Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
It is not that difficult to reduce staff if that is what you have to do . It happens all the time and even in government ,but not often enough . The key is that you have to know what the employees produce for you and what clients they serve and what they deliver ,or sell . In government , you have many positions that are rather unique as that may be the only person that knows about a certain law or agreement . These are a “core” that you need to really understand as you cannot weaken the core. You will also have some who are “qualified”( i.e a computer tech or building inspector or policeman ) or “professionals” ( teachers,nurses ,engineers , accountants ) who are needed to be able to perform what their profession mandates . Anyway, lay any organization chart on the table and I’ll bet you that you’ll see the potential flaws in the organization right away .
We know we are top heavy . We know in many cases there is far too many executives ,managers and supervisors to supervise too few workers . I’d do the job of fining the surplus for a 3% commission on every position reduced and make a pile of money
Office Locations:. Why so many staff in prime real estate ,we build and own schools, but never government offices .
Contracting out : we heard that over $340 million of health care was not tendered , and no one really knew . That is a purchasing process and oversight problem that is costing us millions if no one is watching where we spend money and do not get bids .
Contracting out is an “option” , as some times it is not cost efficient and you only find that out after you tried it. OFTEN no one is watching the contractor to make sure they deliver what they are supposed to .
These all connect to your ability to decide where and how you reduce staff . But it’s not hard to do .
peter s | February 22, 2015 | Reply
there should be a large portion of the public service eligible to retire in the next 5-10 years. Reduction through attrition is probably the way to go, but that can’t happen without the public’s support in seeking less from government.
Cecile | February 21, 2015 | Reply
If perhaps you really mean your readers to focus on; How many are we today obliged to pay out of the long-since overstretched budget, I’m sure a lot of us have wondered why such transparency is never clarified? In which case the number is way higher (lincluding teachers, healthcare, etc.,and all the pensioned.
If that was found to be far too much of the ‘pie’, anyone from the real world would tell us that it was far too high – that we have too much government.
John Bragg is being businesslike and suggests reducing by 15%.
And speaking of the spring session of the legislature hope of having sufficient “courage”, since they too are paid from the budget, don’t be confident; unless they begin by cutting their own pay by something closer to what will be necessary to get expenses ($10B) in line with revenues (before transfers~$5B) – which looks more like 50% than what we’ve heard from, say New Brunswick or Cumberland South
gordon a.... | February 20, 2015 | Reply
We find ourselves in a position somewhat similar to that of a school yard bully and his victim or on a grander scale like that faced by the free world and Germany pre 1939.
Appeasement will not,does not work.
Jessome’s whole reason of being is to increase her members “take of the pie” on a continuing basis, When that goal is not achieved she becomes redundant..
That is a fact and is supported by empirical evidence.
If her power to bully and/or intimidate is derived from existing law then that law must be changed
It is not equitable that all members of society indebt themselves to satisfy the demands of the few by virtue of laws enacted by weak or sycophantic governments.
The present government was elected to represent all citizens in an equitable manner–certainly that was evident from the recent election.
Laws are amended,repealed and enacted on a continuing basis—that is a major function of governing.
It is a hallmark of leadership.
We cannot afford nor should we try to provide a job for a lifetime.
Premier McNeil–stop “beggaring thy neighbor” and recognize that we all have a right to work but not a right to a job
Enact legislation to that end.
bill | February 20, 2015 | Reply
I’ve always maintained that the a lot of jobs in the Nova Scotia government were a result of treating the civil service as a job creating exercise.
Politicians will fiddle around for the next thousand years talking about reducing the size of the civil service and it will never happen. Mr. Bragg’s idea of a 10% reduction in the size of the civil service resulting in a saving of somewhere in excess of $800-million per year is probably accurate, but will never happen.
If you want a 10% saving in the cost of the civil service, have the intestinal fortitude to simply cut civil service wages by 10% – across the board.
The result of this approach is immediate and can be measured. Very quickly the number of civil servants will diminish as they get better jobs elsewhere. Then, you can determine if a raise is needed.
Jon Coates | February 20, 2015 | Reply
Creative Commons 2010 – Present