The "attraction" of a position with the Ontario Public Service (OPS) is well known. The common perception is that most "public servants" have very "cushy" jobs, enjoy exceptionally good employment benefits and have a level of job security that is the envy of everyone in the private sector who has ever been "downsized" out of a job. In addition, career advancement is more often determined by seniority than merit, and a "public servant" who consistently performs at an unacceptable level is nearly impossible to terminate. With all these advantages, I ask, what could they possibly be upset about that would warrant a strike?
I cannot ever recall a Public Sector strike that was ever about anything other than higher wages, better benefits or improved work conditions. If private sector workers were to have serious concerns about any of these issues, they would seek new employment elsewhere. However, union workers and their leaders choose strike or other service disruption actions over this alternative because they know that they hold monopoly power over their employer (the Taxpayer) and they are reluctant to give up the "hard fought gains" that the unions have extorted in the past that make their currents positions more attractive than employment outside of the Ontario Public Service.
Ontario laws should be based on the principle that all taxpayers share equal access to public services without unfair bias directed towards some groups at the expense of others. However, this principle does not exist in the Ontario Public Service as long as the 'right to strike' exists. Since individual taxpayers are unable to negotiate the amount of income tax they must pay, then union workers must not be able to hold the taxpayer hostage in order to "negotiate" better terms of employment. The way I see it, if money has exchanged hands in a business transaction, then services must be rendered without excuse, delays or game-playing. A strike, therefore, is a blatant violation of this principle.
It is time to eliminate the 'right to strike' option in the Ontario Public Service.
Without the ability to lead a strike or other services disruption action, union leaders will be forced to find constructive ways to make themselves relevant in the OPS work place. Ideally, union leaders will doff their "adversarial caps" in favour of a productivity partnership with their employer and begin to operate on the principle that all positions must exists solely to fulfill the needs of the employer, and not the other way around.
Let's examine one productivity partnership scenario described in italics below.
All organizations within the Ontario Public Service have a mission to fulfill. Otherwise they would not exist. This mission, or "statement of purpose", or "department's mandated services" (or any other appropriate title that may apply) should be clearly defined by senior management in each and every division and department within the OPS, then accurately and succinctly articulated to all employees so that there is no ambiguity as to the purpose of their work efforts and those of the people with whom they work. The mission statement should be posted in the office lobby for all to see ( visitors and employees) and it should be the first thing all employees see in their work area and/or when they sign on to their workstation each day. This constant reminder is intended to ensure that no employee ever lose sight of why they have their job or where to focus their efforts to productively supporting the mission of their department, division and enterprise.
Union organizations could, if they elect to, play valuable roles in assisting enterprises and their employees to achieve their stated mandates.
For example, all organizations face continual change on small and large scales. Small changes can be accommodated by the efforts of line managers, but large changes are a different matter. Large change can ensue from significant adjustments to organizational mandates or from the introduction of productivity-enhancing process improvements made possible by new technologies. Most large corporations employ professionals known as Change Managers that coordinate and deliver the services that are required to help employees adjust to their changing job responsibilities and working conditions. If union leaders were to take on the challenge of building professional Change Management organizations within the OPS, they could provide these valuable and constructive services that would support the interests of their union members, the Ontario Public Service itself and the the Taxpayer. Such a win-win-win relationship would be a welcome change to the adversarial role that currently exists between unions and employers.
One advantage of the above scenario is that it would necessarily lead to a shift in the relationship of employee promotions and compensation to one based on merit (ie meeting or exceeding the job mandate), rather than seniority or need or any other alleged justification that unions currently support.
From my 30 years experience working in the staffing industry, I have come to believe that a job should not exist unless it can profitable support the mission of the organization it serves, and it should be compensated in proportion to the extent that it profitably supports the stated mission. By extension, this principle should apply to larger entities such as departments. In the case of union organizations and their leaders, if they cannot produce sufficient value to warrant such a role within the Ontario Public Service, then they should cease to exist. In any case, once the 'right to strike' and other productivity impairment (example - "work to rule") options are made illegal, the clout with which they can currently leverage to "negotiate" on behalf of their members will be greatly impaired unless they have something else to offer that is constructive, such as the win-win-win relationship described above.
The onus to discover a valid and enduring productivity partnership must fall on the unions. We, the Taxpayer, do not owe them a job. However, to enable union organizations to define and transition to a meaningful and profitable role in this regard, I propose that we maintain an 'open door' to their efforts for a reasonable period of time, but limited to a hard deadline.
As the Libertarian candidate for Thornhill in the upcoming provincial election, this is one of the most important issues that I will pursue if elected.
No comments:
Post a Comment