As with all posts on this site, my views are my own and obviously not that of my paycheque provider. Not that anyone complained, or that I’m being overly “critical” of decisions, as the reality of most decisions made by governments when it comes to structural changes is that most are simply that — choices. They are not “good” or “bad”, they simply have pros and cons. And just as with a hiring decision where one’s strength in being decisive can also be a weakness by being inflexible or quick to judge, the Deputy Ministers and Associates working on what the new merger will look like have a bunch of decisions to make, and most of the options have strengths that may turn out to be weaknesses or weaknesses that may turn out to be strengths.
Since many of you asked, and don’t have much experience thinking “structurally” or “corporately”, here is my guess of some of the things occupying their attention this week. » Read the rest
It’s not that often that you see the Public Services Commission doing something innovative, but a new pilot project that starts today may qualify. And with all things HR-related, the impact may turn out to be either good or bad for employees on a referral list, depending on how the theory translates into practice.
So here’s the quick background you need to know first. When someone is declared surplus for whatever reason (relocation, program was cut, etc.), they can be put on a priority list for future jobs. Then, when any jobs come up in their region that match their skill sets, they’ll get referred to the hiring manager as a highly-possible hire. Unlike a regular applicant though where a hiring manager decides if a candidate meets the essential experience requirements and then invites them into a selection process (i.e. “screens” them in), a priority referral really IS a priority — if they meet the requirements, then the hiring manager MUST hire them. » Read the rest
So, the federal Public Service is downsizing. Which means they are going to cut staff. And like all large bureaucracies, there are bureaucratic terms to understand what it means if you get “laid off”, so to speak. But wait, you say you have a letter appointing you in the first place to an indeterminate position, presumably “permanent”? Except that isn’t what “indeterminate” means. It means of “undetermined length of time”. Now, they’re telling you the real length of time. So you’re done sometime perhaps soon. Or are you?
How do you get downsized? Well you can be subject to “workforce adjustment” if the government decides to:
cut your position due to lack of work (i.e. they cut your job’s functions, often by cutting your program);
they’re moving the job somewhere else and you refused to go; or,
they’re implementing an alternative delivery initiative (usually contracting it out or automating, but not always).