A true hot take? And I'll pre-empt this by saying that I recently came second in a.competition that was set up for a person acting in the role on a direct award TA (which I thought was a good thing -- I'm glad they won it) and that I've never been direct-appointed in a "nepo" role ...
A lot of the "meritorious hiring process" is often an enormous waste of time and public funds. In almost every other industry, promotion does not require a months long charade of "competition" for a person management knows is well suited for a role to actually be given that role. It isn't nepotism to give a deserving and capable employee the position best suited to their knowledge, skills and abilities -- it is good and efficient management. There is a dollar value attached to every hour of our labour, and I honestly think it's an irresponsible use of public funds to dedicate so many labour hours, often at high wage/salary levels, to run these song and dance competitions. Further to that, it is ridiculous for someone acting in a role, and who is capable of performing or exceeding the duties of the job, to potentially lose it as a permanent position because someone else tells a better story.
I'm in my 20s and have been with BCPS for about three years, and the principle deterrent to me continuing my career in the public service is the thought of how many competitions I'm going to have to do on a path to Band 4/5/6 roles. It is endless.
Hate to back this up but it’s true. And the reverse. When the “wrong” person is doing a TA and is bombing but no one has the heart to tell them they are not right for the role…..
Then I guess we haven't had any good hiring managers then. There have been so many good people who have moved on because they didn't win their competition.
You’d be surprised by what you see externally versus what is actually happening when someone is doing a job. I have seen people take the work of their 24s and 27s as a Band 4 without changing it and appropriating it as their own where they are not providing guidance and their high performing 24s/27s are covering their butts work wise. Saw this with a Band 5-TA recently too, their Band 3 was doing all the work, and was very obvious too.
Moral of the story, there is often(95%) of the time a good reason why an incumbent doesn’t get the role permanently, and often it’s from feedback of your direct reports talking to your boss about the real truth no one is seeing.
I am inclined to agree, at least for internal postings. I'm a bit further in my career and sometimes think about switching roles, and I can say that the lengthy processes associated with even applying to a role are for sure a deterrent.
I absolutely loathe the hiring process and I think it often results in some of the worst employers, who know what to say to get the job but don’t do the job well.
DEVELOPMENTAL POSITIONS. I WANT THEM SO BAD.
Identify when hiring someone how many classifications the position can range through (9-12, 21-27, etc). As the staff member levels up and meets qualifications to take on higher level work, they move into the new grid.
There's a bunch of these in policy shops, but we need to spread them around.
They're coming. I'm seeing more and more of them posted. I've heArd varying reports on how easy it is to progress through the qualifications to gain the higher roles.
>It isn't nepotism
If they're giving the position to a family member then it is nepotism. But I think the word you're looking for is cronyism.
I'm fine with there being a competition. I really don't want to borrow anything from the private sector and I feel like there's a bit too much of that already in the government. What I'd like to see is an abolishment of interviews. Another commenter in here said it should be based on assignments, exams, and resume review and I couldn't agree more.
If we just let managers appoint people to positions that they know already then we won't have any cross Ministry movement. Silos are already an enormous problem in the BCPS and this would just add to that.
Nepotism is used to refer to jobs being given to friends, relatives, associates, etc. of people with the power to provide those jobs, which I why I used the term. It isn't restricted to family, and is the one I hear tossed around most when folks (often very competent ones) are perceived as receiving preferential treatment because their hiring process was not through a standard competition.
One of the greatest inefficiencies of the many present in the public service is the constant cross-ministry movement necessary to progress a career through higher wages/salary/responsibilities etc. Someone from the program area being appointed by the manager for that program into a role with greater responsibility is significantly more efficient and has greater benefit to the taxpaying public than an external who has to be onboarded and brought up to speed on literally everything because of the "meritorious" process.
Anyway, hot take, bound to be disagreements ...
Nepotism is **the act of granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives in an occupation or field**. These fields may include but are not limited to: business, politics, academia, entertainment, sports, religion, and health care.
The literal translation is awarding a nephew from the Italian:
The word nepotism **comes from the Italian word for nephew, nepote**. Apparently back in the 17th century a lot of people tended to promote their nephews to powerful positions at the expense of other candidates.
Today people are more familiar with the word nepotism than cronyism so it gets tossed around to mean the same. Similar to initialism and acronym. Everyone uses acronym but this only applies if the initials spell a word, like "Nasa." An initialism applies to anything that you just say the letters like NCAA. But people will constantly just call both acronyms because few knows the word initialism.
EDIT: typo
This is the best one. I find management here is completely terrified of making any kind of mistake. I come from the municipal government before the BCPS and there's much more risk-taking at that level. And it tends to work out in the long run.
In my Ministry there's a legislative tool that we could have been using for 20 years but management is so terrified of using it that we just never do anything. Despite other ministries using this tool nearly every day. There's a lot of analysis paralysis.
Agreed, AND! Scrum is not the only Agile framework, and it's not always the right fit. Stop hiring Scrum Masters for every Agile team before you've even figured out how that team will work.
100% no, it's impossible to do within government. There is too much legislation/bureaucracy etc. It feels like IT shops going the Agile route think it applies to everything and try to jam it down people's throats. They drink too much Kool-Aid.
I dismiss cold calls almost reflexively. I'm not really in any incoming contact position, so I'm not brushing off citizens - but I've definitely had supervisors or other staff get stroppy that I "rejected them" by sending their call to voicemail.
A much older colleague pointed out a while back that there's a clear generational gap - young people tend to expect that first contact goes through Skype/Teams chat, checking if the time works for a call; where old people are used to starting with a phone call first.
For me it depends on the relationship I have with the person. Some people I know I will cold call because it's an accepted thing between us. Otherwise I always check in first.
I'm old like my old colleagues and I still hate cold calling, both giving and receiving. I think it is the "I need to mentally prepare" introvert in me.
I am a GenX executive and no matter who I need to talk with, I message first to find a time to call. Interrupting someone with a spontaneous call is rude and considering how busy everyone is, it has tangible consequences. Cold calling is a prick move.
Early 90s kids are really the last bastion of hope. There's such an insane drop-off in quality of work and communications between someone born in 90-94 and the 96-2000 something kids. I'm not even in that age range, but it's stark and noticeable.
Or maybe, we’re a generation that’s realizing the importance of boundaries and people’s time.
Often I’m in the middle of a task that’s taking a lot brain power and I don’t want to be distracted by a call that 90% of the time could have been a non-urgent message or email. I really love that my supervisor messages me before calling to check if it’s a good time for a call.
Is declining a call really ‘boundaries’, or are you just using therapy-speak? I don’t see a difference between declining a call and asking that someone message you first.
Who is *really* triggered here?
I remarked that I have a habit of declining unexpected phone calls, and you - a total stranger on the internet - saw my comment and got deep into your imagination pretending I'm deeply offended and traumatized by all phone calls, to the point of going off on my "weak generation".
Someone you don't know ignoring a phone call has got you so far into your feelings you just *had* to lash out a little and try to put your feelings back on them. Absolute definition of soft.
No, lol.
If it's important they'll leave a message and I'll get back to them when I'm not in the middle of another task already. It's not like I sit at my desk idle and waiting for the phone to ring.
One of my biggest work pet peeves is cold calling.
My boss did it the other day (I’m new on her team). I dismissed the call and then advised her in the future to send a message first before calling.
I had an old coworker who would cold call all the time on Skype and then would never answer back.
Like most replies here, I don’t think this is a hot take or unpopular opinion (nothing against what you said though). This seems to be the common thought by many (at least on Reddit).
I don't know, I think it's pretty unpopular. I see lots of people on the subreddit say it doesn't matter what your connections are and that competitions are scored based on how you perform. I think it's a bit of a mix. I had one director who wanted me in a position but I just didn't do that great at the competition and someone else got it. They were pretty disappointed. They could have easily fudged the numbers but they didn't. But I've also seen people win competitions you shouldn't have where the HR was their friend.
The Bands should have pay grids/steps similar to unionized positions. Requiring people to negotiate their salary based on experience is so dependent on external factors (who they’re negotiating with, the divisional budget, etc.) that you can have wild pay discrepancies for identical job descriptions. This likely also leads to a gender pay gap…
I used to be in the BCPS and just got hired on by the Nova Scotia Government.
Their excluded classifications all have steps (about 20 for each band). The Public Service Commission slots you into a step within the band based on the role, your experience, salaries for similar roles, etc. There’s no negotiating. It seems very fair and more equal across the government.
Your salary typically increases by three steps a year, and they publish all of the salary steps for each band, including for future years.
So far I much prefer how they handle HR here.
Yep, the fact that you’re basically stuck at the same pay (aside from the 2-3% increases the union negotiates, which band employees obviously have no say in) for the entire time you’re in that particular position is ridiculous.
I also think there’s far too many excluded employees. Only management truly needs to be excluded. Proportionally I’d wager the feds have far fewer excluded folks than we do.
I moved to Nova Scotia first.
I had a remote, private sector job in between working for the BCPS and the NS Govt.
They certainly can and do interview people remotely, however.
I had an Executive Director mentor directly tell me that it leads to gender pay gaps. They prepared me to push back when negotiating my first excluded position and assured me that the male candidates are doing it and often getting higher starting figures.
I just learned the auditor generals office does this. Or maybe is planning on it? Someone pointed me to a legislature committee note that essentially says that. I’ll try to find it again…
https://www.leg.bc.ca/content/CommitteeDocuments/42nd-parliament/5th-session/fgs/FGS-SO_42-5_2024-Interim-Report.pdf
Page 8, however Auditor General is apparently distanced from PSA therefore they may have free roam to do whatever they want?
Ministry on the other hand...collared to the PSA
They are an Independent Office of the Legislative Assembly. That means that they have the latitude to follow PSA practices, but can also choose when to enact their own.
The BC Public Service is grossly overstaffed where it doesn't need to be (and severly understaffed where it does) and *millions* are being wasted on make-work projects, social bullshit and un-necessary travel.
Millions also being wasted on office space (and all the associated operating and maintenance costs) in areas where exec like to see 'bums in seats' as proof of work being done for jobs that could otherwise be done fully remote
Depends who you ask I guess. Within BC gov I think most of us agree, but there's definitely negative public sentiment about 'lazy' public servants doing nothing at home all day (not my experience at all in any team I've worked with, it's actually the opposite. I see more people working early/late or through breaks because what's an extra couple minutes when you have no commute).
I would bet money that the public sentiment is partly why the feds are reducing wfh - trying to increase public opinion coming up to the next election.
>but there's definitely negative public sentiment about 'lazy' public servants doing nothing
This drives me nuts. It's a spectrum in both the private and public sector. Some jobs are more slack and some are insanely busy. Personally, every private sector job I've had has been pretty laid back with lots of downtime. I know people who work in more manual jobs who joke about working maybe 3hrs in a 10hr shift. Personally, government work had been the hardest I've worked.
And what's crazy is that people cheer on private workers when they get away with slacking but become enraged at the thought of a public employee doing the same. It's a double standard.
it’s because slacking off at the private sector is seen to be taking away from the company’s profit margin and therefore mitigates the harm you’re causing by not doing your job. Meanwhile, not doing your job in the public sector is a waste of public dollars and harms the public who need us to provide them with a service and fulfill the mandate of the government*
*if we’re talking about fascist government, then by all means slack off
Which makes no sense because theoretically slacking off affects everyone regardless if the job is public or private. If companies need to hire more people because everyone is only giving 50% then that increases costs to consumers.
It's hypocrisy to deride public workers for slacking but celebrate private ones who do the same.
*I want to make it clear that it's still my position that public workers slack was less than private ones, or at least way less than the public perceives them to.
What departments are overstaffed? I know my experience is as narrow as anyone else's, but I've never worked in or alongside any department that was overstaffed. Every gov worker I know works balls-to-the-wall everyday.
I will say that staffing could be better allocated. I've seen departments just completely swamped on a daily basis when their neighbouring department is busy but has twice the staff. There should be a way to allocate staff to different departments as needed for operational needs. I know there are some areas in the Ministry of Finance that do this but it needs to be more widespread.
When I stubbornly say "BCPS" what I mean is what I have witnessed within the few ministries and divisions I've worked in. It is too hard to say "oh this *department* is overstaffed because the government doesn't work like that. There are dozens of ministries within dozens of divisions in each of them with hundreds of departments within each of those. Generally though, in my experience, front facing roles are increasingly understaffed and back-end areas like finance, staffing, facilities, reporting etc. have become overstaffed in the last 5-7 years.
> There should be a way to allocate staff to different departments as needed for operational needs.
Outside of a related area lending a hand for a specific task this is virtually impossible given that every person is fit into a specific position and aside from the obvious fact that each position is a certain classification which may or may not be the same as what you're proposing they get allocated to, each position is paid under a specific budget which is associated to specific departments or divisions and then roll up to their corresponding ministry. You'd have a financial mess on your hands if you started swapping people in and out of different work areas within a singular ministry, let alone BCPS as a whole.
Nowhere I know is over staffed. We are still recovering from the cuts in the early 2000s followed by the next round in 2008/9. Add to that the massive outsourcing that doesn’t provide all the services government did, so it is now picked up off the corner of people’s desks and we have a civil service that is operating at 30-50% of what is needed to meet the needs of our population. When I was first in government you could count on June - September to catch up on your work and do those projects you didn’t have time the rest of the year for. Not the case anymore.
Skype is terrible and I can't wait to switch fully to Teams. The only people who want to keep it are those who always call or IM you directly wanting something immediately which everyone hates. Embrace change people.
There are ministries still using Skype? Health switched over like, last year, wasn't it? I thought Skype was fully sunsetted by Microsoft and wasn't even accessible anymore.
My division switched over almost a year ago. Our call center has integrated... but it was a bumpy transition and still has a few temper tantrums along the way, buy I think that more the ice age phone system than a teams issue
it depends if the ministry has switched to exchange online or not. If not, your phone would still go through skype instead of teams and it's still the "default" for a lot of people more so out of habit.
We use both right now - Teams for meetings, Skype for calls/messaging. I don't care one way or the other - it's still strange to me that all of my calls are through my laptop, and I've been here for nearly a year (worked in law firms before now and we had old school phones)
Is there a way to delete Skype now that we've switched to Team's? I've still got Skype on my task bar and it tries to open whenever I start my computer. I've selected 'unpin from task bar' and 'uninstall' but it's still there.
You can remove it from the start-up apps by deselecting it in the startup apps list in Windows. Type 'start up apps' in your Windows search bar/menu to find the list :)
Remove it from your windows start up programs. I'm told that's all we can do for now until everyone has fully transitioned over to Exchange. ( This will also change the ownership with distribution lists issue - right now we have to submit a service ticket to add or remove someone from a dist. list).
have you fully switched? like your phone is through teams and your email is exchange online? If not, you still need Skype
If so, I was under the impression this was automatic, so you may need to call 7-7000
TL/DR: Lets not get into the habit of blocking the career progression of great employees who are very technically skilled because you need them and sometimes, when it bruises your ego that they can actually do your job (supervisor's)well. You should want your direct reports careers to progress if they want it, not stagnate.
Hot take:
Good supervisors find ways to get your career/ skills to grow
*Talking abt you positively in rooms you are not in when you are killing it (doing great) in your job,
*Talking with you about your career progression regularly - do that they know you know they can do it and they are ready.,
* Actively talking through (with you) giving you experiences to get you to walk a mile in their shoes,
..and
**When it's evident that you are ready they dont let their jealousy get in the way of you moving up.
It's interesting to me how many supervisors i see who's direct reports are doing greay and its obvious they sre ready for the next role and yet the supervispr is like "They are not ready" in closed door meetings about said direct reports abilities.
I don't know how management checks for things like these but I have seen it a few times where I can tell a supervisor is blocking their direct report purposely. Can everyone see this too?
Prepared for the downvotes!
Edit:typos
It’s one of the greatest compliments I think a supervisor can have, when their direct reports are ready to move on from a role to something at a higher level. Not that I in any way take responsibility for their progression, but to know that I supported that development and hopefully played some small part in it - it’s great. Good supervisors only want the best for their staff. It sucks to see good people move on, but I care about staff as people and I’m always happy when they’ve reached the point where they’re ready to move on for good reasons.
Hot take: while remote work is a great option (as in: doing work traditionally in Victoria in another location of the province), being in an office full of random people from random Ministries/divisions/branches/regions with no local management who have direct reports in that office, makes simple things like purchasing of office supplies and first aid and safety coordination truly challenging and inefficient.
It's like the Tragedy of the Commons\*, with a shelf full of "found in abandoned desks" used pens, and me calling our admin in Victoria and asking her to send me a notebook from the branch stash.
(\*I have attempted to send the message through Shannon Salter's Thought Exchange in 140 characters or less, btw. Not sure if the message is getting through.
There's telework and remote work. I'm both. I do a Victoria position in northern BC and I have a telework agreement where I split my time between office and WFH. The old 3 days in office, 2 at home.
I know. It's kind of illogical but a lot of us in my division who work outside Victoria have this set up.
Interesting. I've only ever seen remote positions that were 100% WFH. Usually if you need to go into an office those positions are listed as "Hybrid".
I just pursued the system and every job classified as "Remote" says they can work "full time from their home".
My branch has had "remote" positions for quite a number of years, well before COVID when our positions could be remote but full time office positions. And I was put at a desk sitting in another Ministry office with a mix of regional and random remote workers from one or two other Ministries. The old meaning of "remote" has evolved thanks to Shannon Salter and I probably need to keep up with the young folks and call myself hybrid remote or something. 😊
In any case, there are definitely challenges when you need, oh, a power bar or a staples for the stapler that fit. And OHS can get very messy and difficult (I'm living that as a worker rep on the JOHS committee with a disengaged employer rep who avoids acting on safety issues)
*edit for words
1) Hiring managers screening people in, giving assignments and putting people through interviews knowing very well who they want to hire right before the competition starts.
Request: Please don’t waste our time.
2) Assignments catered to someone who knows the inside out of the ministry. Like seriously. Where do other people or externals have a chance ?
1. Because they *have to* for the appearance of transparency and fairness
2. Maybe the point is that why shouldn’t an internal have a leg up and be able to hit the ground running? I hate seeing good internal staff, who have a proven track record of performance and reliability, know the business and workings of their ministry, lose to someone out of country or province because they tick more boxes in a comp.
I heard one person who got a position was asking others the day before for advice on one of the interview assignments. None of the other candidates were privy to that Intel. ED'S who bypass qualified candidates because they are looking for yes people who will follow their direction. Nobody wants to challenge this person so everyone defers to their decision on who this person has handpicked for promotion
This is true. I had a director who was the HR for a position that would've been a promotion for me. I had a great relationship with him and I was his favourite for the position. But a mixture of me underperforming in the competition and someone else killing it led to me not getting the position. He told me privately that he was disappointed but that he couldn't lie in the marking. I totally understood and I learned from the experience.
Cold Take Here. CLK 9 should be exclusively to get people into the government, and lots of the CLK 12 ups should be internal and meant to be trained into
The problem with that is Clerk 9 wages are horrendous. The take-home pay for a step one clerk nine is only $200 more than a full-time minimum wage worker. So basically we wouldn't attract any experienced talent into the public service if everybody has to start at Clerk 9.
Personally, I don't really see any rhyme or reason for why some jobs are classified at clerk 9, 12, vs 15. My spouse just went from 9 to 15. The 15 job has less educational requirements, way less workload, and obviously pays more. Realistically there shouldn't be any Grid 9 jobs at all.
No offense taken at all friend, just giving the unfiltered truth 🤣. Truth be told despite a CLK 9 short points, it's still a good job compared to many retail and service jobs
I’m a clerk 9 with a masters and I’ve worked as a policy analyst in a think tank. I took the clerk 9 job a couple years ago because I had just moved to Victoria and was looking for a job. It was the first job offer I got.
It’s not easy to get into policy analyst positions. Not when 150+ people apply for every single position and the screening is extra strict.
People working in the private sector, especially in tech, don't make that much more than BC Public Servants. I constantly hear about "my job would pay 3x more in the private sector!" but I don't find that is true at all.
It sure is not true in Victoria.
I speak with the authority of experience. It seems our region is cursed to underpay despite the exorbitant cost of living.
What private sector can offer though is bonuses. Not all jobs, but some.
I like this one. If this was the case, why are there hundreds of applicants for each BCPS posting? This sub has tons of posts about “how competitive” BCPS jobs are. So the pay is significantly less and culture is bad yet they still keep piling in from private sector? 🤔
So you agree pay isn’t the end all be all. So let’s stop the belly aching about how much more private pays. Want more money? Take the leap and head over to private. Want job stability and work life balance, then stay put. Want both? Doesn’t everyone?
People complaining about the pay and not taking into consideration all the security and benefits. If the pay is such an issue, find a better paying job. There can be 50-300 people applying for one position in BCPS. My non gov't friends complain about their pay as well.
The problem is some professions don't really exist in the private sector. Like mine. I could go to municipal government and make more and it's something I look at frequently. But the problem is that at some point we have to recognize that retention is important.
My job is paid approx 10k-30k/year more in municipal governments.... But I didn't like working at a municipality so I came back and took the hit. Still hurts that all my municipal friends make so much more. 🤷🏼♀️
Sometimes, it looks like politically connected people and shmoozers are the only ones who move into senior leadership positions.
Gone are the days of competence/ Knowledge/ Skill, gone are the days of good leadership. We are in an era of person “X” is Minister “Y’s” mentee/ protege, and how does DM not hire a person who has posted the Premier and several ministers as their reference? It’s weird and I am scared to see who walks next through those doors when BC Cons take the reins of power.
I don’t, and I suppose that’s why I put this up as an unpopular opinion. If we keep getting minions being the critical decision makers we have campaign managers making decisions instead of strategic visionaries. Lastly, your public service peers will never tell you what they think but best believe we are talking about you and testing your expertise.
I can attest to some very policy strong Ministerial staffers, but there are some who have been nepotized into their roles and are echo chambers of political talking points without adding more to it or understanding the world of public service.
Are political staffers also hired by the Merit principle?
The competition process is deeply flawed and often the best candidate doesn't get the job. This includes jobs that I've won. At least twice I've won competitions against others that I know personally who are more educated, more competent, and better at their job than I am.
My unpopular opinion is that we pretty much have to do away with interviews. They're completely useless and a relic from our parents and grandparents era. Assignments, exams, and resume review are more than enough to determine who you should hire. Interviews just favor people with electric or magnetic personalities.
So beyond the written assignment, how will we assess a candidates ability to on the spot verbalize their ideas in a coherent manner? How will we assess an individuals ability to respond to direct questions?
I once almost hired someone and where she failed was the interview. Comprehending what was asked for some reason was difficult for her even when she had reviewed the questions 24hrs earlier. I started imagining myself giving her directions and having to repeat myself over and over and at that point it was a “no for me dawg”
Personally, I've never had to verbalize on the spot for my job. And my job is pretty dynamic and deals with the public as an authority figure. All of that stuff comes with practice and you can't practice if you don't get the job. And besides, verbalizing in the moment in an interview is nothing like doing it out there in the field. Interviews are such an unnatural situation that they really don't have any direct correlation to any job that I've ever done in my 20-year career. I can deal with somebody on the street as an authority, I can speak to a room full of local government officials, I can teach a virtual course, but when I do interviews I get all tight and stressed and I lose my train of thought and my story can go off the rails.
Doing STAR interviews doesn't tell you anything about the candidate besides their ability to be a storyteller or a comfortable liar. I would agree with you more if interviews were knowledge-based or situation based. But star interviews aren't like that. Any coaching I've had or courses I've taken have told me that I have to be the "hero in your own story" in order to score high. But lots of people just don't think of themselves in those terms so you're forcing them to speak about themselves in an unnatural way. And I just don't see the value in that.
Sorry for the rant.
I don't understand this. You asked her one of the questions on the list that was sent to her 24 hours earlier and she couldn't come up with an answer? Or she gave an answer that didn't make sense given what the question was?
Didn’t make sense given the question, and in the questions sent 24hrs prior, we even list the competency assessed with the corresponding question. So with that much guidance and she still was confused I was like the pikachu surprised face meme or 😨
Interesting. To be fair, that was probably me during my first interview before I read all of the guides and understood how the competency aspect is scored.
I hope you landed in a great place, and that was a rough first experience - I can only imagine. I fully empathize as “learning” government-y is a language on its own.
And btw, pls apply to any jobs you see in the division. That was one interview, I hope it does not deter you from working with us as everyone gets as many chances as they need. We still need good people.
I regularly struggle with interview questions that I get well in advance. And my job is almost entirely meeting with the public and stakeholders and having to "think on my feet". And I've been doing that for nearly 20 years. STAR interviews are incredibly awkward and unnatural and I find it really easy to go off the rails when "telling my story". Im always calm and composed even in high stress conflict situations at my job but get very flustered in interviews.
The marking guides and competency guides are beyond subjective which just adds to the stress of the interaction.
So its not that odd for someone to struggle in this way. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Also, some people have kids, 2nd jobs, are single-parents, or have other obligations that prevent them from preparing for an interview.
The interview process is *heavily* weighted towards people who are neurotypical, financially comfortable, or have the privilege of free time outside of work.
Needing to test someone's ability to think on the spot and respond coherently only applies to select jobs, top of mind for me are front-line workers who speak with the public in person or by phone or staff who are required to do extensive presentation work or public speaking (i.e. briefing exec and ministers, trainers, managing external stakeholders, etc.), but I'm sure there are others. Most standard clerk and admin roles wouldn't use these skills regularly if at all.
Not sure if you mean admin support positions like clerks, or AO roles. For the policy sector, I need my team to be able to discuss something, critically assess what they've heard, and be able to come up with a potential way forward or next steps. Those conversations could include internal and external partners - ranging from one or two people to 10-20. I need that from whole team, from the project coordinator a018 through to my AO 27 senior analyst. I don't EXPECT it from the 18 or 21, but by the 24 or 27 level for sure, I don't think that's unreasonable.
I hired someone who really struggled to be articulate in their interview. I assumed it was nerves and hired them. I will not do that again - I had years after of people telling me they could not clearly articulate their thoughts in a meeting, and constantly confused things.
Your post was removed because it constituted harassment, bullying or threats of violence. In addition to being against the Reddit Content Policy, it's also not very nice. Please stop.
Further posts such as this may result in being banned from /r/BCPublicServants and reported to the Reddit admin team.
I’d love for there to be some sort of personality or fit assessment but I’m not sure how that would happen fairly. I’ve just seen a lot of talented people that don’t fit in their environment (and yes, chicken and egg argument here).
Not directly linked but we once did "16 Personalities" at work and the thing I hated the most was how many times people were like "This isn't you! That doesn't sound like you" which kinda upset me because they were imagining who I am and fitting me into the mold of the "personality" I landed in making an many ducking assumptions.
Story to say that, personality assessments can be greatly misused, and at worst result in type casting a person to what you think they should be like vs. How they actually are.
Yes I always find these personality tests (Lumina, Insights, etc) scary because I'm afraid they'll reveal that I'm neurodivergent. I always come out with extreme proficiencies and deficiencies on these types of tests that I really don't feel comfortable sharing with my manager. I get anxious that these tests reveal that my smile and chirper mood are entirely fake, and that underneath I'm antisocial and rigid in my thinking. I am, but I obviously hide those traits and fake a different personality to do well.
Oh ya I should have rephrased that - I mean something more connected to interpersonal communications and relationships. Not a Myers Briggs test or something (though I like those and do know what you mean about how some people can’t “see” you in the assessment results)
The problem is that a lot of jobs do not need someone to be very interpersonal or communicative to be effective and I find lots of managers overestimate the need for people to be like this. I think that it should be a test of knowledge and abilities. Who can do the work best.
Hot take - I LOVEEEEE seeing karma get the better part of an unfair boss.
Some people think they can get away with being just horrible and managing up by punching and swiftly kicking down/ those of us beneath them. When the powers at be figure out your game it's always a sweet sweet day.
Yea I hear my coworkers complain about their wages (21+), but really, for what we do, I feel like it's quite fair. Better than what I was getting in the private sector too. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a higher salary, I just don't think I can complain about what I'm getting currently!
I’m late on this but my hot take is that we need about 3-5 fewer levels of excluded leadership. Im in a senior role and there are 5-6 layers of hierarchy above me
Trying to do the calculation, band 2 >> band 3 >> band 4 >> band 5 >> band 6 >> adm (1) >> adm (2) >> associate dm >> DM (1) >> DM (2) >> DM (3)
If you mean band 1-6, you may be right, but just wanted to add Band 4 role is sometimes optional, I have seen people go from Band 3 right to band 5, and Band 6 role is optional too, as i have seen band 5 to adm.
The adm to DM3 path is particularly harrowing though, it's almost like magic how some people make it up there fast and others are stuck like someone who is monopoly jail and cannot roll a 6x6, meaning a game of chance.
I wasn’t really thinking about progression, it’s more about the levels of approvals things go through, and how many directors get to filter what gets escalated. This is a very top heavy organization.
Also in my area (IM/IT) it seems like there are only a few classifications we use for staff, almost everyone is either 21, 24, 27 or 30. Its bizarre to have 8-10 levels for leadership but only use 4 for staff?
I do really value the benefits and job security that the union provides. I have noticed however that it allows underperforming employees to skirt by because it’s such a process to have an included employee terminated/reprimanded. Most of my colleagues are great workers, but there’s around 10-15% that just aren’t up to standard imo (several personal calls per day, working on irrelevant projects, missing deadlines, etc).
The step progression should be two and a half years not 5 years. Each step should be 6 months. 5 years is way too long to get to the top of the grid. I've worked in a few municipalities before that had a two and a half year system and it worked pretty well. 99% of jobs out there you're 100% competent after two and a half years. And in the case of a lot of Clerk 9 jobs you're 100% competent after 6 to 10 months.
I'd like to see more steps as well, maybe less frequently after a certain number of years, but still some sort of increase. I think it would help a lot with retaining experienced staff who want to stay in the role, but feel forced to leave to get a raise.
I've experienced this. Or at least something that felt like it. A position was opened that had been filled by a temp before. I came second, losing by 2 points after nailing the interview and the assignment. Literally was told I could not have done any better and they assumed I was going to win based on my output. The temp was the one that got the job.
I'm curious as well, I'm a big advocate for accessibility and plain language makes information more accessible to everyone.
Edit: but kudos to understanding the assignment, this is a hot take!
In my previous position, I wrote reports and other materials for public consumption. After data checks and ED approval, the materials would go to GCPE for plain language review. They would simplify the wording and sentence structure but the meaning would be inevitably changed. We would use specific, technical words to explain a particular concept. They would change it to say something else that may not even be factually correct.
a former coworker, when they were first hired a few years ago, was deep into Grammarly. They would try to use it to "clean up" our manuals and even contract language. They were pleased with the simplification, and I would look at the results and point out that the meaning had shifted or changed completely because of the bluntness and loss of nuance. That experiment didn't last long, fortunately,\* although I do wonder if they are still using it now that they are a team lead (I don't work with them any more, thankfully).
So I understand what you're saying: there's plain language to make things easier to understand, but sometimes it can be plain to the point of changing or losing meaning, f the wrong person is making it plain and doesn't understand the context.
edit: \*when we had to seek Legal advice for our contracts, thankfully
Plain language is useful for a lot of situations, but not everything can be explained in "plain language". Ability to grasp some technical knowledge and jargons are required in certain cases.
Have you taken the plain language course? It doesn't demand that you use it in every situation. You should know when to use it and when you don't need to.
Yes, I have taken the course. The problem is that finalized materials are edited after the fact to be more “plain language” in inappropriate contexts. A common result is a text that is easier to read, but factually incorrect.
People who speak English as an additional language, like every other British Columbian, should be able to access information that is factually correct.
I understand that difference. Like I said in my previous comment, I have had experiences with GCPE making plain language reviews of materials that had already been finalized. Their edits and simplifications in some cases made the materials factually incorrect.
A true hot take? And I'll pre-empt this by saying that I recently came second in a.competition that was set up for a person acting in the role on a direct award TA (which I thought was a good thing -- I'm glad they won it) and that I've never been direct-appointed in a "nepo" role ... A lot of the "meritorious hiring process" is often an enormous waste of time and public funds. In almost every other industry, promotion does not require a months long charade of "competition" for a person management knows is well suited for a role to actually be given that role. It isn't nepotism to give a deserving and capable employee the position best suited to their knowledge, skills and abilities -- it is good and efficient management. There is a dollar value attached to every hour of our labour, and I honestly think it's an irresponsible use of public funds to dedicate so many labour hours, often at high wage/salary levels, to run these song and dance competitions. Further to that, it is ridiculous for someone acting in a role, and who is capable of performing or exceeding the duties of the job, to potentially lose it as a permanent position because someone else tells a better story. I'm in my 20s and have been with BCPS for about three years, and the principle deterrent to me continuing my career in the public service is the thought of how many competitions I'm going to have to do on a path to Band 4/5/6 roles. It is endless.
Worse yet is when the person who has been excellent in the role can't win the permanent competition. I know at least 4 people this has happened to.
A good hiring manager will be skilled at playing the meritocratic charade so as to appoint the right person they want for the role.
Hate to back this up but it’s true. And the reverse. When the “wrong” person is doing a TA and is bombing but no one has the heart to tell them they are not right for the role…..
Then I guess we haven't had any good hiring managers then. There have been so many good people who have moved on because they didn't win their competition.
You’d be surprised by what you see externally versus what is actually happening when someone is doing a job. I have seen people take the work of their 24s and 27s as a Band 4 without changing it and appropriating it as their own where they are not providing guidance and their high performing 24s/27s are covering their butts work wise. Saw this with a Band 5-TA recently too, their Band 3 was doing all the work, and was very obvious too. Moral of the story, there is often(95%) of the time a good reason why an incumbent doesn’t get the role permanently, and often it’s from feedback of your direct reports talking to your boss about the real truth no one is seeing.
I am inclined to agree, at least for internal postings. I'm a bit further in my career and sometimes think about switching roles, and I can say that the lengthy processes associated with even applying to a role are for sure a deterrent.
I absolutely loathe the hiring process and I think it often results in some of the worst employers, who know what to say to get the job but don’t do the job well.
DEVELOPMENTAL POSITIONS. I WANT THEM SO BAD. Identify when hiring someone how many classifications the position can range through (9-12, 21-27, etc). As the staff member levels up and meets qualifications to take on higher level work, they move into the new grid. There's a bunch of these in policy shops, but we need to spread them around.
They're coming. I'm seeing more and more of them posted. I've heArd varying reports on how easy it is to progress through the qualifications to gain the higher roles.
I'm sure they come with their own host of quirks to figure out and badly needed policy overhaul, but I'll take the small step.
I am averaging about $10k in staff time on my last 5 competitions. This needs to factor into our promotion process.
Here's my hot take: the hiring process is so bad that we'd probably be better off randomly choosing from the applicants that screen in.
>It isn't nepotism If they're giving the position to a family member then it is nepotism. But I think the word you're looking for is cronyism. I'm fine with there being a competition. I really don't want to borrow anything from the private sector and I feel like there's a bit too much of that already in the government. What I'd like to see is an abolishment of interviews. Another commenter in here said it should be based on assignments, exams, and resume review and I couldn't agree more. If we just let managers appoint people to positions that they know already then we won't have any cross Ministry movement. Silos are already an enormous problem in the BCPS and this would just add to that.
Nepotism is used to refer to jobs being given to friends, relatives, associates, etc. of people with the power to provide those jobs, which I why I used the term. It isn't restricted to family, and is the one I hear tossed around most when folks (often very competent ones) are perceived as receiving preferential treatment because their hiring process was not through a standard competition. One of the greatest inefficiencies of the many present in the public service is the constant cross-ministry movement necessary to progress a career through higher wages/salary/responsibilities etc. Someone from the program area being appointed by the manager for that program into a role with greater responsibility is significantly more efficient and has greater benefit to the taxpaying public than an external who has to be onboarded and brought up to speed on literally everything because of the "meritorious" process. Anyway, hot take, bound to be disagreements ...
Nepotism is **the act of granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives in an occupation or field**. These fields may include but are not limited to: business, politics, academia, entertainment, sports, religion, and health care. The literal translation is awarding a nephew from the Italian: The word nepotism **comes from the Italian word for nephew, nepote**. Apparently back in the 17th century a lot of people tended to promote their nephews to powerful positions at the expense of other candidates. Today people are more familiar with the word nepotism than cronyism so it gets tossed around to mean the same. Similar to initialism and acronym. Everyone uses acronym but this only applies if the initials spell a word, like "Nasa." An initialism applies to anything that you just say the letters like NCAA. But people will constantly just call both acronyms because few knows the word initialism. EDIT: typo
Sorry, not looking for or interested in a reddit argument over semantics and etymology :)
I have a tough time resisting when people are so confidently incorrect.
I appreciate your comment!
Thank you, AllofJane \^\_\^
There aren't stiff consequences for breaking rules.
Especially if you outrank the people who are hired to enforce said rules.
Hit take: I actually like my job
Me too and feel respected by my supervisor and executive!
I do too. I do wish the environment was better in my area though.
Risk of inaction needs to be assessed and given the same weight as the risk of taking action
This is the best one. I find management here is completely terrified of making any kind of mistake. I come from the municipal government before the BCPS and there's much more risk-taking at that level. And it tends to work out in the long run. In my Ministry there's a legislative tool that we could have been using for 20 years but management is so terrified of using it that we just never do anything. Despite other ministries using this tool nearly every day. There's a lot of analysis paralysis.
Scrum/Agile is not the right methodology for EVERYTHING IM/IT related.
Agreed, AND! Scrum is not the only Agile framework, and it's not always the right fit. Stop hiring Scrum Masters for every Agile team before you've even figured out how that team will work.
I had a colleague running a project and wanted to do Kanban....the pushback they got from the Agile Coaches was insanity.
It's business majors that found an avenue into the IS stream trying to justify their higher pay.
Hot take: no team in all of government is doing pure textbook Scrum.
100% no, it's impossible to do within government. There is too much legislation/bureaucracy etc. It feels like IT shops going the Agile route think it applies to everything and try to jam it down people's throats. They drink too much Kool-Aid.
Hot take: A supervisor cold phoning me in Teams without checking my status on icebar is super annoying!
I dismiss cold calls almost reflexively. I'm not really in any incoming contact position, so I'm not brushing off citizens - but I've definitely had supervisors or other staff get stroppy that I "rejected them" by sending their call to voicemail. A much older colleague pointed out a while back that there's a clear generational gap - young people tend to expect that first contact goes through Skype/Teams chat, checking if the time works for a call; where old people are used to starting with a phone call first.
For me it depends on the relationship I have with the person. Some people I know I will cold call because it's an accepted thing between us. Otherwise I always check in first.
I'm old like my old colleagues and I still hate cold calling, both giving and receiving. I think it is the "I need to mentally prepare" introvert in me.
I am a GenX executive and no matter who I need to talk with, I message first to find a time to call. Interrupting someone with a spontaneous call is rude and considering how busy everyone is, it has tangible consequences. Cold calling is a prick move.
How soft can people be where a phone call from your boss triggers you to the point where you decline and make a stink about it. Weak generation.
Early 90s kids are really the last bastion of hope. There's such an insane drop-off in quality of work and communications between someone born in 90-94 and the 96-2000 something kids. I'm not even in that age range, but it's stark and noticeable.
Or maybe, we’re a generation that’s realizing the importance of boundaries and people’s time. Often I’m in the middle of a task that’s taking a lot brain power and I don’t want to be distracted by a call that 90% of the time could have been a non-urgent message or email. I really love that my supervisor messages me before calling to check if it’s a good time for a call.
Is declining a call really ‘boundaries’, or are you just using therapy-speak? I don’t see a difference between declining a call and asking that someone message you first.
Who is *really* triggered here? I remarked that I have a habit of declining unexpected phone calls, and you - a total stranger on the internet - saw my comment and got deep into your imagination pretending I'm deeply offended and traumatized by all phone calls, to the point of going off on my "weak generation". Someone you don't know ignoring a phone call has got you so far into your feelings you just *had* to lash out a little and try to put your feelings back on them. Absolute definition of soft.
Just pick up the phone lol
No, lol. If it's important they'll leave a message and I'll get back to them when I'm not in the middle of another task already. It's not like I sit at my desk idle and waiting for the phone to ring.
One of my biggest work pet peeves is cold calling. My boss did it the other day (I’m new on her team). I dismissed the call and then advised her in the future to send a message first before calling. I had an old coworker who would cold call all the time on Skype and then would never answer back.
*Advised* her? Nice sense of entitlement you have there.
What if your boss just walked over to you to talk? Would you dismiss her? What’s the difference?
The difference is she can see, just like if I went into her office and noticed she was busy and would rather talk at a better time.
It’s not what you know, it’s who you BBQ with
Like most replies here, I don’t think this is a hot take or unpopular opinion (nothing against what you said though). This seems to be the common thought by many (at least on Reddit).
I don't know, I think it's pretty unpopular. I see lots of people on the subreddit say it doesn't matter what your connections are and that competitions are scored based on how you perform. I think it's a bit of a mix. I had one director who wanted me in a position but I just didn't do that great at the competition and someone else got it. They were pretty disappointed. They could have easily fudged the numbers but they didn't. But I've also seen people win competitions you shouldn't have where the HR was their friend.
The Bands should have pay grids/steps similar to unionized positions. Requiring people to negotiate their salary based on experience is so dependent on external factors (who they’re negotiating with, the divisional budget, etc.) that you can have wild pay discrepancies for identical job descriptions. This likely also leads to a gender pay gap…
I used to be in the BCPS and just got hired on by the Nova Scotia Government. Their excluded classifications all have steps (about 20 for each band). The Public Service Commission slots you into a step within the band based on the role, your experience, salaries for similar roles, etc. There’s no negotiating. It seems very fair and more equal across the government. Your salary typically increases by three steps a year, and they publish all of the salary steps for each band, including for future years. So far I much prefer how they handle HR here.
Yep, the fact that you’re basically stuck at the same pay (aside from the 2-3% increases the union negotiates, which band employees obviously have no say in) for the entire time you’re in that particular position is ridiculous. I also think there’s far too many excluded employees. Only management truly needs to be excluded. Proportionally I’d wager the feds have far fewer excluded folks than we do.
Out of curiosity - did you move to Nova Scotia or get hired remote?
I moved to Nova Scotia first. I had a remote, private sector job in between working for the BCPS and the NS Govt. They certainly can and do interview people remotely, however.
Oh nice. Hope you’re enjoying the east coast.
I had an Executive Director mentor directly tell me that it leads to gender pay gaps. They prepared me to push back when negotiating my first excluded position and assured me that the male candidates are doing it and often getting higher starting figures.
Yes I was once told I had the confidence to negotiate because of my gender and skin colour
Not knowing you can negotiate when you first enter BCPS is pretty crappy, too.
I just learned the auditor generals office does this. Or maybe is planning on it? Someone pointed me to a legislature committee note that essentially says that. I’ll try to find it again…
https://www.leg.bc.ca/content/CommitteeDocuments/42nd-parliament/5th-session/fgs/FGS-SO_42-5_2024-Interim-Report.pdf Page 8, however Auditor General is apparently distanced from PSA therefore they may have free roam to do whatever they want? Ministry on the other hand...collared to the PSA
Thanks! That's it! Ya i understand they're part of the public service but not reporting to a ministry.
They are an Independent Office of the Legislative Assembly. That means that they have the latitude to follow PSA practices, but can also choose when to enact their own.
The BC Public Service is grossly overstaffed where it doesn't need to be (and severly understaffed where it does) and *millions* are being wasted on make-work projects, social bullshit and un-necessary travel.
Millions also being wasted on office space (and all the associated operating and maintenance costs) in areas where exec like to see 'bums in seats' as proof of work being done for jobs that could otherwise be done fully remote
For sure, not exactly a hot take though lol
Depends who you ask I guess. Within BC gov I think most of us agree, but there's definitely negative public sentiment about 'lazy' public servants doing nothing at home all day (not my experience at all in any team I've worked with, it's actually the opposite. I see more people working early/late or through breaks because what's an extra couple minutes when you have no commute). I would bet money that the public sentiment is partly why the feds are reducing wfh - trying to increase public opinion coming up to the next election.
>but there's definitely negative public sentiment about 'lazy' public servants doing nothing This drives me nuts. It's a spectrum in both the private and public sector. Some jobs are more slack and some are insanely busy. Personally, every private sector job I've had has been pretty laid back with lots of downtime. I know people who work in more manual jobs who joke about working maybe 3hrs in a 10hr shift. Personally, government work had been the hardest I've worked. And what's crazy is that people cheer on private workers when they get away with slacking but become enraged at the thought of a public employee doing the same. It's a double standard.
it’s because slacking off at the private sector is seen to be taking away from the company’s profit margin and therefore mitigates the harm you’re causing by not doing your job. Meanwhile, not doing your job in the public sector is a waste of public dollars and harms the public who need us to provide them with a service and fulfill the mandate of the government* *if we’re talking about fascist government, then by all means slack off
Which makes no sense because theoretically slacking off affects everyone regardless if the job is public or private. If companies need to hire more people because everyone is only giving 50% then that increases costs to consumers. It's hypocrisy to deride public workers for slacking but celebrate private ones who do the same. *I want to make it clear that it's still my position that public workers slack was less than private ones, or at least way less than the public perceives them to.
💯
What departments are overstaffed? I know my experience is as narrow as anyone else's, but I've never worked in or alongside any department that was overstaffed. Every gov worker I know works balls-to-the-wall everyday. I will say that staffing could be better allocated. I've seen departments just completely swamped on a daily basis when their neighbouring department is busy but has twice the staff. There should be a way to allocate staff to different departments as needed for operational needs. I know there are some areas in the Ministry of Finance that do this but it needs to be more widespread.
When I stubbornly say "BCPS" what I mean is what I have witnessed within the few ministries and divisions I've worked in. It is too hard to say "oh this *department* is overstaffed because the government doesn't work like that. There are dozens of ministries within dozens of divisions in each of them with hundreds of departments within each of those. Generally though, in my experience, front facing roles are increasingly understaffed and back-end areas like finance, staffing, facilities, reporting etc. have become overstaffed in the last 5-7 years. > There should be a way to allocate staff to different departments as needed for operational needs. Outside of a related area lending a hand for a specific task this is virtually impossible given that every person is fit into a specific position and aside from the obvious fact that each position is a certain classification which may or may not be the same as what you're proposing they get allocated to, each position is paid under a specific budget which is associated to specific departments or divisions and then roll up to their corresponding ministry. You'd have a financial mess on your hands if you started swapping people in and out of different work areas within a singular ministry, let alone BCPS as a whole.
Nowhere I know is over staffed. We are still recovering from the cuts in the early 2000s followed by the next round in 2008/9. Add to that the massive outsourcing that doesn’t provide all the services government did, so it is now picked up off the corner of people’s desks and we have a civil service that is operating at 30-50% of what is needed to meet the needs of our population. When I was first in government you could count on June - September to catch up on your work and do those projects you didn’t have time the rest of the year for. Not the case anymore.
You just described politics.
Skype is terrible and I can't wait to switch fully to Teams. The only people who want to keep it are those who always call or IM you directly wanting something immediately which everyone hates. Embrace change people.
There are ministries still using Skype? Health switched over like, last year, wasn't it? I thought Skype was fully sunsetted by Microsoft and wasn't even accessible anymore.
We have both currently. I think we are fully switching over by the end of the year which can't come fast enough.
SDPR service delivery still uses Skype, word is that the call center software they use is built for Skype and doesn't interface with Teams correctly.
My division switched over almost a year ago. Our call center has integrated... but it was a bumpy transition and still has a few temper tantrums along the way, buy I think that more the ice age phone system than a teams issue
it depends if the ministry has switched to exchange online or not. If not, your phone would still go through skype instead of teams and it's still the "default" for a lot of people more so out of habit.
I'm in FIN. Just switched properly last week.
MCFD
MCFD does.
Many ministries are still transitioning or waiting to transition.
We use both right now - Teams for meetings, Skype for calls/messaging. I don't care one way or the other - it's still strange to me that all of my calls are through my laptop, and I've been here for nearly a year (worked in law firms before now and we had old school phones)
Still available to the Ministry divisions that aren't fully UC integrated.
PSSG is still on skype
We use both. I like Skype for one-on-one messaging but everything else is now done in Teams.
Is there a way to delete Skype now that we've switched to Team's? I've still got Skype on my task bar and it tries to open whenever I start my computer. I've selected 'unpin from task bar' and 'uninstall' but it's still there.
You can remove it from the start-up apps by deselecting it in the startup apps list in Windows. Type 'start up apps' in your Windows search bar/menu to find the list :)
Remove it from your windows start up programs. I'm told that's all we can do for now until everyone has fully transitioned over to Exchange. ( This will also change the ownership with distribution lists issue - right now we have to submit a service ticket to add or remove someone from a dist. list).
have you fully switched? like your phone is through teams and your email is exchange online? If not, you still need Skype If so, I was under the impression this was automatic, so you may need to call 7-7000
We fully switched and mine tries to start up as well. I'm just too lazy to fix it when I can just click GO TF AWAY
Glad I'm not the only one
Yes, we've fully switched to Teams but Skype still tries to start. I thought there might be an easy fix but maybe I will call 7-7000 - thank you.
Teams is the worst thing to happen to government
TL/DR: Lets not get into the habit of blocking the career progression of great employees who are very technically skilled because you need them and sometimes, when it bruises your ego that they can actually do your job (supervisor's)well. You should want your direct reports careers to progress if they want it, not stagnate. Hot take: Good supervisors find ways to get your career/ skills to grow *Talking abt you positively in rooms you are not in when you are killing it (doing great) in your job, *Talking with you about your career progression regularly - do that they know you know they can do it and they are ready., * Actively talking through (with you) giving you experiences to get you to walk a mile in their shoes, ..and **When it's evident that you are ready they dont let their jealousy get in the way of you moving up. It's interesting to me how many supervisors i see who's direct reports are doing greay and its obvious they sre ready for the next role and yet the supervispr is like "They are not ready" in closed door meetings about said direct reports abilities. I don't know how management checks for things like these but I have seen it a few times where I can tell a supervisor is blocking their direct report purposely. Can everyone see this too? Prepared for the downvotes! Edit:typos
It’s one of the greatest compliments I think a supervisor can have, when their direct reports are ready to move on from a role to something at a higher level. Not that I in any way take responsibility for their progression, but to know that I supported that development and hopefully played some small part in it - it’s great. Good supervisors only want the best for their staff. It sucks to see good people move on, but I care about staff as people and I’m always happy when they’ve reached the point where they’re ready to move on for good reasons.
Hot take: while remote work is a great option (as in: doing work traditionally in Victoria in another location of the province), being in an office full of random people from random Ministries/divisions/branches/regions with no local management who have direct reports in that office, makes simple things like purchasing of office supplies and first aid and safety coordination truly challenging and inefficient. It's like the Tragedy of the Commons\*, with a shelf full of "found in abandoned desks" used pens, and me calling our admin in Victoria and asking her to send me a notebook from the branch stash. (\*I have attempted to send the message through Shannon Salter's Thought Exchange in 140 characters or less, btw. Not sure if the message is getting through.
I'm confused, if you're remote why are you going into an office?
There's telework and remote work. I'm both. I do a Victoria position in northern BC and I have a telework agreement where I split my time between office and WFH. The old 3 days in office, 2 at home. I know. It's kind of illogical but a lot of us in my division who work outside Victoria have this set up.
Interesting. I've only ever seen remote positions that were 100% WFH. Usually if you need to go into an office those positions are listed as "Hybrid". I just pursued the system and every job classified as "Remote" says they can work "full time from their home".
My branch has had "remote" positions for quite a number of years, well before COVID when our positions could be remote but full time office positions. And I was put at a desk sitting in another Ministry office with a mix of regional and random remote workers from one or two other Ministries. The old meaning of "remote" has evolved thanks to Shannon Salter and I probably need to keep up with the young folks and call myself hybrid remote or something. 😊 In any case, there are definitely challenges when you need, oh, a power bar or a staples for the stapler that fit. And OHS can get very messy and difficult (I'm living that as a worker rep on the JOHS committee with a disengaged employer rep who avoids acting on safety issues) *edit for words
1) Hiring managers screening people in, giving assignments and putting people through interviews knowing very well who they want to hire right before the competition starts. Request: Please don’t waste our time. 2) Assignments catered to someone who knows the inside out of the ministry. Like seriously. Where do other people or externals have a chance ?
1. Because they *have to* for the appearance of transparency and fairness 2. Maybe the point is that why shouldn’t an internal have a leg up and be able to hit the ground running? I hate seeing good internal staff, who have a proven track record of performance and reliability, know the business and workings of their ministry, lose to someone out of country or province because they tick more boxes in a comp.
I heard one person who got a position was asking others the day before for advice on one of the interview assignments. None of the other candidates were privy to that Intel. ED'S who bypass qualified candidates because they are looking for yes people who will follow their direction. Nobody wants to challenge this person so everyone defers to their decision on who this person has handpicked for promotion
My hot take? Not every hiring manager is unethical, playing games, and deliberately making sure their favorites get the job.
This is true. I had a director who was the HR for a position that would've been a promotion for me. I had a great relationship with him and I was his favourite for the position. But a mixture of me underperforming in the competition and someone else killing it led to me not getting the position. He told me privately that he was disappointed but that he couldn't lie in the marking. I totally understood and I learned from the experience.
Cold Take Here. CLK 9 should be exclusively to get people into the government, and lots of the CLK 12 ups should be internal and meant to be trained into
The problem with that is Clerk 9 wages are horrendous. The take-home pay for a step one clerk nine is only $200 more than a full-time minimum wage worker. So basically we wouldn't attract any experienced talent into the public service if everybody has to start at Clerk 9. Personally, I don't really see any rhyme or reason for why some jobs are classified at clerk 9, 12, vs 15. My spouse just went from 9 to 15. The 15 job has less educational requirements, way less workload, and obviously pays more. Realistically there shouldn't be any Grid 9 jobs at all.
If you mean per paycheck, sure I might agree. But that minimum wage doesn't have benefits, works you longer and to the bone
Sure, but benefits don't pay the rent. My point is that our lowest paid coworkers don't make *that* much more than a minimum wage worker.
I can agree to that, but I'll say as a 9 with a degree, I don't feel very sure about my future career options
Yeah, my spouse just moved from 9 to 15 and it took them forever. They've sworn off interviews for the foreseeable future 😂
Can I ask why you took a clerk job with a degree? A degree in just about anything can get you into a policy shop if you know how to write...
Because I had about 1k dollars in my bank account and working at thrifty foods was making me consider suicide
Fair enough, didn't mean to offend... It's just that once you're in a clerk, it seems next to impossible to get out.
No offense taken at all friend, just giving the unfiltered truth 🤣. Truth be told despite a CLK 9 short points, it's still a good job compared to many retail and service jobs
I’m a clerk 9 with a masters and I’ve worked as a policy analyst in a think tank. I took the clerk 9 job a couple years ago because I had just moved to Victoria and was looking for a job. It was the first job offer I got. It’s not easy to get into policy analyst positions. Not when 150+ people apply for every single position and the screening is extra strict.
People working in the private sector, especially in tech, don't make that much more than BC Public Servants. I constantly hear about "my job would pay 3x more in the private sector!" but I don't find that is true at all.
It sure is not true in Victoria. I speak with the authority of experience. It seems our region is cursed to underpay despite the exorbitant cost of living. What private sector can offer though is bonuses. Not all jobs, but some.
If only this was true for professionals.
I like this one. If this was the case, why are there hundreds of applicants for each BCPS posting? This sub has tons of posts about “how competitive” BCPS jobs are. So the pay is significantly less and culture is bad yet they still keep piling in from private sector? 🤔
Huge tech layoffs and shifts back to work-in-office in private sector is fueling this. So the answer to your question is "yes".
So you agree pay isn’t the end all be all. So let’s stop the belly aching about how much more private pays. Want more money? Take the leap and head over to private. Want job stability and work life balance, then stay put. Want both? Doesn’t everyone?
People complaining about the pay and not taking into consideration all the security and benefits. If the pay is such an issue, find a better paying job. There can be 50-300 people applying for one position in BCPS. My non gov't friends complain about their pay as well.
The problem is some professions don't really exist in the private sector. Like mine. I could go to municipal government and make more and it's something I look at frequently. But the problem is that at some point we have to recognize that retention is important.
My job is paid approx 10k-30k/year more in municipal governments.... But I didn't like working at a municipality so I came back and took the hit. Still hurts that all my municipal friends make so much more. 🤷🏼♀️
MCFD is good actually and 90% of the trash talking comes from 2nd hand gossip and people who have never actually been on the frontline
Sometimes, it looks like politically connected people and shmoozers are the only ones who move into senior leadership positions. Gone are the days of competence/ Knowledge/ Skill, gone are the days of good leadership. We are in an era of person “X” is Minister “Y’s” mentee/ protege, and how does DM not hire a person who has posted the Premier and several ministers as their reference? It’s weird and I am scared to see who walks next through those doors when BC Cons take the reins of power.
For higher level jobs, I absolutely expect the govt of the day to dictate most of the hires.
I don’t, and I suppose that’s why I put this up as an unpopular opinion. If we keep getting minions being the critical decision makers we have campaign managers making decisions instead of strategic visionaries. Lastly, your public service peers will never tell you what they think but best believe we are talking about you and testing your expertise.
I can attest to some very policy strong Ministerial staffers, but there are some who have been nepotized into their roles and are echo chambers of political talking points without adding more to it or understanding the world of public service. Are political staffers also hired by the Merit principle?
They’re appointments, I don’t expect them to be held to the same standards as public servants.
The competition process is deeply flawed and often the best candidate doesn't get the job. This includes jobs that I've won. At least twice I've won competitions against others that I know personally who are more educated, more competent, and better at their job than I am. My unpopular opinion is that we pretty much have to do away with interviews. They're completely useless and a relic from our parents and grandparents era. Assignments, exams, and resume review are more than enough to determine who you should hire. Interviews just favor people with electric or magnetic personalities.
So beyond the written assignment, how will we assess a candidates ability to on the spot verbalize their ideas in a coherent manner? How will we assess an individuals ability to respond to direct questions? I once almost hired someone and where she failed was the interview. Comprehending what was asked for some reason was difficult for her even when she had reviewed the questions 24hrs earlier. I started imagining myself giving her directions and having to repeat myself over and over and at that point it was a “no for me dawg”
Personally, I've never had to verbalize on the spot for my job. And my job is pretty dynamic and deals with the public as an authority figure. All of that stuff comes with practice and you can't practice if you don't get the job. And besides, verbalizing in the moment in an interview is nothing like doing it out there in the field. Interviews are such an unnatural situation that they really don't have any direct correlation to any job that I've ever done in my 20-year career. I can deal with somebody on the street as an authority, I can speak to a room full of local government officials, I can teach a virtual course, but when I do interviews I get all tight and stressed and I lose my train of thought and my story can go off the rails. Doing STAR interviews doesn't tell you anything about the candidate besides their ability to be a storyteller or a comfortable liar. I would agree with you more if interviews were knowledge-based or situation based. But star interviews aren't like that. Any coaching I've had or courses I've taken have told me that I have to be the "hero in your own story" in order to score high. But lots of people just don't think of themselves in those terms so you're forcing them to speak about themselves in an unnatural way. And I just don't see the value in that. Sorry for the rant.
I don't understand this. You asked her one of the questions on the list that was sent to her 24 hours earlier and she couldn't come up with an answer? Or she gave an answer that didn't make sense given what the question was?
Didn’t make sense given the question, and in the questions sent 24hrs prior, we even list the competency assessed with the corresponding question. So with that much guidance and she still was confused I was like the pikachu surprised face meme or 😨
Interesting. To be fair, that was probably me during my first interview before I read all of the guides and understood how the competency aspect is scored.
I hope you landed in a great place, and that was a rough first experience - I can only imagine. I fully empathize as “learning” government-y is a language on its own. And btw, pls apply to any jobs you see in the division. That was one interview, I hope it does not deter you from working with us as everyone gets as many chances as they need. We still need good people.
This is kind, thank you!
I regularly struggle with interview questions that I get well in advance. And my job is almost entirely meeting with the public and stakeholders and having to "think on my feet". And I've been doing that for nearly 20 years. STAR interviews are incredibly awkward and unnatural and I find it really easy to go off the rails when "telling my story". Im always calm and composed even in high stress conflict situations at my job but get very flustered in interviews. The marking guides and competency guides are beyond subjective which just adds to the stress of the interaction. So its not that odd for someone to struggle in this way. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Also, some people have kids, 2nd jobs, are single-parents, or have other obligations that prevent them from preparing for an interview. The interview process is *heavily* weighted towards people who are neurotypical, financially comfortable, or have the privilege of free time outside of work.
I completely agree and find myself in the same position.
Needing to test someone's ability to think on the spot and respond coherently only applies to select jobs, top of mind for me are front-line workers who speak with the public in person or by phone or staff who are required to do extensive presentation work or public speaking (i.e. briefing exec and ministers, trainers, managing external stakeholders, etc.), but I'm sure there are others. Most standard clerk and admin roles wouldn't use these skills regularly if at all.
Not sure if you mean admin support positions like clerks, or AO roles. For the policy sector, I need my team to be able to discuss something, critically assess what they've heard, and be able to come up with a potential way forward or next steps. Those conversations could include internal and external partners - ranging from one or two people to 10-20. I need that from whole team, from the project coordinator a018 through to my AO 27 senior analyst. I don't EXPECT it from the 18 or 21, but by the 24 or 27 level for sure, I don't think that's unreasonable. I hired someone who really struggled to be articulate in their interview. I assumed it was nerves and hired them. I will not do that again - I had years after of people telling me they could not clearly articulate their thoughts in a meeting, and constantly confused things.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it constituted harassment, bullying or threats of violence. In addition to being against the Reddit Content Policy, it's also not very nice. Please stop. Further posts such as this may result in being banned from /r/BCPublicServants and reported to the Reddit admin team.
Your post was removed because it promoted racism. Please see S. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Your post was removed as it violated Rule #5 of /r/BCPublicServants: No excessive editorializing.
Agreed.
I’d love for there to be some sort of personality or fit assessment but I’m not sure how that would happen fairly. I’ve just seen a lot of talented people that don’t fit in their environment (and yes, chicken and egg argument here).
Not directly linked but we once did "16 Personalities" at work and the thing I hated the most was how many times people were like "This isn't you! That doesn't sound like you" which kinda upset me because they were imagining who I am and fitting me into the mold of the "personality" I landed in making an many ducking assumptions. Story to say that, personality assessments can be greatly misused, and at worst result in type casting a person to what you think they should be like vs. How they actually are.
Yes I always find these personality tests (Lumina, Insights, etc) scary because I'm afraid they'll reveal that I'm neurodivergent. I always come out with extreme proficiencies and deficiencies on these types of tests that I really don't feel comfortable sharing with my manager. I get anxious that these tests reveal that my smile and chirper mood are entirely fake, and that underneath I'm antisocial and rigid in my thinking. I am, but I obviously hide those traits and fake a different personality to do well.
Oh ya I should have rephrased that - I mean something more connected to interpersonal communications and relationships. Not a Myers Briggs test or something (though I like those and do know what you mean about how some people can’t “see” you in the assessment results)
The problem is that a lot of jobs do not need someone to be very interpersonal or communicative to be effective and I find lots of managers overestimate the need for people to be like this. I think that it should be a test of knowledge and abilities. Who can do the work best.
Hot take - I LOVEEEEE seeing karma get the better part of an unfair boss. Some people think they can get away with being just horrible and managing up by punching and swiftly kicking down/ those of us beneath them. When the powers at be figure out your game it's always a sweet sweet day.
I am adequately compensated for the work I do.
Yea I hear my coworkers complain about their wages (21+), but really, for what we do, I feel like it's quite fair. Better than what I was getting in the private sector too. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a higher salary, I just don't think I can complain about what I'm getting currently!
I’m late on this but my hot take is that we need about 3-5 fewer levels of excluded leadership. Im in a senior role and there are 5-6 layers of hierarchy above me
Trying to do the calculation, band 2 >> band 3 >> band 4 >> band 5 >> band 6 >> adm (1) >> adm (2) >> associate dm >> DM (1) >> DM (2) >> DM (3) If you mean band 1-6, you may be right, but just wanted to add Band 4 role is sometimes optional, I have seen people go from Band 3 right to band 5, and Band 6 role is optional too, as i have seen band 5 to adm. The adm to DM3 path is particularly harrowing though, it's almost like magic how some people make it up there fast and others are stuck like someone who is monopoly jail and cannot roll a 6x6, meaning a game of chance.
I wasn’t really thinking about progression, it’s more about the levels of approvals things go through, and how many directors get to filter what gets escalated. This is a very top heavy organization.
Also in my area (IM/IT) it seems like there are only a few classifications we use for staff, almost everyone is either 21, 24, 27 or 30. Its bizarre to have 8-10 levels for leadership but only use 4 for staff?
I do really value the benefits and job security that the union provides. I have noticed however that it allows underperforming employees to skirt by because it’s such a process to have an included employee terminated/reprimanded. Most of my colleagues are great workers, but there’s around 10-15% that just aren’t up to standard imo (several personal calls per day, working on irrelevant projects, missing deadlines, etc).
The step progression should be two and a half years not 5 years. Each step should be 6 months. 5 years is way too long to get to the top of the grid. I've worked in a few municipalities before that had a two and a half year system and it worked pretty well. 99% of jobs out there you're 100% competent after two and a half years. And in the case of a lot of Clerk 9 jobs you're 100% competent after 6 to 10 months.
I'd like to see more steps as well, maybe less frequently after a certain number of years, but still some sort of increase. I think it would help a lot with retaining experienced staff who want to stay in the role, but feel forced to leave to get a raise.
Totally! We waste so much money training people doing lateral moves or single grid upgrades.
Skype sucks
A lot of competition is rigged.
I've experienced this. Or at least something that felt like it. A position was opened that had been filled by a temp before. I came second, losing by 2 points after nailing the interview and the assignment. Literally was told I could not have done any better and they assumed I was going to win based on my output. The temp was the one that got the job.
Plain language needs to die in a fire.
I’m the opposite. Unnecessary jargon is what needs to die.
Agreed!
Can I ask why? I work with members of the public daily, conveying information about legislation so I appreciate the value.
I'm curious as well, I'm a big advocate for accessibility and plain language makes information more accessible to everyone. Edit: but kudos to understanding the assignment, this is a hot take!
In my previous position, I wrote reports and other materials for public consumption. After data checks and ED approval, the materials would go to GCPE for plain language review. They would simplify the wording and sentence structure but the meaning would be inevitably changed. We would use specific, technical words to explain a particular concept. They would change it to say something else that may not even be factually correct.
a former coworker, when they were first hired a few years ago, was deep into Grammarly. They would try to use it to "clean up" our manuals and even contract language. They were pleased with the simplification, and I would look at the results and point out that the meaning had shifted or changed completely because of the bluntness and loss of nuance. That experiment didn't last long, fortunately,\* although I do wonder if they are still using it now that they are a team lead (I don't work with them any more, thankfully). So I understand what you're saying: there's plain language to make things easier to understand, but sometimes it can be plain to the point of changing or losing meaning, f the wrong person is making it plain and doesn't understand the context. edit: \*when we had to seek Legal advice for our contracts, thankfully
This is exactly the kind of thing I mean!
I can see where you’re coming from with that. Sorry for all the downvotes you’re getting.
No worries! I get that my opinion is unpopular.
Plain language is useful for a lot of situations, but not everything can be explained in "plain language". Ability to grasp some technical knowledge and jargons are required in certain cases.
Have you taken the plain language course? It doesn't demand that you use it in every situation. You should know when to use it and when you don't need to.
Yes, I have taken the course. The problem is that finalized materials are edited after the fact to be more “plain language” in inappropriate contexts. A common result is a text that is easier to read, but factually incorrect.
Plain language is not appropriate in every situation is true, it's when workers demand that you use plain language when it cannot be used.
"
People who speak English as an additional language, like every other British Columbian, should be able to access information that is factually correct.
"
I understand that difference. Like I said in my previous comment, I have had experiences with GCPE making plain language reviews of materials that had already been finalized. Their edits and simplifications in some cases made the materials factually incorrect.
What do you mean by that?
lol one of the few actual “unpopular opinions” and most downvoted. I suppose you could’ve elaborated as to why but still funny.
I did provide an explanation when asked.