Could there be a worse way to manage cuts to the federal public service, however necessary they may be? Perhaps, but the Harper approach, so far, is in a class of its own.
First, the Conservatives warned the chickens months ago that the executioner's axe was about to fall. Naturally, the chickens were frightened, demoralized, confused. Their normal work life was disrupted: They couldn't lay eggs on time or in the right place. They wondered if anyone even wanted eggs any more.
Second, the chickens got mixed reports on how widespread the carnage would be - maybe most would survive, after all; maybe only the older, less productive chickens would be culled. Or retired early with a nice nest egg.
In cooing tones, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Treasury Board president Tony Clement downplayed the impact: Baird said fewer than 5,000 people would lose their jobs in the national capital area over three years; Clement underlined that not every employee receiving an "affected" notice would be out of work. Some might carry their skills into another, conveniently vacant government position.
But the unions were alarmed, as unions always are. They dispute the government's figures: they say this latest round of cuts, combined with the slow bleeding in recent years through freezes, attrition and "streamlining" will mean 34,000 fewer federal jobs overall at the end of three years. Add to that 12,500 term, or contract, employees with no job protection and this begins to look like a major reduction in the federal workforce and, presumably, in the services it provides.
This week, as thousands of public servants got warning notices, the exercise turned even uglier. Within some departments, employees will be required to compete against colleagues for remaining jobs, a sort of frantic musical chairs, in which seniority guarantees nothing. This may be a welcome step toward valuing merit over longevity, but it doesn't build team spirit.
While downsizing is always painful, it doesn't have to be this bad, says Linda Duxbury, a business professor and expert in organizational health at Carleton University. You either rip a Band-Aid off quickly and let the wound heal, "or remove it slowly, catching every little hair, prolonging the pain."
When it comes to layoffs, Duxbury says, "it is more merciful to say 'you're losing your job,' than sending letters to thousands saying 'you might lose your job.' " The only creates insecurity across the system, and "turbulence and chaos for those left." They suffer a form of "survivor syndrome," a debilitating mixture of guilt and relief.
Leaving aside damage to individual public servants and to institutional morale, what about the government's broader goals? It claims it wants to modernize the bureaucracy's programs and methods, eliminate waste, inefficiencies and save money. So it should; every large organization needs regular refreshing.
But, while it is theoretically possible to improve service while shedding jobs, this government's management style has been so arbitrary, contradictory and - especially with the F-35 project - dishonest, it doesn't inspire confidence.
Cabinet's stunning lack of curiosity about the costing of the F-35s and the government's readiness to downplay the true costs of the warplanes to blunt public reaction undermine its supposed commitment to fiscal prudence. So do Clement's Muskoka shenanigans, shifting money for border infrastructure to build gazebos in the minister's riding.
Yet the government is ready to deny free Internet service to the homeless, the disabled and the poor by cutting a small Industry Canada program that helped libraries and social agencies provide computer access. Industry Canada says the service isn't needed since 79 per cent of Canadians have home access, and it isn't, except by the poor.
Other cuts appear to be rebranding exercises. The $15-million Trudeau-era Katimavik program, for example, was axed only to be replaced this week by $27 million in funding for similar youth exchanges.
As details trickle out, we also learn that policy analysts, economists, veterinarians, food inspectors and border service employees are disproportionately represented on the "affected" list. How many will lose their jobs, at what cost to the public, remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, some federal services have already been "streamlined" into uselessness. Service Canada, which is supposed to help with everything from citizenship to pension to EI inquiries, is so under-staffed that it doesn't answer its phones. Passport offices are as crowded as emergency rooms. Government websites are useless for anything but general information.
Luckily for Conservatives, widespread indifference to the fate of public servants and general failure to connect today's spending cuts with deteriorating services, provide some cover. But, when the smoke clears, we could well be left with dial tones instead of answers, longer lines at the border, more incidents of food poisoning and some very expensive jets. That's when the chickens come home to roost.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Susan Riley
First, the Conservatives warned the chickens months ago that the executioner's axe was about to fall. Naturally, the chickens were frightened, demoralized, confused. Their normal work life was disrupted: They couldn't lay eggs on time or in the right place. They wondered if anyone even wanted eggs any more.
Second, the chickens got mixed reports on how widespread the carnage would be - maybe most would survive, after all; maybe only the older, less productive chickens would be culled. Or retired early with a nice nest egg.
In cooing tones, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Treasury Board president Tony Clement downplayed the impact: Baird said fewer than 5,000 people would lose their jobs in the national capital area over three years; Clement underlined that not every employee receiving an "affected" notice would be out of work. Some might carry their skills into another, conveniently vacant government position.
But the unions were alarmed, as unions always are. They dispute the government's figures: they say this latest round of cuts, combined with the slow bleeding in recent years through freezes, attrition and "streamlining" will mean 34,000 fewer federal jobs overall at the end of three years. Add to that 12,500 term, or contract, employees with no job protection and this begins to look like a major reduction in the federal workforce and, presumably, in the services it provides.
This week, as thousands of public servants got warning notices, the exercise turned even uglier. Within some departments, employees will be required to compete against colleagues for remaining jobs, a sort of frantic musical chairs, in which seniority guarantees nothing. This may be a welcome step toward valuing merit over longevity, but it doesn't build team spirit.
While downsizing is always painful, it doesn't have to be this bad, says Linda Duxbury, a business professor and expert in organizational health at Carleton University. You either rip a Band-Aid off quickly and let the wound heal, "or remove it slowly, catching every little hair, prolonging the pain."
When it comes to layoffs, Duxbury says, "it is more merciful to say 'you're losing your job,' than sending letters to thousands saying 'you might lose your job.' " The only creates insecurity across the system, and "turbulence and chaos for those left." They suffer a form of "survivor syndrome," a debilitating mixture of guilt and relief.
Leaving aside damage to individual public servants and to institutional morale, what about the government's broader goals? It claims it wants to modernize the bureaucracy's programs and methods, eliminate waste, inefficiencies and save money. So it should; every large organization needs regular refreshing.
But, while it is theoretically possible to improve service while shedding jobs, this government's management style has been so arbitrary, contradictory and - especially with the F-35 project - dishonest, it doesn't inspire confidence.
Cabinet's stunning lack of curiosity about the costing of the F-35s and the government's readiness to downplay the true costs of the warplanes to blunt public reaction undermine its supposed commitment to fiscal prudence. So do Clement's Muskoka shenanigans, shifting money for border infrastructure to build gazebos in the minister's riding.
Yet the government is ready to deny free Internet service to the homeless, the disabled and the poor by cutting a small Industry Canada program that helped libraries and social agencies provide computer access. Industry Canada says the service isn't needed since 79 per cent of Canadians have home access, and it isn't, except by the poor.
Other cuts appear to be rebranding exercises. The $15-million Trudeau-era Katimavik program, for example, was axed only to be replaced this week by $27 million in funding for similar youth exchanges.
As details trickle out, we also learn that policy analysts, economists, veterinarians, food inspectors and border service employees are disproportionately represented on the "affected" list. How many will lose their jobs, at what cost to the public, remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, some federal services have already been "streamlined" into uselessness. Service Canada, which is supposed to help with everything from citizenship to pension to EI inquiries, is so under-staffed that it doesn't answer its phones. Passport offices are as crowded as emergency rooms. Government websites are useless for anything but general information.
Luckily for Conservatives, widespread indifference to the fate of public servants and general failure to connect today's spending cuts with deteriorating services, provide some cover. But, when the smoke clears, we could well be left with dial tones instead of answers, longer lines at the border, more incidents of food poisoning and some very expensive jets. That's when the chickens come home to roost.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Susan Riley
No comments:
Post a Comment