Work Organisation Impossible
The Rand formula was based on an industrial work organization model where all workers display a visible output more or less accurately measurable in man hours. The new workplace is not be based on hours, technology completely uncoupled the relationship between output and time.
While an employer has what amounts to a subscription to a employees' prime time and energy, it would be reasonable to believe they would want to harness their full potential to make the best returns on their costs. But the public service's culture of carelessness does not only cost the Canadian public a fortune, they also turn competent employees into unvaluable prospects for private sector employers. What is referred to as the golden handcuffs could also be illustrated by the idea of turning employees into paperweights, a mere decorative object that bids its time.
Time is precious, time away from our own interests is no to be treated as standby time anymore. We get paid, but not to deliver outputs of a format and quality expected in the current job market, the locus of control is diluted to the point where claiming achievements for employees becomes impossible; difficult to fill a resume with career highlights. But this is precisely this type of achievement that sets a candidate apart from other contenders. Expecting us all to do a little portion of a larger meaningful output, making it less stimulating and rewarding in terms of experience.
While some are happy to have little on their plates, some can enjoy spending hours, sometimes way beyond the average, to bring a project to completion. Why the later type would have to be limited by the former type? Why is it acceptable to stifle career ambition of the later type, but not to expect more from the former type? It is an ethical issue to which the answer is obvious, it is not acceptable to impose one's limit on others; yet it is practiced in many ways, but always at the cost of forfeiting better results. In other words, if pushing others in the back is unacceptable so is holding back others.
Regarding the extra time some are willing to put towards making their life more comfortable, there are reasons why this extra time, logged to be paid, ought not to be taxed at all. Whether a lower or higher wage employee, this time is away from home, from their close ones; it is a sacrifice they are making. Making them contribute more to the fiscal efforts for sacrifices that many blatantly refuse, but would benefit from is a crass form of entitlement. We all know those who would never work overtime or an evening or weekend, that's a personal choice they are free to enjoy. The same principle applies for those who decide to put in more work, so they can enjoy the full return on that choice to work beyond what is deemed the standard workweek.
But sometimes, use of technology is the best determining factor that illustrates well time's irrelevance in certain scenarios. Someone could invest weeks to deliver a solution that ultimately enables to save 2 days from their weekly workload. But what is the incentive? Would the display of initiative be even welcome? Would that time become time off? Or would it still expected to bid time?
What incentive is there to improve processes when there is an obvious surplus of staff? If the staff was as busy as portrayed, any attempt, even a highly involved one, to relieve them from grunt work would be welcomed with a red carpet.
We do not all work the same way or at the same pace, we value work differently and the sustainability of our outputs as well. Sustainability as in not requiring to be eventually scrapped by thinking ahead and future proofing, a low maintenance long term approach which can be built upon.
Workers invest themselves body and soul into work at varying degrees. Since time cannot measure this involvement in every case, nor cutting time involved recognized, for situations where it applies the tangible impact reflected on our environment might be the best measure.
A good example that saves time and much overhead, telework, was possible a long time ago. Yet, absolute necessity, not good intentions regarding resources management, brought a technological improvement that can result in the saving of millions of dollars for Canadian taxpayers. But overhead has become part of your contribution to chosen suppliers, the rationale to support a return of workers on site is based in the notion of supporting the local economy. Does your personal business benefit from such largesse? What about those that preferred to stay open, try their best to lift their own weight? Why try to dull entrepreneurial spirit when it is the small and medium enterprises that are the driver of an effervescent economy?
The above explains why we cannot be well represented within a work organization model that assumes that time is equal as output and sees the public service as a political action committee. The conundrum goes beyond outdated and ruinous work organization, it has become a political vessel. Unions are used to bypass the requirements of public servants to be politically impartial, although from the state of affairs things are run in a way that reflects ideology, not best management practices. The unions swift move to go all-in with the government mandate for vaccination exposed a partisanship that contrasted with their reaction over the red tape reductions efforts of Harper's years. Efficiency gains are an utmost unethical evil, but mandatory vaccination or being jobless and ostracized from society is sunny ways.
The overly sympathetic, unanimous, decision in favor of the unions in the Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] case was justified by a restriction of freedom of association in virtue of Section 1 of the Charter of rights; the infringement on freedom of association was not defined, but inferred. Unions' ability to influence the way in which this country is headed was deemed important in 1991, before the internet reached everyone and then social media that magnified this very influence to create a major imbalance in the general ambient political discourse. Media being compensated for the lack of foresight, now pure dependence, from handsomely paid boards of directors who refused to see the threat and opportunity of the internet are also used as political vessels, money never come without string attached. With coverage that seem to differ based on who cuts the cheques, is it reasonable to believe there was no political interference in the handling of the political vaccine mandate by our politically independent public service?
The rand formula has become a massive financing scheme that enables a systemic bias through a simple mechanism called “money talks”. The fact is a sizeable portion of membership is forced to contribute to the promotion of a political party while they vote for another. Besides the politically savvy, the term is used loosely, only those that vote for the union backed party benefit from this influence, yet you'll hear them complain about inflation the direct result of their favorite political stripes. Anyone else cannot possibly want their resources diverted towards political options they do not want; it has become a major influence to the point of distorting democracy.
Canadians of all political stripes should feel welcome in their workplace and have their best interest represented by their bargaining agent. After all, not all Canadians want an ever-growing government apparatus, it comes with a price. Beyond the surface, the ever-decreasing relative purchasing power of employees over the last two decades exposes the cost of increasing overhead that wages increases will never catch up too.
Moreover, the resources diverted directly from the employees’ compensation are then not only unavailable to them to finance a political party of their choice, but they are likely to be used to lobby to parties that have plans contrary to the members’ interests.
The rent-seekers provide little to none in return for their handsome fee; as they say, if both the employer and union agree, one is not necessary.
