Forging a new relationship to benefit the public service
6 Jul '10
I recently had the opportunity to meet again with Allan Seckel, deputy minister to the premier and the head of the B.C. Public Service.
Although we have met previously, our recent meeting was the first since the province announced an end to ‘budget related’ public service job cuts.
I have always felt that working for government and the broader public service is a vocation to be proud of. Although there are many significant challenges facing the public service, I came away from my meeting with Mr. Seckel with the belief that he shares this view.
However, rebuilding the public service after eight years of massive budget cuts, layoffs, reorganization and contracting out will not be easy as BCGEU members know all too well. The ongoing revenue challenges facing the province will mean there will be no quick fixes. Many ministries will not fill vacant jobs as the province uses attrition to achieve 4,000 job cuts over three years, as noted in the last budget and service plans.
Mr. Seckel and I have agreed to set up regular meetings as we jointly try and address the many challenges facing the public service. For example, the results of the BC government’s annual Work Environment Survey indicate a significant drop in job satisfaction among public service workers. There is much to be done to address these results and I am sure that we will not agree on every issue as we move forward. I am confident, however, that with effective communication and good will, the BCGEU and the head of the public service can make a start at needed reforms which will improve the public service for the benefit of the people of B.C.
New Members
Stay Connected
Update Email
Subscribe
Login
Events & Meetings
February 10, 2012 - 9:00am - 4:30pm
Forging a new relationship to benefit the public service
I was excited when I read the title, but lost some steam as read through the post. I have been a union member for a significant portion of my career, and have never really felt that it meets my needs or provides the services I want.
When I was fresh out of university and started in government, I received a warning from my branch's union rep because I wasn't taking all of my coffee breaks. Then most recently when I returned to government after an 8 year break in the private sector, government suddenly announced that they were making cuts and the union was willing to sacrifice all of us with less than 3 years seniority. I contacted the union to find out if any of my previous seniority would carry over, as many unions will do this, but was told no. I would likely have been told no as well if I’d asked for a refund for the union dues I’d paid before as they weren’t going to honour even a fraction of my previous seniority. When I found out that they wouldn’t offer me any protection during the workforce adjustment, they also wouldn’t let me opt out so that I could bank my dues, so that I could afford to feed my children a little longer if I did get laid off. I thought that the union was there to protect the little guy from the employer. This made it seem more like they were there to protect those who’d funded the union the most, which is somewhat antithetical to the claimed purpose of unions.
In the two years I have been back in the union, I have never been asked what I want or need from the union, but they faithfully collect my dues each pay cheque. This makes them seem more like the Mafia letting you earn a living, so long as you pay your ‘protection’ money to them regularly. If the union wants to stay in business they need to do a lot more to let all of us know what they’re doing for us. I’ve asked a number of my co-workers what the union does for them, if they feel served by it, and they all answered no. They all resent paying their dues in order to have permission to work in BCPS. When members who’ve been in union for 20+ years feel that the union doesn’t serve them, and has outlived its usefulness, it really makes one wonder if it should still be around.
Decimating the Public Service with a Smile & a Handshake
I'd sincerely like to know how you can put a positive spin on a relationship with someone who is spearheading the decimation of the BC public service and the resulting terrible outcomes for workers and the public.
As you mention, they are still looking at culling 4000 jobs in the next 3 years. Help me understand how is it "effective communication and good will" is going to feed those workers and their families who will no longer have employment?
Forging New Relationships
Without a doubt everyone in the civil service appreciates the opportunity for the Union and the employers to forge new relationships. However I would also encourage the Union to explore with the employer terminating relationships which are not working anymore and are the root cause of the internal friction and low WES scores.
In the 1980's Sheriff Services was combined with Court Services in a bid to make the Attorney General Ministry more efficient. What happened was that a law enforcement agency suddenly found itself under the operational and financial control of civilians whose job it was to deliver and administer the Court system in BC. Although Sheriffs work inside the system to a large degree a number of new intiatives and added duties have pushed Sheriffs more and more away from being merely as some CSB staff have tagged us "glorified security guards" to a quasi law enforcement agency. The revelance of being under CSB control is gone.
With the Sheriffs soon to be taking on traffic enforcement, the taking of DNA samples and other police like duties the time has come for the Sheriffs and the CSB to part ways. The two organizations are too specialized and have little in common. Sheriffs no longer report to the court managers as in the past yet the CSB continues to object to any sort of mandate expansion Sheriffs have been asking for since the 1990's. Thw WES scores clearly indicate extreme displeasure with the executive of the Branch, their lack of support for any Sheriff mandate expansion and their general lack of understanding or interest of law enforcement iniatives.
Sheriffs ask that the Union vigoriously pursue with the employer to make the Sheriffs their own Branch in the Attorney General or Solicitor General Ministry. Sheriffs want to be a part of the public safety solution instead of always being told "its not your job" or "its not your mandate". The time has come for sheriffs to step up and be an active participant with police to make BC safer. How making our communites safer ever a bad idea?
Your Last Sentence
First of all, the head of the Marine workers union would never make a comment like that. Sounds too much like you have liberal political aspirations. Then to say we need reforms to improve service? How about re- hiring to rebuild service. I wonder if the fox isn't looking after the chickens?
Alan Seckel
I too met Alan Sekel while attending a discussion forum back in 2006. We chatted in the hall about worker concerns from my work area. I found him communicative and he appeared genuinely empathetic about things that mattered to me and that he had heard expressed in other regions of the province. Over time his words have translated into actions.
Thus when I had heard about his promotion to his current position, it seemed sensible.
Having said my "warm and fuzzies", I think it prudent for the BCGEU to hold the govenment's feet to the fire as far as possible. Yes, we're facing massive cuts in revenue and it appears that MLA's have imposed upon themselves a wage cut of sorts. Damned straight. I hope they realize that it is more an issue of integrity rather than damage control politics. One leads to another, for sure.
In the end, we missed the opportunity for a wildcat back in '01 when we needed it most. Perhaps we can take the high road now that the beast is down in the polls and it would seem the wax is out of its ears. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick!"
Forging a New Relationship
Darryl, in one of your meetings with Mr. Seckel you might ask him to look into EPDP sign-offs when BCGEU Employees are displaced. For three years running I was leading an important project: the first year my EPDP was not signed-off because my supervisor was 'too new to the project' as this person had been displaced just before March 31 and then became my supervisor and did not feel prepared to review my EPDP at tne end of the EPDP cycle; the second year this same supervisor only signed off 'essential elements' with no face-to-face discussion; the third year our project was disbanded early, again just before March 31, and the temporary supervisor (until we found new positions) again would not sign-off EPDP's because of being 'too new'. Surely the Ministries know to some extent ahead of time that they will be displacing people because of budget exigencies - then part of the plan should include a more appropriate way of managing impacted EPDP's. This is part of satisfaction and engagement.
Post new comment