You want to hear about government waste? Here is an excellent example.

I just read this communique announcing the new policy on area of selection for external federal government jobs.

This is a prime example of a well meaning but ill thought out policy.

Basically, government jobs that were advertised to the public used to be open only to people in a reasonable distance of the job location, except under certain circumstances such as a skill shortage or executive position. The thought was, presumably, if we can hire Johnny Local to do this clerical job in Toronto, why would we consider hiring someone from Winnipeg or Nunavut?

Then, people started to complain. Why can't they be opened to all Canadians? So the decision was made to open officer level positions and up, to all Canadians and all persons living in Canada. (Preference is given to Canadian citizens, but citizenship is not a requirement.) This was a political decision as I recall but I cannot remember who made it. In any event, it seemed like a nice inclusive policy at the time, and I'm sure it made for good PR too.

Now it has been a few years since that happened and what do you suppose the result is? Departments have all but ceased external hiring for these levels. Nowadays, chances are if you are getting into the feds, you are getting in via an entry level clerk's position. No matter that you have a Master's and will leave that position as soon as the ink dries on your letter of offer of permanent employment. You need to get IN to get to the other, more senior level jobs.

And now, the decision has been made to open ALL jobs nationally. From receptionist to policy analyst, all external opportunities are now open to everyone regardless of where the job is or where that person resides.

As I said, a very well meaning policy meant to equalize opportunities for those seeking employment in the public service. But, but, but.

When the government hires a person for a position outside of their area of residence, it must pay the costs of their relocation. There is a cap for external applicants, but it is still an expense. Not to mention, the expense to the organization in testing and interviewing all of these people, whether they are ultimately hired or not. (No, it is not allowed to give preference to someone in the same city as the job.)

If 25 people from Vancouver apply to a job in Toronto, that hiring organization has to be prepared to administer all of the same exams and interviews. That could mean flying candidates or interviewers across the country.

More worrisome than the money involved is the expense in time. A larger area of selection equals more potential candidates. This costs more in HR and management time to deal with these larger pools of candidates, which also contributes to delays in staffing. Leaving positions vacant for months while a hiring process is conducted is certainly not ideal, but hardly avoidable under the circumstances.

The length of time it takes to hire people into the government has been cited as one of the main reasons why people look elsewhere for employment. The public service is facing a huge labour shortage and desperately needs high quality candidates. I will be interested to see how this policy works out, and particularly whether there are any funds earmarked for these additional costs.

To keep things interesting (and see how many people bothered to actually read this) I added a poll. Check the sidebar to the left.