It is not that difficult to reduce staff if you have to. It happens all the time and even within the government, but not often enough. The key is that you need to know what employees produce for you and what customers they serve and what they provide or sell. Within the government, you have a lot of positions that are quite unique, because that may be the only person who knows about a particular law or agreement. It`s a “core” that you really need to understand, because you can`t weaken the core. They will also have certain “qualified” (i.e. a computer technician or construction inspector or a police officer) or “professionals” (teachers, nurses, engineers, accountants) needed to be able to perform what their profession requires. Anyway, put any chart on the table and I bet you will see potential errors in the organization immediately. We know we are very heavy. We know that, in many cases, there are far too many managers, managers and superiors to monitor too few workers. I would reduce the task of funding the surplus for a commission of 3% at each post and make a bunch of money offices. Why so many employees in first class real estate, we build and own schools, but never government offices. Contracting out: We heard that more than $340 million in health care was not announced, and no one really knew.
It is a buying process and a board problem that costs us millions if no one looks at where we spend money and where we do not receive offers. Contracting Out is an “option” because it is sometimes not profitable and you won`t find out until you`ve tried it. OFTEN no one is monitoring the contractor to make sure they are providing what they are supposed to do. These combine with your ability to decide where and how to reduce staff. But it`s not hard to do. In the 2012-15 agreement, the Nova Scotia NDP government added a Memorandum of Understanding that makes layoffs almost impossible. The NSGEU/NUPGE represents approximately 7,300 members working in the public service. Halifax (07 Dec 2017) – The Public Service Court of Arbitration, chaired by Tom Cromwell, has issued its decision to enter into a collective agreement for members of the public service.
The Board`s decision is consistent with Bill 148, which provides for a public service award freeze on April 1, 2015. This means that public servants will no longer receive additional weeks of service after April 1, 2015. Strikes and lockouts are prohibited. If efforts to negotiate a new collective agreement are unsuccessful, the matter will be referred to an arbitration tribunal. The body is usually composed of a representative of each party and a “neutral” party acting as president. Although the budgetary restraint measures did not apply to public servants negotiating collectively, the government announced its intention to seek two-year terminations of compensation in the collective agreements to be negotiated. An arbitrator ignored the directive and awarded 2% of increases in a one-year contract. As things stand, the government has few opportunities to save money if it finds ways to eliminate work or save money through new technologies or outsourcing. Bragg`s proposal would mean 1,500 cuts. It is very unlikely that an arbitral tribunal will accept the removal of the prohibition of dismissals in a new collective agreement. In a recent speech, John Bragg argued that we should reduce our public service by about 15%. Bragg is the head of Eastlink and Oxford Frozen Foods and a member of the Ivany Group.
There are about 10,000 public servants in the province. Mr. Bragg`s proposal is based on high-level comparisons rather than in-depth information on the tasks performed. It is not clear whether a 15% reduction can be achieved without compromising the necessary services.