Recently in the news: there are delays in Employment Insurance because the government has cut EI processing jobs.
That seems rather backwards, doesn't it? Demand is up, so you cut back your workforce? I can't imagine that decision being made anywhere in the private sector. (Of course, I also couldn't imagine it being made in the public sector.) If Service Canada increased the number of EI workers during times of high unemployment, they would not only be addressing the increased demand, they'd be marginally reducing demand (and the unemployment rate) by hiring unemployed people. Automatic job creation!
Therefore, I propose they make a policy that the number of EI workers has to be at least X% of the number of people on the unemployment rolls.
At this point, you're wondering why I want them to make a policy rather than just being smart and hiring more people. The reason for making a whole policy is to prevent the same problem from reoccurring in the future. The government could spin it beautifully as a sustainable policy to better serve Canadians and put people back to work - alluding to the fact that private sector totally hires people when demand goes up, to play to certain segments of their base. Once it's all written down and codified, then they'll have to jump through hoops to lay off EI workers during times of high unemployment rather than the current situation of having to jump through hoops to hire more EI workers during times of belt-tightening.
You're probably also wondering why I put the wiggle-words "at least" in there. That's to give Service Canada reasonable leeway in its staffing. If they have some people who are nearing retirement, this will allow them to hire replacements (and get them trained and reasonably experienced) before the retirees leave with all their corporate memory. This also prevents them from necessarily having to lay off workers at the slightest fluctuation of the unemployment rate.
At this point, you're probably wondering "But what if improved technology results in fewer workers needed per unemployed person? Then they'll be stuck with all these extra workers." That could be addressed with a clause requiring an automatic review of the prescribed minimum threshold whenever existing workers find themselves with a certain amount of downtime.
1 comment:
Assuming we go through with the indignity of having a government at all, its staffing levels should mirror those of the private sector. In other words, counter-cyclical hiring. Not just at the Unemployment Office, but throughout government. While I like the idea of civil-service norms of job security and bennies to serve as sort of an "employer of example," I've reached the point where I understand why the economics of that doesn't work. But a bunch of temporary government jobs to last as long as the unemployment rate is high would be counter-cyclical and would promote labor market stability. If business deserves regulatory stability (whatever that is), certainly the rest of us deserve labor market stability.
Post a Comment