Quote Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
...Personally I think attacking civil servants terms and conditions isn't the way to go, funny that eh, the civil service has always been underpaid for the jobs we do and this was offset somewhat by having a slightly better pension and things like job security. Not to say that we don't have to become more efficient but I don't think 10% staff cuts per year consistently for the past 5 years is the way to do it, I would rather see a strategic look over the whole service with someone actually making a decision on what projects are needed and what ones are so horribly set up they should be scrapped and started again.
I agree with this. ^^

Even in the US, Congress sometimes decides to decrease the manpower of a Department, rather than examine, then approve/disapprove the missions given to the Dept. That's unnecessary meddling into resources I think, potentially crippling the agency's ability to perform its mandate.

Making seniority portable among government agncies would go a long ways to more manpower flexibility, IMO. As it is now (in the US), transferring from Treasury to Defense, despite being employed by the gov't for 20 years, involves starting at the bottom rung in the new agency's ladder (we're not talking Executive level jobs here, just career worker-bees), in terms of assigned tasks, leave bennies, weekly schedules, and those other day-to-day concerns that seem minor taken alone, but add up to a major reason why careerists "homestead", and then fight for their position - and leads to a percentage of older ones who have "retired, on active duty" - that the public sees and scorns.