MLicopter shuttle from Moodie stating into Carling campus?The OC Transpo would complain they taking work away from them! And the military would cave in.
MLicopter shuttle from Moodie stating into Carling campus?The OC Transpo would complain they taking work away from them! And the military would cave in.
You mean the school bus contracts we have?If only the Army had vehicles it could use, and drivers, to help its troops get to and from work![]()
Why is the assumption always that public servants are over compensated and not that private sector exploits its workers with below poverty wages, employment volatility, and anything else it can get away with not paying? It’s not impossible that it is a little from column A and a little from column B.
I would hope workers from one sector are not looking across at another and reflexively demanding reduction of the other groups benefits to achieve parity
instead of exploring an amelioration of their own benefits… but that is human behaviour.
It’s not a mobile work force. Public servants are almost entirely assigned a specific workplace. This is the employer massively sucking at administering their workforce under utterly normal conditions with the game set to “easy”.
I've seen some public sector staff more concerned about 'value for money' than private sector when it comes to productivity, so it's not an either/or thing IMHO...
Back in the old, old days, when NorTel was still a company, and a very successful one at that, they were one of the remote working pioneers at their Toronto facility.It’s also an institutional fuckup when said folks don’t have the required spaces, etc to work in. Asking yourself “will I have space to work today” isn’t a glowing recommendation to go back to the office for reasons, especially if Teams meetings dominate the work day.
Also, your CAF job can’t be done remotely but let’s say it can. Would you not want the option to do so?
As far as CAF jobs. First everything you described is a leadership fuck up. End story. Leadership, sort it the F out.It’s also an institutional fuckup when said folks don’t have the required spaces, etc to work in. Asking yourself “will I have space to work today” isn’t a glowing recommendation to go back to the office for reasons, especially if Teams meetings dominate the work day.
Also, your CAF job can’t be done remotely but let’s say it can. Would you not want the option to do so?
This is why one of my former junior colleagues, who is now a senior PS executive, is pressing very, very hard to have PS workers back in the office 5 days a week with "work from home" an option only for some established employees - see my NorTel story, just above. She says that mentoring and training are suffering badly from even a 3 day a week "in office" routine.As far as CAF jobs. First everything you described is a leadership fuck up. End story. Leadership, sort it the F out.
Next, check what I said about having frequent contact with your subordinates to ensure service member welfare, readiness, etc are good. The opposite should be applied. Do not work at home unless their is no other option. Thats for serving members.
PS types? If I were in charge, they would be at the office every work day and only storm days would they work from home (or child sick day). Saying everything can be done by phone, or video chat, etc is a f-ing cop out.
That's a very infantry centric view of the CAF.As far as CAF jobs. First everything you described is a leadership fuck up. End story. Leadership, sort it the F out.
Next, check what I said about having frequent contact with your subordinates to ensure service member welfare, readiness, etc are good. The opposite should be applied. Do not work at home unless their is no other option. Thats for serving members.
PS types? If I were in charge, they would be at the office every work day and only storm days would they work from home (or child sick day). Saying everything can be done by phone, or video chat, etc is a f-ing cop out.
You assume that all PS started from when they graduate school. Most especially, where I work, have worked in the real world most in multiple jobs.One of the weaknesses of public service is that there is insufficient churn. Not enough people spend time working for different companies. Not enough people are forced to spend time working for different companies.
I don't assume anything, nor am I situating my estimate in one place of work, and I assuredly don't assume that the first stop after completing education is for most people also the last one. I wrote there is insufficient churn, not that there is no churn. It's an educated guess based on the knowledge that there are fewer jobs-for-life companies than before, and the number is trending down. Data that show a higher fraction of private sector jobs (compared to public) are filled by people who end up as lifers could disprove my guess.You assume that all PS started from when they graduate school. Most especially, where I work, have worked in the real world most in multiple jobs.
Just to be clear, you're talking about public servants who are not providing the value of their salary?
Many of us that were at the coalface were very conscious of the taxpayer dollar and making sure our employees were good. As I have mentioned before, we built a rock solid case to fire someone and it was our senior management that refused to support us. Get rid of bonuses for EX and hold them accountable. Our DG was called the "Blackhole" because files went to her desk for decision and disappeared.Because people base their assumptions on their experience, and they have enough experience dealing with government and dealing with private sector businesses, and knowing people who work in the public sector and the private sector, to know that it's a LOT from Column A and a little bit from Column B.
You are also naïve to think that the government is paying public servants because it occupies some moral high ground of not wanting to pay "below poverty wages" or have "employment volatility," etc. The government would love to pay it's employees less and it would love to be able to lay them off / fire them - it's not that it's morally superior, it's just that it's incompetent and unable to right its own ship.
I am not. I am looking at the value I receive for what I pay in taxes, and comparing it to the value I receive when I pay for something in the private sector, and I see a huge disparity and that disparity is largely related to overcompensation of public servants.
Most employees are cognizant of the fact that they can't bankrupt their boss or else they'll have no job. Private sector workers negotiate their compensation in the real world, where they actually have to come to grips with the value they provide to their employer, whereas public sector workers don't. They'll just hold us all hostage with a strike, and not provide services that the government has made it illegal for private sector to provide (thanks again, government).
Just to be clear, you're talking about public servants who are not providing the value of their salary?
No doubt. This is my honest take on it... because there's a huge lack of accountability (i.e no one gets fired or laid off), the public sector (municipal, provincial, federal, and definitely including the CAF) becomes a place where 5% of the people do 95% of the work, and then 95% of the people do the other 5%.
Being a 5%'er sucks, and I feel sorry for those who are. I felt like I was a 5%'er and it drove me mad. As a smart Warrant Officer (another 5%'er for sure) told me as we commiserated together about the sad state of things, "only those who care are suffering."
So while I know there are 5%'ers and I feel empathy for them, I also know they are a minority and the only antidote is accountability. The reason we don't have this issue as much in the private sector isn't because of better pay, it isn't because of WFH policies, it isn't because of GBA+ stuff, it's because the CEO and our HR department would also like to keep their jobs, so I get an email nearly every month telling us about who has been fired - and after spending too many years in the CAF, it tickles me pink every time.
Our firm does allow people, after their first year of employment, to WFH for up to 2 days a week. And for some, in unique circumstances, they are working remotely full-time. But our firm will also get rid of them with about zero minutes notice as soon as they aren't worth what they are being paid. Until I see the Federal government have that kind of accountability in place, sorry, but if making 100% of public servants work in-office gets me an extra .01% value out of my already inefficiently spent tax dollars, then I don't care. If the 5%'ers hate it so bad, there are plenty of places in the private sector for them.
I'm at the point where I think I'd rather just see the bureaucracy implode rather than have to pay another cent in taxes to be wasted by a workforce that is 95% useless.