Give and Take For Public sector Pay cuts!

[Kevin Doyle]

The first step in comparison is to measure the elements you are comparing. I can't compare an apple to a pear unless I first quantify or qualify what an apple is and the same for the pear.

Making decisions is about knowing risk - comparing them then gives the decision maker a basis from which to make a decision. Some may choose higher and others lower, depending on the outcome sought. None of this changes the fact that the first step is quantifying the risk.

Risk is rooted in uncertainty, if you can quantify that risk by assigning it a value then it no longer becomes an uncertainly and therefore is no longer a risk.

[Oppenheimer]

Risk is rooted in uncertainty, if you can quantify that risk by assigning it a value then it no longer becomes an uncertainly and therefore is no longer a risk.

OK - I have to go do some work but I think both conversations I am in on this topic look like this in my mind and nobody is learning anything new.

[Kevin Doyle]

That's obvious semantics and likely driven by a framework you have created in your work! Just because it is "known as a factor" does not mean the risk is no longer there! You are contradicting your earlier posts where you said risk is always there!

No, I'm not contradicting myself at all, you are saying you can assign a value to risk and I was explaining the paradox in you claiming to be able to do so.

[hopi watcher]

No matter how many times you say it - that is still YOUR opinion and not based on any knowledge or facts you put forward, or can put foreward perhaps, because it has never been tried. I demonstrated the basis of systems that are at work in major leading global corporations and also pointed out the evidence of companies without such structures and union involvement are unsurprisingly first to fail, e.g., Waterford-Wedgewood, the big three automakers in the US. The leading companies have also people working 'off-standard', i.e., better than the standard of other companies that are simply not built to withstand external shocks as well due to their lack of performance management and I would argue that our Public Service is also not built to withstand the recession as well as other countries, in part, because of lack of PM.

You also use the term "off-standard" to add further to my point that Public Service workers are not incentivised to work beyond the minimum they need to in order to get their reward - I, and I assume many other taxpayers, would welcome the reward of any public servant seen to out perform - but this has to be "seen" through some transparent PM scheme.



I already agreed with you on base pay - the PM system should be used to differentiate in the increments. It is frustrating to see great teachers get paid the same as complete imbeciles doing the same job and a PM system, whether Globoforce or not can resolve these differences and reward accordingly.

Yes Globoforce, in the main, considers companies dealing with Revenue, profit and cost, whereas Govt deals mainly with Revenue and cost so a straight implementation of that would not necessarily give the same results - BUT BUT BUT - it is still a SERVICE organisation and that service should be measured so as the customers of that service (those giving REVENUE in the form of tax) can be assured of the efficiency in the COSTS (and cost efficiency is not about spending less it is about getting best value from the input).

It is not my opinion, it is fact. What you demonstrate are the systems that Globoforce operate. The public sector would love any suggestion that such a system be introduced because it could only result in more pay for some if not all. I also note that you do not undertand the terms 'standard' and 'off standard' You are engaged in a guessing game to support your original proposal that underperforming civil servants should be penalised financially.
You again allude to teachers and again I ask how can their performance be measured so as to establish pay? You recently suggested that this could be done based on things such as positive parent reports, but that is in no way scientific enough to base pay or reward on. Any system that is to be used to establish pay must be open to scrutiny and be free completely from any subjective input.

[Oppenheimer]

No, I'm not contradicting myself at all, you are saying you can assign a value to risk and I was explaining the paradox in you claiming to be able to do so.

If you are ever banned from this site can you re-emerge as Sir Humphrey!

A paradox is an "apparent contradiction" and not an absolute contradiction so thank you for agreeing that simply calling something a "factor" does not mean the risk has become non-existent.

[hopi watcher]

OK - I have to go do some work but I think both conversations I am in on this topic look like this in my mind and nobody is learning anything new.

You are not trying hard enough. If you would drop the pretence, I am sure I could impart some knowledge on the matter with little difficulty. Ask and thou shall receive.

[Kevin Doyle]

If you are ever banned from this site can you re-emerge as Sir Humphrey!

A paradox is an "apparent contradiction" and not an absolute contradiction so thank you for agreeing that simply calling something a "factor" does not mean the risk has become non-existent.

When you have to resort to conflating your own conclusions with those of others to back up your own argument all you have done is reduce it to fallacy....

Thanks for the bomb...good work

[Dreaded_Estate]

If you can assign a value to a risk it is no longer a risk as it is a known factor.

If you can do that, you’d be fired as you would no longer be needed as their would be no risk to manage.

You are 100% wrong on this one Kevin, what you are saying makes absolutely no sense.
quantifying risks means calculating expected values for unknown random future events. The risk of the event doesn't just disappear because you have valued it! You need to step back and think about what you are saying Kevin. What you say is impossible is the whole basis and purpose of the risk management industry so to say to someone who works in the area that quantifying a risk removes it is just madness.

[Kevin Doyle]

You are 100% wrong on this one Kevin, what you are saying makes absolutely no sense.
quantifying risks means calculating expected values for unknown random future events. The risk of the event doesn't just disappear because you have valued it! You need to step back and think about what you are saying Kevin. What you say is impossible is the whole basis and purpose of the risk management industry so to say to someone who works in the area that quantifying a risk removes it is just madness.

What I am saying is that you can't put a quantifiable value on a risk with absolute certainty. if you could do that it would cease to be a risk along with the need to manage it. It is what I have been saying all along. It would appear that you actually agree with me.

[Oppenheimer]

It is not my opinion, it is fact. What you demonstrate are the systems that Globoforce operate. The public sector would love any suggestion that such a system be introduced because it could only result in more pay for some if not all. I also note that you do not undertand the terms 'standard' and 'off standard' You are engaged in a guessing game to support your original proposal that underperforming civil servants should be penalised financially.
You again allude to teachers and again I ask how can their performance be measured so as to establish pay? You recently suggested that this could be done based on things such as positive parent reports, but that is in no way scientific enough to base pay or reward on. Any system that is to be used to establish pay must be open to scrutiny and be free completely from any subjective input.

No, it is most definitely your opinion.
Underperforming, or Civil servants not performing as well as their colleagues should not be entitled to the same wage increases - that is the point you continue to miss - so as I said - no one is learning here.
I alluded to teachers as they were brought up as an example. I did make a suggestion, how about that, what are yours? None but traditional resistance put forth by public servants, and you are not one so wtf? Also the example you throw back at me also brings us back to your fantastic and inate ability to examine things at the superficial level only - it was an example, get it, one of many to ILLUSTRATE a point, not to EXHAUST it? - so add this example to some of your own "scientific" measurements and you will see that the picture starts to form.
As to your last point about openness and verifiable input, that goes without saying and I don't, nor ever have, argued against that.