Something simply *has* to change in politics
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
See now this ticks me off
Being in public service should not be so lucrative.
Who the hell has job security now a days? At least to the tune of 6 figures plus.
They need to try a lot harder because that is a huge slap in the face to taxpayers as far as I'm concerned.
Being in public service should not be so lucrative.
Obviously this is on the high end, but it is all relative.
When they talk about job security, it is relative to what these guys could find in the private sector.
The fact is that salaries like that are still well below what someone like her chief of staff would have commanded in a private sector job. You want to attracted the best possible people to work in the public service, but exactly how close you should get to private sector salaries is definitely up for debate.
Well for all the "talent" that gets hired, government should be much better run than it is. I'd say it's more of a cash cow for those who couldn't get hired in the private sector.
I'm sure there are lots of dead weight employees in the government, but it is very unlikely that you are going to find them in the premier's office.
Regardless of what you think someone's motivation is for going into politics, I think we can all agree that these leaders want to be remembered favorably. This is their legacy, and I doubt anyone would choose to put their legacy in the hands of anyone but the best people they can get for the job.
What's your device to determine dead weight? Remembered favourably by whom? Political corruption in the west is said to be rampant and favorable memories are cultivated in the private sector while serving in the public sector, even if it means global war directly against the interests of the voter and at sharp odds to democratic principle.
What's your device to determine dead weight? Remembered favourably by whom? Political corruption in the west is said to be rampant and favorable memories are cultivated in the private sector while serving in the public sector, even if it means global war directly against the interests of the voter and at sharp odds to democratic principle.
Dead weight as in not good at their jobs? Do you honestly not understand what I mean?
Deluxe Egyptian cotton. Because of NAFTA and tariffs the lesser of two weevils makes them a luxury and unethical.
Last edited:
Oh FFsakes. Look what we have running around in Ottawa.
Troll on.
For want of not being able to get close to you, he's pulling your leg. Just say Fukk off Ruffy.
Are you talking about elected officials or their staff? The people we elect are an entirely different story than the staff hired to support them.
Nooooooo there is no unelected staff but there is a sacred staff that was handed down from Moses or some other hotshot and it's very powerful. If you touch it you get in deep poop
Yes I understand deadweight but I was wondering how do we determine dead weight from live? They all look the same in them suits and they all talk the same line. Do we have to wait till it cost millions/
What are you really asking for?
It doesn't make sense to try to have the electorate micromanage staffing decisions. The elected officials are tasked with doing whatever it is we sent them there to do, and that includes assembling the team to get that work done. Whatever happens, they are responsible.
Again though, do you, or anyone else, really think that any leader, aka, PM or Premier, would staff their office with anyone other than the people that they think are best for the job? If they were inclined to hire someone who they didn't have absolute trust in, it would probably be for some middle management job in another department, not someone directly involved in helping them craft their legacy as a leader.
I'm really asking what we can do before any election or appointment to check and verify the integrity of the person about to be assigned a job/position. In addition to the selection process, how can we ensure a separation of corporation and state, and eliminate lobbying.
I wonder about that. I'm of the mind that Government employment, be it tradtional, elected, or by contract has become synonymous with "easy money".
I think that is a perception that many people have, but it really depends on the position.
At the bottom end of the pay scale, government jobs definitely pay above market rates. The lowest paid full time jobs seem to start at like 40k in a lot of departments. They are using temp agencies more and more though, so getting that full time position can be a real challenge.
At the top end of the spectrum, a lot of people are working well below what they could and have been paid in the private sector. Outside of the power corps, the ceiling in the public sector is relatively very low.
I think that is a very bad idea. Making government hirings a political ordeal is just going to waste time and money, and there is really no reason to believe that this would produce better workers.
Again, you have not provided any reasons why you think a leader would want an unqualified person working in their office in the first place. The dead weight guys are going to be shuffled off into some middle management job in some other part of the government, and we obviously can't have hearings over every single government hiring.
As far as separating special interests from government, the only fool proof way to do that is if people start caring about the issues more. Special interests can only really affect things that the general public doesn't care all that much about. The Government is always going to side first and foremost with whatever gives them the best chance to be reelected, which means they can't piss off the voters too much. The problem is that the voters don't take notice of 99% of what goes on, so they can easily do favors for people on those issues.
Yeah, I get that a lot. Fact is, it was mostly blind luck I ended up in government. Applied for a summer job as a student and got it. Had a fantastic summer job, did well, came back next summer and they offered me a job when I graduated. Jobs were hard to come by in that era, so wasn't that difficult a decision for me.
Good decision or bad? Well, hindsight's 20/20. I've got it pretty good, all things considered. I'd be making a lot more in the private sector, but now I've got 20 years in, so it's tough to walk away from that pension. And it's tough that some people just think you're a uselss bag of crap sucking the public teat, but some folks (hint: you) just need to take others down a notch to make themselves feel better. My guys get headhunted on a regular basis by private companies.
Government is inefficient. Always has been, always will be. I could write a treatise on the reasons why--the natural risk aversion of elected officials, lack of profit motivator, administrative burden of large organziations, unions, yadda yadda yadda. If you want to compare efficiency of government with a small business, obviously it's no contest. But having seen and worked with governments in other parts of the world--most recently Afghanistan--it could be a lot worse.