Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: Bassonator on June 15, 2012, 05:11:56 AM
-
Just when you thought Harper and his band of morons cant get any lower comes this little directive.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/06/14/ns-parks-canada-letter-warning.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/06/14/ns-parks-canada-letter-warning.html)
-
If you are working for a private company and you mouth off against your employer, you will likely receive a reprimand. Why should you be exempt from that if you are working for a government organization. Most organizations have a list of policies and procedures that define an employees conduct. Imagine the chaos if every employee spoke out against their organization whenever they disagreed with their employer's policies. If you don't agree with your employer, feel free to quit.
Now if you quit, feel free to say what ever you want, unless of course in exchange for a monetary settlement, you've signed some sort of non-disclosure.
-
If you are working for a private company and you mouth off against your employer, you will likely receive a reprimand. Why should you be exempt from that if you are working for a government organization. Most organizations have a list of policies and procedures that define an employees conduct. Imagine the chaos if every employee spoke out against their organization whenever they disagreed with their employer's policies. If you don't agree with your employer, feel free to quit.
Now if you quit, feel free to say what ever you want, unless of course in exchange for a monetary settlement, you've signed some sort of non-disclosure.
I shouldn't have expected less... ;D ;D ;D
-
Bassonator, can you post a full size version of your avatar in the general discussion thread? I want to have a better look. TFT.
-
So basically unless its fish farming you'll always side with the powers that be! What is a park ranger supposed to say if a member of public asks them what effect the cuts will have? Lie, take the 5th? How would someone working for DFO differ from a Parks Canada employee? IMO what the Consevatives are up to at the moment is a much more pressing and attention worthy issue than fish farming.
If you are working for a private company and you mouth off against your employer, you will likely receive a reprimand. Why should you be exempt from that if you are working for a government organization. Most organizations have a list of policies and procedures that define an employees conduct. Imagine the chaos if every employee spoke out against their organization whenever they disagreed with their employer's policies. If you don't agree with your employer, feel free to quit.
Now if you quit, feel free to say what ever you want, unless of course in exchange for a monetary settlement, you've signed some sort of non-disclosure.
-
From the linked article: "I am aware that during this time of significant transition, the concept of loyalty can have a very particular meaning. However, as employees of the public sector, our duty is to support the elected government," employees were told.
Simply not true.
Their job as employees of Parks Canada is to carry out their duties for Parks Canada and to support that agency in it's functions. There is no duty to support the elected government of the day. This action reflects the Harper agenda of cutting off information to the public as he has done by muzzling scientists, cutting Statistics Canada data collection and collation, his approach to legislation where he refuses to reveal the details of the policy changes he is making and the legislation he is forcing through and his approach to accountability where he consistently uses prorogation of Parliament as a tool to block investigation into the questionable actions of his government.
There are some remarkable changes happening now and none are for the better.
-
From the linked article: "I am aware that during this time of significant transition, the concept of loyalty can have a very particular meaning. However, as employees of the public sector, our duty is to support the elected government," employees were told.
Simply not true.
Their job as employees of Parks Canada is to carry out their duties for Parks Canada and to support that agency in it's functions. There is no duty to support the elected government of the day. This action reflects the Harper agenda of cutting off information to the public as he has done by muzzling scientists, cutting Statistics Canada data collection and collation, his approach to legislation where he refuses to reveal the details of the policy changes he is making and the legislation he is forcing through and his approach to accountability where he consistently uses prorogation of Parliament as a tool to block investigation into the questionable actions of his government.
There are some remarkable changes happening now and none are for the better.
The elected government is their employer. However you spin it, the organization that gives you your pay cheque is not only entitled, but has the responsibility to set the policies and procedures for the organization. As an employee you can either accept those terms or find alternate employment.
You're confusing a persons rights and responsibilities as a citizen with their rights and responsibilities as an employee. There is a difference.
-
The public service and not the government is their employer and as such, has the right to expect compliance with the rules and policies of the departments they work for as determined by the deputy ministers who are the head of each of the departments.
Governments come and go, and there is no duty to support any particular elected government. Such a requirement is beyond the legal authority of the government to demand though as is abundantly clear from it's actions, this government doesn't consider itself bound by such trivial limitations on it's authority.
-
The public service and not the government is their employer and as such, has the right to expect compliance with the rules and policies of the departments they work for as determined by the deputy ministers who are the head of each of the departments.
Governments come and go, and there is no duty to support any particular elected government. Such a requirement is beyond the legal authority of the government to demand though as is abundantly clear from it's actions, this government doesn't consider itself bound by such trivial limitations on it's authority.
Now you're just talking semantics. The public service, the government and the elected government are one and the same thing.
-
Again, not true. You, as usual, are oversimplifying and consequently missing the point. The public service carries out the business required for the ongoing operation of the country and it continues to do so long after any elected government is voted out just as it did long before they were voted in. It and not the elected government is the employer and it and not the elected government has the right to expect compliance with the rules and policies it develops. The elected government, like a board of directors, sets policy objectives and budget priorities for the public service, but it does not employ public servants and has no authority to command support from them.
Public servants are required to follow the rules and policies of the agency they work for and that may mean refraining from public criticism of those policies. They cannot, however, be required to support the elected government as is being ordered. It is Harper's government that is playing with semantics by phrasing their demand in such terms and is just one more overreach of it's authority. It is you that have accepted that demand as legitimate without giving more than a passing thought to what it means, and it is because of people who take your approach that we are saddled with this government.
-
Again, not true. You, as usual, are oversimplifying and consequently missing the point. .............. government.
(In the interest of conserving valuable cyber storage space I have deleted the balance of the quote)
As usual you repeat yourself, believing people will accept your point of view if you use bigger words, in greater quantity than the person you are responding to. :D
-
And as usual, you turn the conversation away from the subject and onto the person when you can't come up with an answer.
-
I can't believe I just read this far.
-
From the linked article: "I am aware that during this time of significant transition, the concept of loyalty can have a very particular meaning. However, as employees of the public sector, our duty is to support the elected government," employees were told.
Simply not true.
Their job as employees of Parks Canada is to carry out their duties for Parks Canada and to support that agency in it's functions. There is no duty to support the elected government of the day. This action reflects the Harper agenda of cutting off information to the public as he has done by muzzling scientists, cutting Statistics Canada data collection and collation, his approach to legislation where he refuses to reveal the details of the policy changes he is making and the legislation he is forcing through and his approach to accountability where he consistently uses prorogation of Parliament as a tool to block investigation into the questionable actions of his government.
There are some remarkable changes happening now and none are for the better.
I'm agreeing 100% with you again
-
it is actually right in the code of conduct for all federal service employees. if any person speaks out on behalf of the governement or its agencies in a public manner that employee can and will be disciplined. regardless of your personal views, even on your own time you have to bite your tongue.
-
Thanks. I work as an independent advisor (not an employee) under license, and I am required to follow a code of conduct established by that organization. It would be pretty irresponsible for any organization to not define a code of conduct for their employees.
-
it is actually right in the code of conduct for all federal service employees. if any person speaks out on behalf of the governement or its agencies in a public manner that employee can and will be disciplined. regardless of your personal views, even on your own time you have to bite your tongue.
There is a world of difference between "The duty of loyalty includes the duty to refrain from public criticism of the Government of Canada when speaking as an employee of the agency" and "However, as employees of the public sector, our duty is to support the elected government"
-
if you have ever worked for the public sector you would understand when i say, it doesnt matter to your managers. they will hang your my friend on whatever they can. the federal service is all about the micromanagement of its employees at the " lowest level possible"
-
There is a world of difference between "The duty of loyalty includes the duty to refrain from public criticism of the Government of Canada when speaking as an employee of the agency" and "However, as employees of the public sector, our duty is to support the elected government"
That argument makes no sense at all?? The saying, "quit while you're ahead" probably applies here.
-
if you have ever worked for the public sector you would understand when i say, it doesnt matter to your managers. they will hang your *** on whatever they can. the federal service is all about the micromanagement of its employees at the " lowest level possible"
That might well be the case but demanding support for the elected government is a very different thing than demanding compliance with the code of conduct the employee agreed to.
-
That argument makes no sense at all?? The saying, "quit while you're ahead" probably applies here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUGBJA-eYEY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUGBJA-eYEY)
-
Well time for me to jump in here and say as a 23 year veteran of the public service never once have we been informed that we have to obey the government flavor du jour. They are not my boss, unfortunately AF its people like you that are my boss belive it or not, yes you Joe Taxpayer. Are we allowed to complain and make suggestions of course we are, can you do that in the private sector with out getting reprimanded??...didnt think so. Thats why its seems a little strange to me as to what the Neo-Cons are doing. ??? ???
-
Af do you ever consider MORAL duty to the taxpayers or are all federal workers bound by the "cone of silence"? How about OPEN DAMN GOVERNMENT with no secrets to sweep under the rug? Muzzling of fisheries scientists? I've long lost the ability to think that the government acts in the best interests of the public instead of their supporters and wingmen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcKHBgZ_QKU
-
If everyone agreed on exactly what "Moral duty" meant, then it would probably be a great thing to consider.... but that's unlikely to happen.
From a practical perspective, if organizations allowed their employees to voice their opinions against the organization, the chaos that would be created would result in the failure of the organization. Imagine what would happen to the stock market, if public company employees could "say whatever they wanted"? What if the government's finance department employees could "say whatever they wanted"? What if the defense department didn't "muzzle" their employees?
That's why all organizations create codes of conduct for their employees and enforce them.
-
Hence the expression - PUBLIC EMPLOYEES - They work for US AF. We pay the freight but we must be kept in the dark. Canada belongs to Canadians and so does the government. Would you tolerate employees keeping secrets or keeping you out of the loop?Do we have the right to curtail free speech? Why should we ?
-
They are called public employees because they are supported by tax payer dollars. It's not a definition of how they should conduct themselves with respect to the information they handle or their personal opinions.
I already gave some examples of what would happen if public employee took it upon themselves to discuss government policies and their opinions of those policies. It would be chaotic and the private sector would be effected negatively as a result.
-
Federal government employees (and their departments) are non-partisan, which is a cornerstone of the public service, so from that perspective, they don't "support" any elected parties. Sometimes that's even hard for some senior gov't bureaucrats to understand. Read this famous story about a scientist at GSC who objected to a memo to use a Harper election slogan in their correspondence http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20060919/geologist_reinstated_060919/ (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20060919/geologist_reinstated_060919/).
That said, gov't employees cannot publically speak against policies of the elected government, nor for that matter, hinder their application in the government. Gov't employees are there to support implementation of the policies of the elected government; otherwise an elected government couldn't do anything. All they can do is leak info to the media and use their unions for media releases in the hopes of raising public concerns. I spent 15 years as a mid-level federal employee and it's the most frustrating job in the world when you can see the government making serious policy errors and there is nothing you can do about it.
-
just take a look at our beautiful criminal justice program in Canada and you will see glowing examples of how poorly it is run.