Harper Government to crack down on public servants -- again

[Moonbox]

Look, workers gravitate towards the best jobs, meaning the highest paid, generally with the best benefits. Tons of people want to work for the government. Tons of people apply for every job. Your contention that the ones who don't make it are every bit as skilled and capable as those who do makes no sense.

Your misguided attempts to apply standard open-market economic principles on a public service discussion is the only thing that makes no sense. It's a laughable perversion of theory which borrows the parts that you like and blissfully ignores the parts that you don't. I'm sorry, but the idea that only the 'best and the brightest' enter the public service and stay there is a self-serving conceit that, while founded on the reasonable belief that the people hired are the ones that have the best resumes and interviews, ignores a host of issues that throw your conclusions out the door.

First, an interview and resume are at best an imprecise measurement of someone's suitability for the job. Most turnover occurs because managers misjudge potential employee's character, drive and qualifications. Next, once the error has become apparent, the public sector unions make it MUCH harder for the problem candidate to lose their job. At this point, the public sector worker can coast, doing the absolute bare minimum the job requires to not get fired. Additionally, the CBA's for most of the public sector unions dictate mandatory wage increases based on tenure, so these uninspired, barely-functional and perhaps even unpleasant employees actually get REWARDED on a regular basis with automatic pay raises.

There just aren't that many 'front end clerks' with the government any more.

There are tens of thousands of low-skilled, low-knowledge employees in the federal public sector alone (it was around 80,000 in 2006 according to Statscan). While I'll accept the fact that they have declined in numbers with more computers and automated systems, they are not disappearing and the government will always need faces at counters, office assistants, call-centre operators etc. When you add up all of the provincial, municipal and crown corporation numbers together, there are far more than you would have us believe.

You're suggesting that the banks hire exceptionally stupid people then as managers and assistant managers? Ie, you have a guy working long, stressful hours with great responsibility working for less money than he could be making working as a simple clerk with the government? Why would he do that?

Because your assumption that people can just apply and 'get' government jobs is a myth. Like I said before, it's based on perverted economic theory and flies completely contrary to the actual real life job market. The low turnover (due to benefits, job protection and automatic pay raises) makes entry or mid level postings in the public sector rare, and on top of that there's a strong preference towards visible minorities and bilingualism. Similarly skilled non-minority anglophones, despite comprising the majority of the population, form a minority in the public service. On top of this, the government locates a lot of its administration in depressed (or out of the way) communities in order to support local economies, further refuting your claim that the government is only hiring the 'best' candidates.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Moonbox

[Argus]

...those who do the negotiations from the govt side have absolutely no skin in the game.

Private sector does.

I disagree. The difference is that in the private sector, the guys who have to clear the contract have stock options and bonuses in mind. The guys who have to clear the contract in the public sector have votes in mind. In both cases they're thinking of self-interest, not necessarily the interest of the company or government.

[overthere]

Your misguided attempts to apply standard open-market economic principles on a public service discussion is the only thing that makes no sense. It's a laughable perversion of theory which borrows the parts that you like and blissfully ignores the parts that you don't. I'm sorry, but the idea that only the 'best and the brightest' enter the public service and stay there is a self-serving conceit that, while founded on the reasonable belief that the people hired are the ones that have the best resumes and interviews, ignores a host of issues that throw your conclusions out the door.

First, an interview and resume are at best an imprecise measurement of someone's suitability for the job. Most turnover occurs because managers misjudge potential employee's character, drive and qualifications. Next, once the error has become apparent, the public sector unions make it MUCH harder for the problem candidate to lose their job. At this point, the public sector worker can coast, doing the absolute bare minimum the job requires to not get fired. Additionally, the CBA's for most of the public sector unions dictate mandatory wage increases based on tenure, so these uninspired, barely-functional and perhaps even unpleasant employees actually get REWARDED on a regular basis with automatic pay raises.

There are tens of thousands of low-skilled, low-knowledge employees in the federal public sector alone (it was around 80,000 in 2006 according to Statscan). While I'll accept the fact that they have declined in numbers with more computers and automated systems, they are not disappearing and the government will always need faces at counters, office assistants, call-centre operators etc. When you add up all of the provincial, municipal and crown corporation numbers together, there are far more than you would have us believe.

Because your assumption that people can just apply and 'get' government jobs is a myth. Like I said before, it's based on perverted economic theory and flies completely contrary to the actual real life job market. The low turnover (due to benefits, job protection and automatic pay raises) makes entry or mid level postings in the public sector rare, and on top of that there's a strong preference towards visible minorities and bilingualism. Similarly skilled non-minority anglophones, despite comprising the majority of the population, form a minority in the public service. On top of this, the government locates a lot of its administration in depressed (or out of the way) communities in order to support local economies, further refuting your claim that the government is only hiring the 'best' candidates.

Excellent post.

[Argus]

In the 1980s the federal government eliminated tens of thousands of cleaning staff across Canada, all of which was done internally until then. They were paid about 40% higher than the exact same work done in the private sector, and of course their benefits and defined benefit pension liabilites took it to another level. The work still needed to done, and all of it was contracted out with zero consequence to the quality of work despite prolonged howling from PSAC.

Someone older than me would have to give input as to the 'quality' of the work prior to it being let out on contract. However, I think I can authoritatively state the quality of the work now is about 'zero'. The cleaning staff shuffle about, occasionally picking up a wastepaper basket (or maybe not) and perhaps desultorily brushing the top of a cubicle with a brush (though probably not). Carpets are generally dirty (I once dumped some paper clips on my floor to see if the cleaners would pick them up when vacuuming. A month later they were still there). Stairways, hand rails and doorknobs are NEVER cleaned. Half the time the cleaners are hidden in their supply room chatting (you can hear them through the door as you pass).

Contractors, especially the lower level ones, have very little 'skin in the game'. They really don't give a damn about anything, given how quick their turnover rate is with their various companies.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Argus

[overthere]

Someone older than me would have to give input as to the 'quality' of the work prior to it being let out on contract. However, I think I can authoritatively state the quality of the work now is about 'zero'. The cleaning staff shuffle about, occasionally picking up a wastepaper basket (or maybe not) and perhaps desultorily brushing the top of a cubicle with a brush (though probably not). Carpets are generally dirty (I once dumped some paper clips on my floor to see if the cleaners would pick them up when vacuuming. A month later they were still there). Stairways, hand rails and doorknobs are NEVER cleaned. Half the time the cleaners are hidden in their supply room chatting (you can hear them through the door as you pass).

Contractors, especially the lower level ones, have very little 'skin in the game'. They really don't give a damn about anything, given how quick their turnover rate is with their various companies.

I can see that your colleagues, the civil servants, the ones who are responsible for ensuring that contract cleaners or outsourcing firms complete their contract- are failing miserably.

Yet another outsourcing opportunity, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[Peter F]

So there was consequence to the quality of work. Otherwise you 'opportunity' vanishes.

[Peter F]

...those who do the negotiations from the govt side have absolutely no skin in the game.

Private sector does.

I don't believe thats true. The negotiators on the government side do not get to decide whether a particular contract proposal is acceptable or not. Like Unions the negotiator must return to his principals to see if they approve the proposed contract. This happens in the private sector also.

[guyser]

I don't believe thats true. The negotiators on the government side do not get to decide whether a particular contract proposal is acceptable or not. Like Unions the negotiator must return to his principals to see if they approve the proposed contract. This happens in the private sector also.

Peter, at the end of the game, the Govt negotiator has no ongoing concerns as to the viability of said business model.

Politcal fallout for the Masters, but thats entirely different and for different reasons vs private business.

[Peter F]

the Govt negotiator has no ongoing concerns as to the viability of said business model

ok so the government negotiator shouldn't do any negotiations because they have no dog-in-the-hunt. Who should negotiate then?

[guyser]

ok so the government negotiator shouldn't do any negotiations because they have no dog-in-the-hunt. Who should negotiate then?

Peter, youre smarter than that. No one said anything remotely like that.

At the end of the day, the Govt negotiator , while trying to minimize raises etc, the money that is ultimately paid comes from the taxpayer and that supply is almost limitless.

[Moonbox]

I disagree. The difference is that in the private sector, the guys who have to clear the contract have stock options and bonuses in mind. The guys who have to clear the contract in the public sector have votes in mind. In both cases they're thinking of self-interest, not necessarily the interest of the company or government.

Your disagreement, once again, is based on a self-serving bias. The perversion of reality you offer up with this misguided comparison ignores the inconvenient facts that prove it ridiculous.

Nowhere but in the public service sector are the employees in a position to 'vote out' their bosses if they disagree with changes in their workplace and compensation. In the private sector, a worker's only option is to leave and try to find a different job. Public sector employees, however, probably control something like 25-35% of the overall vote (combine the % of the overall pop in the public service, add their spouses/voting-age children, assume for obvious reasons that almost all of them vote, and then compare that to voter turnout).

When the government (the employer) knows that 1/4 to 1/3 of the total vote will mobilize against it if any attempts are made to curb public excess, the prospect becomes daunting. Only when public finances and sentiment deteriorate to a sufficient extent to mobilize voters against the public service is anything ever done about it. Unfortunately, the cyclical nature of this phenomenon necessitates that the infrequent but inevitable push-back comes down heavy. The outrage we subsequently see from the public service and its supporters, while understandable, is also misguided. It's simply an overdue adjustment to a system out of balance.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Moonbox

[Peter F]

Peter, youre smarter than that. No one said anything remotely like that.

At the end of the day, the Govt negotiator , while trying to minimize raises etc, the money that is ultimately paid comes from the taxpayer and that supply is almost limitless.

But its not limitless. Its limited by taxes collected which is a finite amount. and budgets are allocated based on that finite amount of taxes.

Treasury board is allocated X amount of dollars to pay wages/benefits.

Government negotiators are given their 'envelopes', as they call them, within which they must negotiate a contract. As long as they remain within the envelope then they can talk. As soon as the talks start leading them out of the envelope then the answers are flat out - no discussion - off the table - No.

Negotiators enter contract talks knowing very well what their limitations are.

I've been there, I've seen it. If it was like you say then I'd be a very rich man today - but I'm not.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Peter F

[guyser]

But its not limitless. Its limited by taxes collected which is a finite amount. and budgets are allocated based on that finite amount of taxes.

All true, but contracts are for the future, thus the budget gets bumped to reflect same.

[Moonbox]

I've been there, I've seen it. If it was like you say then I'd be a very rich man today - but I'm not.

Oh poor you! Most people aren't rich, so the fact that YOU are not rich does literally nothing to support your argument. Logic!

[Peter F]

See? There are limits to what government allows all-powerful union folks.

[Peter F]

All true, but contracts are for the future, thus the budget gets bumped to reflect same.

yes. So? whats odd unusual about that?

[Argus]

I can see that your colleagues, the civil servants, the ones who are responsible for ensuring that contract cleaners or outsourcing firms complete their contract- are failing miserably.

Yet another outsourcing opportunity, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Due to centralization, the people who hire the contracted cleaners aren't even in the building. In fact, they're not even in the department. You have to call a long distance number to get a 'ticket' if you have a complaint. Further, all they can do is call the contractor. They can't get rid of them because the contractor is on a multi-year contract. Of course, the contractor can yell at people, or even fire them, but at what they're paying whoever they hire to replace them is going to be exactly the same. Did you watch that Marketplace report on hotel cleanliness, or lack of? See the video the 'maid' using a toilet brush to scrub the inside of the toilet, then using it on the seat and then on the sink? That's the quality of employee you get with such low wages.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Peter, youre smarter than that. No one said anything remotely like that.

At the end of the day, the Govt negotiator , while trying to minimize raises etc, the money that is ultimately paid comes from the taxpayer and that supply is almost limitless.

Not for a government which would rather cut its wrists than raise taxes and is committed to balancing the budget somehow. If you think the government negotiators don't give a damn you might want to explain why wage increases have been less than inflation for so many years.

[Moonbox]

Not for a government which would rather cut its wrists than raise taxes and is committed to balancing the budget somehow. If you think the government negotiators don't give a damn you might want to explain why wage increases have been less than inflation for so many years.

Oh poor you. It's been worse in the private sector.

[Argus]

Your disagreement, once again, is based on a self-serving bias. The perversion of reality you offer up with this misguided comparison ignores the inconvenient facts that prove it ridiculous.

I think you have a different definition of the term 'fact' than I do.

Nowhere but in the public service sector are the employees in a position to 'vote out' their bosses if they disagree with changes in their workplace and compensation. In the private sector, a worker's only option is to leave and try to find a different job. Public sector employees, however, probably control something like 25-35% of the overall vote (combine the % of the overall pop in the public service, add their spouses/voting-age children, assume for obvious reasons that almost all of them vote, and then compare that to voter turnout).

This is so laughably stupid I don't know why I even bother. It's paranoid looniness. By this the government should have been busily ingratiating themselves with public servants for decades, but as I've already pointed out, there have been long periods of wage freezes and below inflation raises. And this government is hardly the first to get itself some free publicity by attacking public servants. In fact, it's pretty much a regular thing. The only area where annoying the public service can cost any seats if Ottawa, and it doesn't seem to be deterring Harper much.

By the way, federal public servants got a 1% wage increase this year. MPs and Senators got 2.5%.

[Argus]

Oh poor you. It's been worse in the private sector.

It's SUPPOSED to be worse in the private sector. Government workers are generally a lot more skilled and educated than the private sector.

And, btw, I am not a public servant.

[overthere]

Due to centralization, the people who hire the contracted cleaners aren't even in the building. In fact, they're not even in the department. You have to call a long distance number to get a 'ticket' if you have a complaint. Further, all they can do is call the contractor. They can't get rid of them because the contractor is on a multi-year contract. Of course, the contractor can yell at people, or even fire them, but at what they're paying whoever they hire to replace them is going to be exactly the same. Did you watch that Marketplace report on hotel cleanliness, or lack of? See the video the 'maid' using a toilet brush to scrub the inside of the toilet, then using it on the seat and then on the sink? That's the quality of employee you get with such low wages.

Yet those very same staff with the same companies manage to clean private sector buildings to an adequate standard.

Like I said, a lot govt outsourcing is designed to fail. PSAC members in PWCGSC supervising and designing the outsource, failure is guaranteed.

It's a perfect feedback loop.

The govt outsourcing of real estate management is another example. Cluster f**k from start to finish, while the private sector ventures save plenty o' dough for clients with the same contractors by shedding tasks outside their core competencies.

Everybody involved knows the score.

[overthere]

but as I've already pointed out, there have been long periods of wage freezes and below inflation raises

So what, these are common in the private sector. What you did not include in that comment was telling. Where are the layoffs, industry wide closures, wage reductions found in the private sector when the economy founders?

But the biggest lie of all is the pay scale itself. A CR-4(very common clerical level in federal govt)position could lose roughly 40% of the starting salary for that level to get paid a private sector equivalent salary for the same work. Instead, there is blubbering about a 1% raise to a seriously overpaid position. Boo hoo.

[jacee]

So what, these are common in the private sector. What you did not include in that comment was telling. Where are the layoffs, industry wide closures, wage reductions found in the private sector when the economy founders?

Downsizing, restructuring and outsourcing are rampant in the public service at such times.

But the biggest lie of all is the pay scale itself. A CR-4(very common clerical level in federal govt)position could lose roughly 40% of the starting salary for that level to get paid a private sector equivalent salary for the same work. Instead, there is blubbering about a 1% raise to a seriously overpaid position. Boo hoo.

Oh you mean women should be underpaid, and men overpaid, in the public sector too, so they too can experience the inequity that pervades the private sector?

Aim higher.

.

Edited September 20, 2014 by jacee

[Peter F]

A very good point: Aim Higher.

It's almost like some law is being violated when uneducated low-lifes get paid a good wage. Its just WRONG!