[Bernard L. Madoff]

sydney3000, on 01 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Paying people $700K doesn't instil them with integrity.

God, you are a fool. No wonder you get paid f*ck all.

[Bernard L. Madoff]

staringclown, on 01 May 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

I can tell you this sol...

...I'll leave you (and others) to make their own judgement as to whether fat cat status is warranted.

Your remuneration and expenses seem OK with me clown, lowish in my POV.

However, the parliamentary ones border on Kleptocracy. That pension and travel scheme is a corker.

[sydney3000]

Bernard L. Madoff, on 01 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

God, you are a fool. No wonder you get paid f*ck all.

Yes, Master.

[staringclown]

Bernard L. Madoff, on 01 May 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Your remuneration and expenses seem OK with me clown, lowish in my POV.

However, the parliamentary ones border on Kleptocracy. That pension and travel scheme is a corker.

Thanks mate. The parliamentary schemes are very generous indeed. Wish mine was as good.

[Turkey]

staringclown, on 01 May 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Meow, meow, munch, munch ... burp!

I also have more of an issue with the parliamentary benefits than the civil service (FFS, why give all the cretinous ex-PM's an office, secretary and free business class travel for the rest of their lives?).

Every time I hear the argument about earning more in the private sector then my response would be "then go for it". Like you say, there are other benefits like job security etc. and people know up front that government does not pay like Goldman Sachs.

My personal view is that civil service jobs are not for people motivated primarily by money - there are lots of other avenues for that. I just hope Australia doesn't become like the US (as it often seems to trend towards) and end up with public sector jobs earning a lot more than the private sector without factoring in all the benefits. All I want is solid, honest 9-5 types in public service; leave pushing back the frontiers of science to the private sector.

Regarding your point about studying / HECS debt etc ... I'm sure you aren't one of those but I have come across a few incompetents that think "I studied hard, got this degree and now I will sit at that desk and you will give me moola". I think it's something that hopefully helps people to develop better skills that they then use to perform economically useful work which is then financially rewarded. Sorry, I am grumpy and pedantic today so I will continue this OT ramble...

I have employed a number of CS / IT graduates and they have generally been of much better quality than the few people without a degree that I have employed (with notable exceptions in both camps). Not really skills related but the ability to sit down and "finish" i.e. get the project done even though parts of it are boring / difficult / whatever.

I have heard far more excuses from the camp without the paper - "the dog ate my homework, the cat was sick, my gerbil died , traffic was bad, bla bla".

[Mr Medved]

Turkey, on 02 May 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

I also have more of an issue with the parliamentary benefits than the civil service (FFS, why give all the cretinous ex-PM's an office, secretary and free business class travel for the rest of their lives?).

The Constitution (S48) allows for an allowance to be provided to a member of Parliament (originally stipulated as 400 pounds per year). Roughly speaking that is 160k in today's terms.

Hence, it is not a form of employment with a salary - it is a form of public service (with an allowance). It does not stipulate the right to a salary, pension, benefits, etc. It is not obvious where Parliament has the authority to pass Bills that allows them to be employed and receive those benefits (refer to S51 of the Constitution), so in my lay opinion some (or all) of their remunerations are unconstitutional.

Ministers and members of the judicature are different in that the Constitution provides provisions for salaries (S66 and S72). Originally ministers could be paid up to 12,000 pound a year which equates to close to 500k/year in today's terms.

[Bernard L. Madoff]

Turkey, on 02 May 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

My personal view is that civil service jobs are not for people motivated primarily by money - there are lots of other avenues for that.

+1

I know someone who is an AFP Federal Agent doing some yards in Jakarta and another in one of our more 'clandestine' agencies and the pay for both is crap considering their intellect and roles in Australia's security.

[staringclown]

Quote

Meow, meow, munch, munch ... burp!

Turkey, on 02 May 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

I also have more of an issue with the parliamentary benefits than the civil service (FFS, why give all the cretinous ex-PM's an office, secretary and free business class travel for the rest of their lives?).

Every time I hear the argument about earning more in the private sector then my response would be "then go for it". Like you say, there are other benefits like job security etc. and people know up front that government does not pay like Goldman Sachs.

My personal view is that civil service jobs are not for people motivated primarily by money - there are lots of other avenues for that. I just hope Australia doesn't become like the US (as it often seems to trend towards) and end up with public sector jobs earning a lot more than the private sector without factoring in all the benefits. All I want is solid, honest 9-5 types in public service; leave pushing back the frontiers of science to the private sector.

Regarding your point about studying / HECS debt etc ... I'm sure you aren't one of those but I have come across a few incompetents that think "I studied hard, got this degree and now I will sit at that desk and you will give me moola". I think it's something that hopefully helps people to develop better skills that they then use to perform economically useful work which is then financially rewarded. Sorry, I am grumpy and pedantic today so I will continue this OT ramble...

I have employed a number of CS / IT graduates and they have generally been of much better quality than the few people without a degree that I have employed (with notable exceptions in both camps). Not really skills related but the ability to sit down and "finish" i.e. get the project done even though parts of it are boring / difficult / whatever.

I have heard far more excuses from the camp without the paper - "the dog ate my homework, the cat was sick, my gerbil died , traffic was bad, bla bla".

Axing the ex-PM's benefits is fair enough.

No doubt I will end up back in private enterprise eventually. I've worked for a few private companies. They were far more lucrative. TBH the larger companies aren't that much different from the public service. I contracted through a small american company to Telstra working with IBM just after I graduated. I was getting paid in greenbacks (back when they were worth something). Inflation adjusted I was getting more than I get now easily.

Another benefit of working for the public sector is variety. We have one of nearly every technology stack where I work now. There is some serious rationalisation that can be achieved so I'm agreeing with you in the main T. I don't take much outside the job seriously but at work, I'm working.

The APS does have a pretty good training budget. This does benefit private enterprise. A lot of graduates skill up in the APS and then leave for the bucks.

There is a view that IT development shouldn't be a function of government at all. I tend to agree however this solution has problems as well. Private or public it's the same people doing the work. The quality of the product is the roughly the same. The problem lies in possessing the ability to be able to negotiate solid contacts with private enterprise you still need competent IT people in the public service. This is double handling and a major flaw in outsourcing.

The private sector sees government as a giant cash cow that will pay whatever is asked for as many absolute sh*te products as can be sold. I too pay tax. I've got every incentive to get a better deal from vendors and I am a zealot when it comes to corruption, spin and bullsh*t as you may or may not have noticed. I have a quasi religious belief that bullsh*t in all it's forms, above all else, f*cks things up.

Grads vary wildly in quality. You'll discover a genius occasionally only later to realise they've aspergers or something. It comes down to attitude when I'm hiring.

The attitude being: The world doesn't owe me a living and I regard the end of study as the signal that I'm just starting work. Like a doctor I expect to have to keep up with the changing technology. It's not a chore for me. I enjoy it. The purpose of IT is to give the business a competitive edge...

Perfect 10 answer at an interview.

It's naive to believe that the entire public service is made up of clowns though T. Just the majority.

[Turkey]

staringclown, on 02 May 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

There is a view that IT development shouldn't be a function of government at all. I tend to agree however this solution has problems as well. Private or public it's the same people doing the work. The quality of the product is the roughly the same. The problem lies in possessing the ability to be able to negotiate solid contacts with private enterprise you still need competent IT people in the public service. This is double handling and a major flaw in outsourcing.

The private sector sees government as a giant cash cow that will pay whatever is asked for as many absolute sh*te products as can be sold. I too pay tax. I've got every incentive to get a better deal from vendors and I am a zealot when it comes to corruption, spin and bullsh*t as you may or may not have noticed. I have a quasi religious belief that bullsh*t in all it's forms, above all else, f*cks things up.

There's a big company that I do work for that operates in multiple countries and is listed on the stock exchange in one of them. They have all of 3 (!) people in their IT department. They know their stuff quite well, and have both business and common sense. They ensure that the this company does not get shafted on price and has standardised systems across the board (you work for one operation in one country and move to another it's exactly the same from the IT perspective). I'm naive but I wish government could do something like that and be done with it.

Quote

Grads vary wildly in quality. You'll discover a genius occasionally only later to realise they've aspergers or something. It comes down to attitude when I'm hiring.

The attitude being: The world doesn't owe me a living and I regard the end of study as the signal that I'm just starting work. Like a doctor I expect to have to keep up with the changing technology. It's not a chore for me. I enjoy it. The purpose of IT is to give the business a competitive edge...

Perfect 10 answer at an interview.

Thanks for agreeing with me!

Quote

It's naive to believe that the entire public service is made up of clowns though T. Just the majority.

I never said that. I can think of personal examples e.g. my dad took his job more seriously than I took mine although I have my own business and he worked in the civil service.

However, I think government has one major factor missing that the private sector has and that is competition. I think nothing focuses the mind better than "if I don't get this project done then XYZ will put us out of business".

E.g. around 2000 after many years of having it all their own Intel was fat and lazy. When the AMD Athlon ate the Pentium 4's lunch, Intel panicked, re-focused and came out with Conroe. They then executed this new "tick-tock" strategy to perfection and ground AMD into the dust. Now that they have smashed AMD, there are early signs that the old Intel is returning (repeated missed launch dates etc). Where is government's AMD?

The carrot works but the raw edge of the primal fear stick can't be topped! I think this is also one of the reasons why generally you can find more dead wood the larger the company you are dealing with.

As an employee at a small business, you know that your performance has a big material impact on the business, sometimes to the point of making or breaking it. As an employee at a company employing thousands or tens of thousands, unless you are top management setting strategy or you are in charge of a very important department, your personal performance makes next to no difference to the company.

Think of how satisfying it is dealing with an oligopoly e.g. a Telco (Telstra, ) or one of the big 4. Lack of competition breeds complacency and the civil service has no competition. That's why I'm all for lean government. *

A late night Turkey theory: I also think there may be a vicious circle of sorts. Rightly or wrongly, government has a reputation where people who don't want to work too hard can cruise along without being fired. In turn, this attracts the kind of individual who this appeals to. Once enough of these people are employed, some will rise to management positions. They will try to employ people as useless as themselves so that they don't look bad. The cycle perpetuates. I have witnessed this exact process in large companies, my mind boggles at how bad the problem must be in govt.

*except in the case of essential utilities. I think that privatising water and electricity is a disaster.

[Turkey]

A question for the lawyers regarding wasting of taxpayer / ratepayer money: can criminal charges be brought to bear?

This is a shocking case* that the GC mayoral candidates were harping on about during their (never-ending) radio interviews:

--The Gold Coast city council was looking for a rates system and had the choice between an off-the-shelf package that Brisbane and most other towns in QLD use.
--The quote for the off-the-shelf package that is proven to work was $20 million.
--Instead they went for a quote of $100 million for a custom-developed system.
--The developers of the custom system are the same people behind the QLD health payroll system debacle ...

Predictably, the development to date is reportedly a total f***-up.

To my non-lawyerly brain, there are only 2 rational possibilities:

1. The person or people responsible for this decision were getting their palms greased in some manner (disclaimer - I have no evidence or knowledge of any of this) or
2. The person or people responsible were grossly negligent and reckless with large sums of other peoples' money. They flushed at least $80 million down the toilet up front by making a decision that no person with a smidgin of common sense would make. They would have been better off taking the money to Jupiter's Casino and sticking it all on red.

Now if (1) is possible does it not warrant a criminal investigation?
If (2) is the case, can't there be criminal charges for being reckless and irresponsible with other people's money to that degree?

I think that "oh they stuffed up therefore they lost the election" is lame punishment for this kind of negligence.

Again I don't know for sure, but I imagine that if you worked in other industries handling other peoples' money e.g. financial services, negligence / incompetence to this degree would result in stronger sanctions.

*I do not have personal knowledge of this case, however none of the candidates disputed the facts as described on radio and they seemed to be arguing about everything else.

[staringclown]

Turkey, on 02 May 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

There's a big company that I do work for that operates in multiple countries and is listed on the stock exchange in one of them. They have all of 3 (!) people in their IT department. They know their stuff quite well, and have both business and common sense. They ensure that the this company does not get shafted on price and has standardised systems across the board (you work for one operation in one country and move to another it's exactly the same from the IT perspective). I'm naive but I wish government could do something like that and be done with it.


Thanks for agreeing with me!


I never said that. I can think of personal examples e.g. my dad took his job more seriously than I took mine although I have my own business and he worked in the civil service.

However, I think government has one major factor missing that the private sector has and that is competition. I think nothing focuses the mind better than "if I don't get this project done then XYZ will put us out of business".

E.g. around 2000 after many years of having it all their own Intel was fat and lazy. When the AMD Athlon ate the Pentium 4's lunch, Intel panicked, re-focused and came out with Conroe. They then executed this new "tick-tock" strategy to perfection and ground AMD into the dust. Now that they have smashed AMD, there are early signs that the old Intel is returning (repeated missed launch dates etc). Where is government's AMD?

The carrot works but the raw edge of the primal fear stick can't be topped! I think this is also one of the reasons why generally you can find more dead wood the larger the company you are dealing with.

As an employee at a small business, you know that your performance has a big material impact on the business, sometimes to the point of making or breaking it. As an employee at a company employing thousands or tens of thousands, unless you are top management setting strategy or you are in charge of a very important department, your personal performance makes next to no difference to the company.

Think of how satisfying it is dealing with an oligopoly e.g. a Telco (Telstra, ) or one of the big 4. Lack of competition breeds complacency and the civil service has no competition. That's why I'm all for lean government. *

A late night Turkey theory: I also think there may be a vicious circle of sorts. Rightly or wrongly, government has a reputation where people who don't want to work too hard can cruise along without being fired. In turn, this attracts the kind of individual who this appeals to. Once enough of these people are employed, some will rise to management positions. They will try to employ people as useless as themselves so that they don't look bad. The cycle perpetuates. I have witnessed this exact process in large companies, my mind boggles at how bad the problem must be in govt.

*except in the case of essential utilities. I think that privatising water and electricity is a disaster.

Our competition strangely is both private enterprise and other departments. We compete directly for funding, staff and prestige. The whole of government approach to software development is killed off by a silo mentality inter and even intra department. We get the odd threat that our function will be taken over by private and I've seen whole infrastructure teams get sold off to private from public with outsourcing of functions. We are just about to revert to preserving 'core' functions. The money has dried up. We have already been told there will be cuts in staff. Everyone is just waiting to see where the axe will fall.

It took two weeks to get the vendor to do a password reset on a development AIX box... That's bullsh*t from private. They are spreading their AIX team over multiple accounts and sev 3's don't get actioned. I can't even find out if there is an SLA in existence.

[Turkey]

Oh dear, it sounds like:

[staringclown]

Turkey, on 04 May 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Oh dear, it sounds like:

Sitting on the fence both ears to the ground, the fat cats still push the thin cats around.

[Turkey]

staringclown, on 04 May 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Sitting on the fence both ears to the ground, the fat cats still push the thin cats around.

You can feel it, the dark side is calling you. Go on, join the private sector and become:

[staringclown]

Turkey, on 04 May 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

You can feel it, the dark side is calling you. Go on, join the private sector and become:

A Furkey?

What is this mythical, all powerful beast of which you speak? It does sound tempting... I can almost feel it.

[Easy Tiger]

Turkey, on 02 May 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

Every time I hear the argument about earning more in the private sector then my response would be "then go for it". Like you say, there are other benefits like job security etc. and people know up front that government does not pay like Goldman Sachs.

This has been my argument as well. Enjoy the lack of job security, less perks, far more accountability, the lack of flexibility, less Super, Super that’s subject to market conditions and the Super Pirates etc etc.


The only time I’ve been in an effective Union was when I was in a government position. When the union tried to recruit in my current private sector employment the employer gave them an office to use, an office directly across from HR. They also placed a single A4 page ad in one of the smoko rooms. It was crowded out by an uncharacteristic number of workplace announcements.

[Turkey]

staringclown, on 04 May 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

A Furkey?
What is this mythical, all powerful beast of which you speak? It does sound tempting... I can almost feel it.

. It's quite rare for someone to be able to distinguish the Eastern Striped Furkey from its close relation, the Lesser-spotted Southern Turkat.

[staringclown]

Turkey, on 04 May 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

. It's quite rare for someone to be able to distinguish the Eastern Striped Furkey from its close relation, the Lesser-spotted Southern Turkat.

Are we talking about the south eastern striped furphy or the north eastern striped furphy?