Environment Canada to get rid of 60 scientists

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
Environment Canada to get rid of 60 scientists

Environment Canada to get rid of 60 scientists







Tells a good story, makes a good puppet in the new Conservative party.

The big question is will the Conservative government give subsidized portable breathing equipment for their citizens in their new vision of Canada
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
The neat thing about contracting out work is that we only pay when there is a job to do. No excess on the payroll collecting gold plated holiday and pension benefits. DOn't be surprised if many of those getting pink slips linger on as contractors.
 

relic

Council Member
Nov 29, 2009
1,408
3
38
Nova Scotia
Yes,ignorance is strength,to guys like harpo and his lackys,and it looks like he has lots of willing sheeple,how long till he's setting up kool aid stands ?
Can't have any nasty old science getting in the way now can we ?
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
The neat thing about contracting out work is that we only pay when there is a job to do. No excess on the payroll collecting gold plated holiday and pension benefits. DOn't be surprised if many of those getting pink slips linger on as contractors.

The bad thing about contracting out is that consultants overcharge since they have to protect against their lack of job security. Strangely, even taking this into account, contracting out is often a cost saving measure...
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The bad thing about contracting out is that consultants overcharge since they have to protect against their lack of job security. Strangely, even taking this into account, contracting out is often a cost saving measure...

Another problem with consultants is they tend to reinforce what they think their employers want to hear. Yes men and women. Other times, management will hire consultants to make recommendations when they know full well that the decision will be hugely unpopular.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Another problem with consultants is they tend to reinforce what they think their employers want to hear. Yes men and women. Other times, management will hire consultants to make recommendations when they know full well that the decision will be hugely unpopular.

Contracting science just seems like a bad idea. I believe most battery research in the world is somehow funded by 3M. Because of this we know how to make some really amazing lithium batteries and will soon run out of lithium. Breadth in science is often more valuable than depth, and nobody contracts out for breadth.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
5,693
3,570
113
Edmonton
Question is, how many scientists to they still have on their payroll? I suspect that they do and that they can still do the job - with technology being what it is now-a-days, I doubt if the 60 laid-off were really needed to begin with. But, could be wrong....

JMHO

oops, bloody typo's - get me every time lol
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
The neat thing about contracting out work is that we only pay when there is a job to do. No excess on the payroll collecting gold plated holiday and pension benefits. DOn't be surprised if many of those getting pink slips linger on as contractors.

Contracting out and consulting equates to “You Get What You Pay For And Less”

Most contractors and consultants do slower work; cut corners, seldom finish on time, which inflates the cost of the original project.

In the contracting and consulting business cost overruns seems to be the norm.

In-house labour gives more efficient work force, better quality of work, more control and getting the project finished within the budget on time.

In-House labour will give better quality that will last as long as it is supposed to instead of breaking down before it's time.

We also cannot forget that contracting out and consulting projects usually end up in the inner circle of friends of the decision makers.

Look at the St Clair streetcar contracting out fiasco. http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/01/19/12534386.html

A Toronto mayoral candidate went down in defeat because of his handling of the electronic health records conversion by using consultants and contractors. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/07/ehealth-auditor.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/848352--ontario-s-local-health-networks-must-go-opposition-says

It is just better to hire workers to do the job right the first time instead of spending more money constantly fixing the mistake of contractors and consultants year after year.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Question is, how many scientists to they still have on their payroll? I suspect that they do and that they can still do the job - with technology being what it is now-a-days, I doubt if the 60 laid-off were really needed to begin with. But, could be wrong....

JMHO

Well, normally the conservative governments (in both Canada and the US) fund science quite extensively. Indeed, the Conservatives increased the total number of science fellowships when they were first brought into office. This is kind of ironic, since not many scientists are conservative (in my experience).

So this sort of goes in the other direction, which leads one to suspect a political motivation.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Contracting science just seems like a bad idea. I believe most battery research in the world is somehow funded by 3M. Because of this we know how to make some really amazing lithium batteries and will soon run out of lithium. Breadth in science is often more valuable than depth, and nobody contracts out for breadth.

The National Research Council and their provincial counter-parts contract their services to the public sector all the time.

The contract model has proven highly effective in the past and I believe that it's a safe bet to believe that the Feds will benefit from that model.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Environment Canada to get rid of 60 scientists




How many civil servants do we need in Canada? What percentage of the population should be employed by the government? You seem to feel it should be a pretty high number, I'd be interested to know what you really think. 15%? 25%? 100%?


Contracting out and consulting equates to “You Get What You Pay For And Less”

Most contractors and consultants do slower work; cut corners, seldom finish on time, which inflates the cost of the original project.


Only if the contracts are written that way, which they usually are so that the friends of the government can benefit.

That's why the gun registry and electronic health records cost so much - the contracts are given to friends so they can essentially steal from the taxpayers.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
Contracting out and consulting equates to “You Get What You Pay For And Less”

Most contractors and consultants do slower work; cut corners, seldom finish on time, which inflates the cost of the original project.

In the contracting and consulting business cost overruns seems to be the norm.

In-house labour gives more efficient work force, better quality of work, more control and getting the project finished within the budget on time.

In-House labour will give better quality that will last as long as it is supposed to instead of breaking down before it's time.

We also cannot forget that contracting out and consulting projects usually end up in the inner circle of friends of the decision makers.

Look at the St Clair streetcar contracting out fiasco. http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/01/19/12534386.html

A Toronto mayoral candidate went down in defeat because of his handling of the electronic health records conversion by using consultants and contractors. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/07/ehealth-auditor.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/848352--ontario-s-local-health-networks-must-go-opposition-says

It is just better to hire workers to do the job right the first time instead of spending more money constantly fixing the mistake of contractors and consultants year after year.

Makes as little sense on this thread as it does on the other one. Of course being a dyed in the wool Liberal you would know nothing about open contracting and competitive bids.
One more advantage to contracting out is that only the required jobs get done, there are no make work projects just to keep the overpaid government employees busy. Projects will not get held up for years because some bureaucrat is making a career out of investigating it.
The Northern Gateway is a prime example. It is required and will go ahead with or without years of expensive study and consultation. The object is to build the thing using best practices and materials. Not delaying and driving costs up.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
The National Research Council and their provincial counter-parts contract their services to the public sector all the time.

The contract model has proven highly effective in the past and I believe that it's a safe bet to believe that the Feds will benefit from that model.

In fact, that is what I had in mind when I mentioned 3M. You seem to think that the depth in the field was worth it, and I agree that if what you want is depth, then contracting works.

I wonder if we wouldn't already have the cheaper sodium ion batteries if they had just put the money in science and let it do what it wanted to. Most people recognize the investments in science which are not immediately worthwhile are extremely profitable in the end, and to this end one should wonder if breadth in science isn't more desirable than depth.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
In fact, that is what I had in mind when I mentioned 3M. You seem to think that the depth in the field was worth it, and I agree that if what you want is depth, then contracting works.

I believe that it does have tremendous benefits. Employing a group that has a specialized focus will generate better results more rapidly than going to a 'generalist' that must replicate the learning curve taht the specialist already possesses.

I wonder if we wouldn't already have the cheaper sodium ion batteries if they had just put the money in science and let it do what it wanted to. Most people recognize the investments in science which are not immediately worthwhile are extremely profitable in the end, and to this end one should wonder if breadth in science isn't more desirable than depth.


There is an argument to be made both ways.