. You reap what you sow.

Generally speaking, I don't disagree that there's room for innovation and greater efficiency in government. But that's kind of beside the point: that's simply not something the right-wing Fordists care about. We're talking about an ideology centered around curbing the size of government for the mere sake of it. In this worldview, government is bad not because it's inefficient, but because it's the government.

Government is not inefficient because it's bad, but because it's a government. Give me one example of an efficient democratic government. Government is a necessary evil, nothing more, nothing less.

Beyond that, they should consider rebuilding it from the ground up. As I said, it's set up as a corporation which isn't conducive to serving the public, especially in a city.

That said, there's room for some common ground to at least reset the connection between public and government. Whether or not people want to spend more or less, or do more or less is beside the point. The structure is interfering with the relationship between government and people.

I don't think Fordists really understand this, but I don't think liberals do either, really. The discussions always fall into the same old left/right paradigm. The liberals want to know if you're going to cut, and are suspicious of any change whatsoever. And the conservatives brandish prejudices about government employees, and hold archaic views of the workplace too.

Last time I checked, public employees still enjoy defined benefit pension when most of the private companies moved to defined contribution to save costs. Is that a archaic view? Is that prejudice?

Of course, if you live in Toronto, you are going to be paying even more taxes.

Far less than what it would be if Miller was the major for the last year. Property tax in Toronto will go up by 2.5% over two years. That's lower than inflation. How many large cities can claim the same thing?

Edited November 29, 2011 by Archanfel

[Black Dog]

Far less than what it would be if Miller was the major for the last year. Property tax in Toronto will go up by 2.5% over two years. That's lower than inflation. How many large cities can claim the same thing?

And why, pray, is this a good thing when the city is wrestling with a budgetary shortfall?

[Archanfel]

And why, pray, is this a good thing when the city is wrestling with a budgetary shortfall?

It's a good thing for tax payers, not so good for others.

[Black Dog]

It's a good thing for tax payers, not so good for others.

That's an incredibly narrow and short-sighted view. Taxpayers use city services, so if services are cut or fees increased to make up for the shortfall, they don't really win.

[Archanfel]

That's an incredibly narrow and short-sighted view. Taxpayers use city services, so if services are cut or fees increased to make up for the shortfall, they don't really win.

They still win if they value the services being cut less than the taxes saved. Everybody has different priorities, I am guessing homeless shelters is not a priority for home owners paying thousands of dollars of taxes. In fact, I'd say closing the homeless shelter might improve the life of neighbouring home owners. I don't know any home buyers (including left wings ones) actively looking for a homeless shelter next door. Unless of course crime rates goes up, that remains to be seen.

[Michael Hardner]

Last time I checked, public employees still enjoy defined benefit pension when most of the private companies moved to defined contribution to save costs. Is that a archaic view? Is that prejudice?

I'm not sure. Are you comparing union vs non-union positions ? What is the overall cost ? Sometimes the salary rates are lower too, but not always. You have to be sure to compare apples with apples in this exercise.

[Black Dog]

They still win if they value the services being cut less than the taxes saved. Everybody has different priorities, I am guessing homeless shelters is not a priority for home owners paying thousands of dollars of taxes. In fact, I'd say closing the homeless shelter might improve the life of neighbouring home owners. I don't know any home buyers (including left wings ones) actively looking for a homeless shelter next door. Unless of course crime rates goes up, that remains to be seen.

So having more homeless people on the street (instead of tucked up in a shelter) is a positive in your world?

Good grief.

This is typical Fordite thinking, really. Can't see past the ends of their own nose, which they will only end up cutting off to spite their faces anyway.

[Archanfel]

I'm not sure. Are you comparing union vs non-union positions ? What is the overall cost ? Sometimes the salary rates are lower too, but not always. You have to be sure to compare apples with apples in this exercise.

If public sector employees are so competitive, then I am sure they wouldn't have a problem with privatization since they would have got a raise in private sectors. And I am sure private sector companies would adopt public sector pay scales to save costs. Don't you think so?

[Michael Hardner]

If public sector employees are so competitive, then I am sure they wouldn't have a problem with privatization since they would have got a raise in private sectors. And I am sure private sector companies would adopt public sector pay scales to save costs. Don't you think so?

I don't think they would like that, no, but for other reasons.

Private sector pay scales may be more, but they're also performance based and have different ways to manage benefits.

In any case, I'm starting to think that you believe front line workers are the problem. That would lead me to believe that you might actually have a prejudice after all.