Environment Canada to get rid of 60 scientists


Liberalman
#1
Environment Canada to get rid of 60 scientists

Environment Canada to get rid of 60 scientists (external - login to view)







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
 
Spade
#2
"Ignorance is Strength"

 
L Gilbert
+1
#3
Perhaps contracting out for scientists is cheaper.
 
Tonington
#4
If it`s brown drink it down...
 
Liberalman
+1 / -1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Perhaps contracting out for scientists is cheaper.

Contracting out will give the government more support for their flawed view and more motivation to renew contracts
 
Spade
#6
The solution to pollution is dilution.
 
L Gilbert
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

[SIZE=4]Contracting out will give the government more support for their flawed view

In your opinion.
Quote:

and more motivation to renew contracts

Isn't that what people do with contracts?
 
taxslave
+3
#8
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
+1
#9
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
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

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
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

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
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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
+2
#13
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
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

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
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie CupView Post

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
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

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
+2
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

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%?


Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

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
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

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
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

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
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

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.
 
Niflmir
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

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.

There is an argument to be made both ways.

Indeed, I don't have any hard answers. Also, haha, if we wanted to answer this question we'd hire some people to look into it which is the specialist approach.

I am likely biased from the fact that I studied astrophysics, which has no direct industrial applications. The CCD and MOSFET technologies in most digitial cameras were first developed as methods of automating astronomical observatories and satellites, and eventually trickled out into industry, where they really took off. Similar things can be said in relation to particle physics and network routers. In general, it is very difficult to predict the fruits of scientific labor.
 
darkbeaver
#22
Science will provide more powerful and horrible weapons of war and fruits that aren't actually. a prediction
 
L Gilbert
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

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...

Exactly my point. Scientists that contract out and overcharge are still cheaper than paying them salaries, benefits, pensions. Science isn't going anywhere, it's just shifting to a different chair.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Another problem with consultants is they tend to reinforce what they think their employers want to hear. Yes men and women.

Whether they work for the gov't or private.
Quote:

Other times, management will hire consultants to make recommendations when they know full well that the decision will be hugely unpopular.

That, too.

Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

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.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed (generally). Lithium isn't going anywhere, it's just going from a lithium electrolyte to a lithium compound.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie CupView Post

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

I can't find a list of full time personnel for the DFO Eastern maritimes division let alone Canad, but in a y little town of Summerland, BC (population of about 10K) when I was living in the Okanagan there was a research facility that employed 4 scientists and a bevy of other researchers full time. There may be many more by now.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+5
#24  Top Rated Post
Many years ago I was an activist of sorts for injured soldiers and even ended up on a CBC talk show to talk about the issues soldiers faced when running up against the bureaucracy of Veteran's Affairs. I ran a a monthly web based ezine that today might be called a blog and it caught the attention of all sorts of folks. Opposition members called from time to time on issues, but mostly soldiers called or emailed looking for help after being injured.

One group of Veterans advocates invited me to an informal meet and greet after a story hit the news that I helped break. A source had given me some names of people in the army's medical community who knew of or were involved in shredding medical documents. These documents may have proved useful for soldiers who might have later developed health issues.

At this informal meet I had a beer or two, but didn't get inebriated and discussion started in about securing government jobs within the system. Never being one to mince words I piped up and asked the soldier's sitting around that table, "Isn't that getting into bed with the guys who are F'ing us in the first place?"

As you can guess things were a little cooler in that room. Not long after there was a lot of mudslinging when my name came up and I was considered a troublemaker. I stayed the course and continued to help soldiers secure pensions and even enlisted the aid of a former VAC employee who was a great help at getting around obstacles.

In the end that group of soldiers also achieved their aim. Many of them were scooped up by the government and made employees to deal with the issues facing todays soldier. Somewhere along the line, during the previous Liberal government the Pension plan for veterans was changed from lifetime disability to lump sum payout. This new plan was adopted by the now serving Conservative government and the bureaucracy faced by injured soldiers has not changed, some would even argue that it is worse.

I walked away from being an activist around 2002 after getting tired of hearing what a troublemaker I was and how I was screwing it up for soldiers looking to secure government jobs. I have no regrets about the things I did, I helped a lot of injured soldiers and by extension their families, but those new Federal employees with whom I sat did nothing to improve the situation for their brothers in arms. In fact they feathered their own nests, increased bureaucracy and became a part of the dysfunctional system they proclaimed needed change.
 
Tonington
#25
Conspiracy theory for some with the inclination; are any of these jobs connected to Conservative claims to increase the environmental analysis of oil sand impacts?
 
Niflmir
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Matter cannot be created or destroyed (generally). Lithium isn't going anywhere, it's just going from a lithium electrolyte to a lithium compound.

The problem is that most of it is winding up in landfills which makes it incredibly expensive to reclaim. Also, there isn't enough lithium for everyone in the world to have lithium battery powered automobiles.
 
L Gilbert
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

The problem is that most of it is winding up in landfills which makes it incredibly expensive to reclaim. Also, there isn't enough lithium for everyone in the world to have lithium battery powered automobiles.

I don't know about other areas, but near here is a place we can take stuff like old paint, old batteries and cells, and other such substances and items. If people want to ditch the crap in the dump instead and then whine about the prices of cells and batteries and whatnot, then they deserve what they get.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#28
There will always be conspiracy theories.
 
captain morgan
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

There will always be conspiracy theories.


You do understand that by making that statement without engaging the secret handshake first, you are in direct violation of numerous secret covenants.

I may have to revoke membership RCS unless you can accurately interpret the following message:

"ThE wet Dog barKs AT thE dRy fire"

I'll wait whilst you dig out your special decoder ring.
 
Tonington
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You do understand that by making that statement without engaging the secret handshake first, you are in direct violation of numerous secret covenants.

I may have to revoke membership RCS unless you can accurately interpret the following message:

"ThE wet Dog barKs AT thE dRy fire"

I'll wait whilst you dig out your special decoder ring.

The forum keeps a spare around for darkbeaver and stretch, RCS can borrow that one.
 

Similar Threads

36
Cuts coming to Environment Canada: reports
by mentalfloss | Aug 7th, 2011
no new posts