6 ms·

I agree. The government could be made hugely more efficient through the use of technology. However, the civil service simply doesn't pay enough to attract the t

I agree. The government could be made hugely more efficient through the use of technology. However, the civil service simply doesn't pay enough to attract the talent it needs. Therefore, we are left with little option but to pay consultants more to deliver these contracts. The total cost to the tax payer is higher; it doesn't make sense! It is reductive to say that we just need to pay more, however. The civil service also needs better and more effective management. Consultants are used as both liability shields and to force through change, both of which are an abdication of management's responsibility.

callamdelaney 1y ago
Yes I think those things are true too. I also think there's a national stigma around salaries at the level we'd need to pay people in STEM to be competitive with industry which may be an additional political roadblock.
koolba 1y ago
> The government could be made hugely more efficient through the use of technology. However, the civil service simply doesn't pay enough to attract the talent it needs. They should start by disbanding all government employee unions for GSA workers and eliminating all seniority based promotion criteria.
- azemetre 1y ago
  Yes because if it’s one thing workers like is removing their bargaining power and relying solely on how future administrations feel about your job.
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    unions should not be able to negotiate against the collective will of the people and seniority based leveling has been a disaster for the government in the US, at least.
    - pjc50 1y ago
      You cannot ultimately chain people to their desks. What you either get is a "soft" withdrawal of labour (people refuse to take the job if they have any other choice available, as we're discussing upthread, so you get dregs), or the whole thing explodes into "illegal" strikes. Which are harder to resolve, because you made sure there's no one organisation to negotiate with.
      - whimsicalism 1y ago
        the US has at-will employment, save it with the hyperbole. There are plenty of non-unionized jobs people would love to have. Collective bargaining against private actors is fine. There should be no collective bargaining against the democratic will of the people, any more than some random group of federal workers has veto power over law passed bu congress. It is simply not how democracy works.
        Symbiote 1y ago
        > There should be no collective bargaining against the democratic will of the people Presumably this also rules out any company or non-profit from negotiating a contract with the government, or suing the state.
        azemetre 1y ago
        No you see only capital is allowed to bargain with the government, labor is not allowed to for "reasons" that somehow always seem to benefit capital at their expense.
        whimsicalism 1y ago
        workers are allowed to bargain against the government, as in “i will not take the job at the pay you are offering.” both private companies and workers should not be allowed to band together to deny the government all contracts until they get the one they want.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Nothing says freedom like banning the right to strike. Which might work in the short term, but makes the strikes much, much more vicious when they do come.
  - yrxuthst 1y ago
    Federal employees already do not have the right to strike, see 5 U.S.C. §7311.
    - immibis 1y ago
      Do they have the right to quit?
      - lupusreal 1y ago
        You know they do.
whimsicalism 1y ago
the problem is there is literally no incentive to make sure you are hiring the right people in government. nobody is sacked if you dont make your numbers, xyz. higher salary bands are a neccessary but not sufficient condition to get competent operators.
- bumby 1y ago
  A counter point: Salary should be decent, but I’m not wholly convinced it needs to be at “market rate.” By having reasonable rates but below “market” value, you are likely creating a selection bias for people who are in it for the mission more than they are in it for the money. I think that’s a good thing. It’s like the idea that politicians should be allowed to trade stocks or else you won’t get the “best” talent. I’d argue I don’t want politicians whose primary motivation is financial gain.
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    we should also start cutting doctor pay to make sure we get people who are in it to help others.
    - bumby 1y ago
      Do you think the best doctors are the ones who go into the most lucrative paths, like cosmetic surgery in Beverly Hills? You're deliberately strawmanning. The equivalent statement on the other side would be: We should 10x doctor pay so we only get those people who are in it for the money. That's a disingenuous stance as well. Let's not pretend that "slightly below market rate" for specialized fields leaves people in the poorhouse. My original point was about achieving a balance to avoid hiring mercenaries. I think that is important in domains where ethics matter and ultimately leads to better long-term outcomes. When people defend the pay aspects being the best motivation, they are quietly telling us about their own (anti-social) value system.
      - LunaSea 1y ago
        Doctor pay is already 10x.
pjc50 1y ago
> It is reductive to say that we just need to pay more, however. The civil service also needs better and more effective management. Consultants are used as both liability shields and to force through change, both of which are an abdication of management's responsibility. Yes. The whole atmosphere is dysfunctional, because politicians don't trust the civil service. It's very attractive, and very neoliberal, to say that a state function is simply a service that can be contracted out. But not everything that matters can be specified in contracts! You eventually have to rely on staff judgement and common sense, including a shared sense of mission. That was how TfL breakup eventually didn't happen: people tried to turn the operating manuals into millions of lines of contracts, but it became unworkably complicated. PFI was the worst aspect of this. Take the one thing government can unambiguously do cheaper than the private sector - borrow money - and contract that out with a value extraction layer on top of it.
sumedh 1y ago
> The total cost to the tax payer is higher; it doesn't make sense! Nobody cares because it's the taxpayers collectively losing money. The taxpayers are not going to protest about something they don't understand.

callamdelaney 1y ago

Yes I think those things are true too. I also think there's a national stigma around salaries at the level we'd need to pay people in STEM to be competitive with industry which may be an additional political roadblock.

koolba 1y ago

> The government could be made hugely more efficient through the use of technology. However, the civil service simply doesn't pay enough to attract the talent it needs. They should start by disbanding all government employee unions for GSA workers and eliminating all seniority based promotion criteria.

azemetre 1y ago
Yes because if it’s one thing workers like is removing their bargaining power and relying solely on how future administrations feel about your job.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  unions should not be able to negotiate against the collective will of the people and seniority based leveling has been a disaster for the government in the US, at least.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    You cannot ultimately chain people to their desks. What you either get is a "soft" withdrawal of labour (people refuse to take the job if they have any other choice available, as we're discussing upthread, so you get dregs), or the whole thing explodes into "illegal" strikes. Which are harder to resolve, because you made sure there's no one organisation to negotiate with.
    - whimsicalism 1y ago
      the US has at-will employment, save it with the hyperbole. There are plenty of non-unionized jobs people would love to have. Collective bargaining against private actors is fine. There should be no collective bargaining against the democratic will of the people, any more than some random group of federal workers has veto power over law passed bu congress. It is simply not how democracy works.
      - Symbiote 1y ago
        > There should be no collective bargaining against the democratic will of the people Presumably this also rules out any company or non-profit from negotiating a contract with the government, or suing the state.
        azemetre 1y ago
        No you see only capital is allowed to bargain with the government, labor is not allowed to for "reasons" that somehow always seem to benefit capital at their expense.
        whimsicalism 1y ago
        workers are allowed to bargain against the government, as in “i will not take the job at the pay you are offering.” both private companies and workers should not be allowed to band together to deny the government all contracts until they get the one they want.
pjc50 1y ago
Nothing says freedom like banning the right to strike. Which might work in the short term, but makes the strikes much, much more vicious when they do come.
- yrxuthst 1y ago
  Federal employees already do not have the right to strike, see 5 U.S.C. §7311.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Do they have the right to quit?
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      You know they do.

whimsicalism 1y ago

the problem is there is literally no incentive to make sure you are hiring the right people in government. nobody is sacked if you dont make your numbers, xyz. higher salary bands are a neccessary but not sufficient condition to get competent operators.

bumby 1y ago
A counter point: Salary should be decent, but I’m not wholly convinced it needs to be at “market rate.” By having reasonable rates but below “market” value, you are likely creating a selection bias for people who are in it for the mission more than they are in it for the money. I think that’s a good thing. It’s like the idea that politicians should be allowed to trade stocks or else you won’t get the “best” talent. I’d argue I don’t want politicians whose primary motivation is financial gain.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  we should also start cutting doctor pay to make sure we get people who are in it to help others.
  - bumby 1y ago
    Do you think the best doctors are the ones who go into the most lucrative paths, like cosmetic surgery in Beverly Hills? You're deliberately strawmanning. The equivalent statement on the other side would be: We should 10x doctor pay so we only get those people who are in it for the money. That's a disingenuous stance as well. Let's not pretend that "slightly below market rate" for specialized fields leaves people in the poorhouse. My original point was about achieving a balance to avoid hiring mercenaries. I think that is important in domains where ethics matter and ultimately leads to better long-term outcomes. When people defend the pay aspects being the best motivation, they are quietly telling us about their own (anti-social) value system.
    - LunaSea 1y ago
      Doctor pay is already 10x.

pjc50 1y ago

> It is reductive to say that we just need to pay more, however. The civil service also needs better and more effective management. Consultants are used as both liability shields and to force through change, both of which are an abdication of management's responsibility. Yes. The whole atmosphere is dysfunctional, because politicians don't trust the civil service. It's very attractive, and very neoliberal, to say that a state function is simply a service that can be contracted out. But not everything that matters can be specified in contracts! You eventually have to rely on staff judgement and common sense, including a shared sense of mission. That was how TfL breakup eventually didn't happen: people tried to turn the operating manuals into millions of lines of contracts, but it became unworkably complicated. PFI was the worst aspect of this. Take the one thing government can unambiguously do cheaper than the private sector - borrow money - and contract that out with a value extraction layer on top of it.

sumedh 1y ago

> The total cost to the tax payer is higher; it doesn't make sense! Nobody cares because it's the taxpayers collectively losing money. The taxpayers are not going to protest about something they don't understand.