Alcock Borrows a Page from Gershon?

“In what has been described as the most significant restructuring of public services for a generation, the rest of the $21 billion (in savings) will have to come from overall efficiency gains such as improving the procurement system, and streamlining areas such as information technology and human resources.  That’s why the skeptics are skeptical.”

In case some of you are wondering if I am just repeating what I had written in Saturday’s post in terms of Reg Alcock’s statement “that the “federal government is on the verge of launching the biggest transformation in the way government is managed in its history,” the above comment was made by Sir Peter Gershon in a July 22, 2004 interview with the BBC.

In the 2004 interview, it was announced that the “government’s plans to cut bureaucracy” and in the process “save” £21 billion over a four year period were based on “Gershon’s Review.”  The Review, which was referred to as “a modern bureaucrats Doomsday Book,” emphasized that the savings would be achieved by way of a recommendation to cut at least 80,000 civil service jobs and the introduction of greater process efficiency – think shared services. 

From the 10,000 foot level the conceptual view is really quite simple; 1) weaken the negotiating/bargaining strength of the PS union, 2) introduce a replacement for Lynch who is more amiably tied to what May referred to as the “federal politicians and the bureaucrats that serve them,” and 3) reach an important “accord” in which the biggest obstacles (re ITAC, CATA etc.) to implementing a Shared Services (nee Outsourcing) program have been compromised, if not removed. 

Collective Bargaining: A Human Right Deserving Legal Protection?

Step One – Weaken the negotiating/bargaining strength of the union that represents the public sector workforce

In a June 2007 review of whether collective bargaining was an essential right of workers, The Supreme Court of Canada made the following observations:

• The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work.
• Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends . . . rather (it) is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government.
• Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace.  Workers gain a voice to influence the establishment of rules that control a major aspect of their lives.

In April 2009, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada filed a lawsuit based on legislation in the government budget that literally “took away the union’s collective bargaining power and pay equity as a human right for the public sector employees it represents.”

While this is not the venue to conduct a detailed analysis of the suit, the fact that these recent events including the “pay equity changes” as they are called were slipped through as part of a stimulus package to boost a sagging economy is telling.

An Amiable Accomplice?

Step Two – Replace an adversary with a friend of federal politicians and bureaucrats

In her May 7, 2009 Ottawa Citizen article May reported that while Lynch “presided over one of the rockiest relationships ever between federal politicians and the bureaucrats that serve them,” Wayne Wouters is “known as one of the public services all-around nice guys.”

While some may conclude that an all around nice guy is the perfect candidate to bridge the gaps of contention between the government and the various stakeholders with whom it is currently at odds - including public sector workers, I could not help but recall the comments made by Ray Liotta’s character, Henry Hill in the movie Goodfellas.  For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the film, the dialogue in question takes place in a coffee shop where Hill is meeting with his long-time friend and accomplice Jimmy Conway (played by the incomparable Robert De Niro).  The setting is a coffee shop shortly after Hill’s arrest, where both he and Conway are supposed to go over legal defence strategies.  However, Hill realizes that since being busted, he now poses a threat to Conway and the rest of the family hierarchy.  The following dialogue ensues:

“If you’re part of a crew nobody tells you they’re going to kill you.  It doesn’t work that way.

There aren’t any arguments or curses like in the movies.

Your murderers come with smiles.  They come as your friends.

People who cared for you all your life.”

A friend - a long-time associate - and an all around nice guy?!  By the way, the movie Goodfellas is based on a true story.

Removing the Final Stumbling Block?

Step Three – Removing the biggest obstacles

Before you can “reduce” any workforce, you need to make certain that the resources and infrastructure are in place to ensure a relatively seamless transfer of support capabilities to minimize the negative impact of transitioning to a new delivery model.  The government believes that the Shared Services approach will provide the needed infrastructure.

An essential step towards removing an important hurdle to implementing a Shared Services strategy was to find a way to address the somewhat vociferous protests of key private sector industry players or suppliers.

The Thursday press release by Minister Paradis, in which heavyweight associations such as ITAC state that everyone “should be supporting organizations like Public Works and Government Services Canada in achieving their shared services objectives, sooner rather than later,” is an important concession that can pave the way for a faster adoption and subsequent implementation of a Shared Services strategy.

Ironically, by supporting the Shared Services approach the ITACs and CATAs are indirectly (and likely unknowingly) supporting massive layoffs in the Canadian public sector (see Gershon).  This of course is the inherent problem with having a myopic view of a much broader issue.  

Conclusions?

Referencing my favorite Citizen reporter once again and in particular her September 3^rd, 2005 article in which then Treasury Board President Reg Alcock announced that the “federal government is on the verge of launching the biggest transformation in the way government is managed in its history,” is interesting in light of present day events.

What is worth noting is Alcock’s stated position that the business of government should be viewed as a “single giant enterprise, rather than 120 departments and agencies operating like independent fiefdoms.”  And while consolidations of this magnitude always involves job loss, which Alcock acknowledged would happen, the government’s position that said losses will be “easily managed without layoffs because of the massive wave of baby boomers who will be retiring over the next five to seven years,” is suspect.  This is due in large part to the fact that there hasn’t been any disclosure as to how the government arrived at the conclusion that attrition and retirement alone will maintain a zero job-loss ratio or balance.

In the end, and as long as the Government continues to operate in a cloud of obfuscation where disclosures are sporadic and somewhat disjointed, we can only refer to past examples of similar undertakings.  And in this regard, the Gershon Efficiency Review should be required reading.