neb:

geoffwnz:

 

This attitude towards Govt Depts needs to change.  It's out of date, wildly incorrect and downright disrespectful to those of us who slave away for usually less than the equivalent role in Private sector might pay us, especially come performance review time when we are simply told that it does not matter how well we performed, there's no money in the budget for pay rises.

 

Apart from the general +1 for that, an additional point: Because government departments and SOEs are seen as big faceless organisations, they rarely get positive feedback for a job well done. Several times I've contacted them to thank someone for going above and beyond in performing their job, and each time I got the impression that it was like a surprise visit from the pope/queen/Lemmy, it just never happened and they really appreciated it when it did. So next time this happens to you, contact them and send a thankyou back to whoever was responsible.

OTOH those with a delicate constitution probably ought not to investigate too closely how much it will shortly cost the taxpayers to correct the monumental stuff up DHBs have made of the Holidays Act....

frankv:

 

Let's assume you're right that there are people who aren't up to their jobs in public service, and that they wouldn't survive in the private sector. Why are they there? Because no-one in the private sector wants to come and take those jobs. Because the pay is minimal, advancement is glacial, the bureaucracy is painful, and there's a never-ending series of people carping on about their inefficiency.

 

If you want to compare unappealing jobs, how about flipping burgers at any fast ptomaine poisoning joint? I doubt you would find many public sector workers eager to swap for one of those zero hour deals!

I don’t think there’s a pile-on regarding individual government workers. 

I think frankv hit the nail on the head when discussing capex/opex - this practice goes to a general lack of business governance skills within the public sector.

The system itself focuses on cost at the expense of value. Counting inputs instead of managing outcomes. Delegation instead of ownership.

The public sector is good at public policy, macro strategy, implementing the will of the government, nation-level statistics and information, macro communications, designing forms (I’m serious, and this is important), privacy. The public sector is not good at detail, edge cases, business processes, project management and business/project governance.

As a taxpayer, it annoys me that the government doesn’t manage my money better.

This is an interesting and obviously contentious topic, it should have it's own thread. This isn't the place for it.

Rikkitic:

 

frankv:

 

Let's assume you're right that there are people who aren't up to their jobs in public service, and that they wouldn't survive in the private sector. Why are they there? Because no-one in the private sector wants to come and take those jobs. Because the pay is minimal, advancement is glacial, the bureaucracy is painful, and there's a never-ending series of people carping on about their inefficiency.

 

 

If you want to compare unappealing jobs, how about flipping burgers at any fast ptomaine poisoning joint? I doubt you would find many public sector workers eager to swap for one of those zero hour deals!

 

My point is not that the job is unappealing. There are certainly worse jobs. Rather, it is that if you pay peanuts (and that includes unrewarding non-monetary working conditions and absence of Xmas parties), you get monkeys. Ambitious and capable folk will prefer the private sector (or become consultants to the public sector).

frankv:

 

My point is not that the job is unappealing. There are certainly worse jobs. Rather, it is that if you pay peanuts (and that includes unrewarding non-monetary working conditions and absence of Xmas parties), you get monkeys. Ambitious and capable folk will prefer the private sector (or become consultants to the public sector).

 

 

 

And my point was that the private sector can dish up jobs every bit as underpaid and demoralising as the worst government quango.

This is actually a question, but it is also an annoyance. I have become involved with our local hospice as a support person and I have been given the materials they hand out to patients and support people. I have read through everything and there is some worthwhile information mixed into it but a lot of it seems fairly obvious, just common sense stuff, and I found the tone a bit superficial and trite. I was also put off by the very expensive printing job on heavy glossy paper. Isn’t this supposed to be a charity? It seems like they have plenty of money to me.

What really bothered me, though, was their insistence on referring to patients as ‘loved ones’. I have tried to get over this, but it really annoys me. It is precious and it sounds like jargon, the kind of thing a bureaucrat would invent.

Hospice clients are terminal patients approaching the end of their lives. They may or may not be ‘loved ones’. Maybe one of them is a cranky uncle everyone hates, but they feel a familial obligation to support him anyway. To me the term implies a value judgement that has no business being there. Worse, it evokes memories of the brilliant comic novel by Evelyn Waugh. Every time I see it, I want to laugh.  

My question is if my reaction is reasonable. Am I perhaps the one being precious? Am I being too judgemental about this? I honestly don’t know and would be interested in what others think.

Just to be clear, this criticism is not in any way directed at front line staff, but at the mentality of the administrative people who make these kinds of judgements. So far, my first impression of the hospice organisation is not a positive one.

Rikkitic:

 

What really bothered me, though, was their insistence on referring to patients as ‘loved ones’. I have tried to get over this, but it really annoys me. It is precious and it sounds like jargon, the kind of thing a bureaucrat would invent.

 

Pretty sure that when Evelyn Waugh wrote "The Loved One" the subjects of that term of endearment were already dead.  It sounds like the kind of thing Americans would invent. 

Rikkitic:

 

This is actually a question, but it is also an annoyance. I have become involved with our local hospice as a support person and I have been given the materials they hand out to patients and support people. I have read through everything and there is some worthwhile information mixed into it but a lot of it seems fairly obvious, just common sense stuff, and I found the tone a bit superficial and trite. I was also put off by the very expensive printing job on heavy glossy paper. Isn’t this supposed to be a charity? It seems like they have plenty of money to me.

 

What really bothered me, though, was their insistence on referring to patients as ‘loved ones’. I have tried to get over this, but it really annoys me. It is precious and it sounds like jargon, the kind of thing a bureaucrat would invent.

 

Hospice clients are terminal patients approaching the end of their lives. They may or may not be ‘loved ones’. Maybe one of them is a cranky uncle everyone hates, but they feel a familial obligation to support him anyway. To me the term implies a value judgement that has no business being there. Worse, it evokes memories of the brilliant comic novel by Evelyn Waugh. Every time I see it, I want to laugh.  

 

My question is if my reaction is reasonable. Am I perhaps the one being precious? Am I being too judgemental about this? I honestly don’t know and would be interested in what others think.

 

Just to be clear, this criticism is not in any way directed at front line staff, but at the mentality of the administrative people who make these kinds of judgements. So far, my first impression of the hospice organisation is not a positive one.

 

 

 

It is a silly expression but there are plenty of those these days. A fair few of them do seem to originate in the US.

In this specific instance, it is perfectly possible that the person coming to the hospice has no loved ones left to love them and may not wish to be reminded of that fact. Or, with Covid, their family may be overseas and unable to be there - so they may not wish to be reminded of that either.

Rikkitic:

 

What really bothered me, though, was their insistence on referring to patients as ‘loved ones’.

 

Typical usurping of language for positive connotations. See also "reaching out", "our business partner", Facebook "friend", WINZ "client"

frankv:

 

Rikkitic:

 

What really bothered me, though, was their insistence on referring to patients as ‘loved ones’.

 

 

Typical usurping of language for positive connotations. See also "reaching out", "our business partner", Facebook "friend", WINZ "client"

 

This is only done to achieve outcomes for stakeholders so you can't argue with that.

Whilst we are doing silly expressions

"earthquake prone building" - no, it isn't.

"On premise" - no, you mean "on premises" as the singular of premises is premises not premise in that context.

Geektastic:

 

Whilst we are doing silly expressions

 

 

 

"earthquake prone building" - no, it isn't.

 

  Seems to make sense.   adjective  

1. likely or liable to suffer from, do, or experience something unpleasant or regrettable. "farmed fish are prone to disease"      

elpenguino:

 

Geektastic:

 

Whilst we are doing silly expressions

 

"earthquake prone building" - no, it isn't.

 

 

  Seems to make sense.   adjective  

 

1. likely or liable to suffer from, do, or experience something unpleasant or regrettable. "farmed fish are prone to disease"      

 

"Prone to"

In this context the building is not "prone to" earthquakes but the area/region where it sits is.

It should be "This building is prone to damages from earthquakes"