A Different View of Guaranteed Work for Life

This posting by fellow blogger, Walter Schulz, got me thinking about something. I compiled my thoughts and sent the following letter to the Vancouver Sun:

It seems the Vancouver civic strike has come down to whether the union can force the city to guarantee that none of its members will be let go ... ever. I have a somewhat different view on this than the rhetoric that seems to be tossed back & forth.

The public is constantly told that Vancouver City Hall employees are among the best workers anywhere. Assuming this is true, we all have to recognize that in any organization there are some bad apples. This small percentage of people tend to make everyone else's life miserable.

In Jim Collins' landmark book, "Good to Great, he emphasizes repeatedly that the key ingredient to any successful organization is getting the right people along for the ride on the proverbial bus. If the wrong person slips through the interview process and gets hired, they end up in the organization in a way somewhat akin to cancer in an otherwise healthy body. Thus, any organization that is forced to keep onboard ALL employees, regardless of their competency, regardless if they get along with others, is doomed to be a miserable work environment for all.

In the private sector, such a company gets more & more inefficient and eventually goes bankrupt. In the public sector, where bankruptcy is impossible, empirical evidence suggests that many employees are unhappy but put up with it for fear of what their lives will be like without the security of their benefits package and pension.

Nobody owes anybody else a job. I believe there are ideal jobs for every person but too often people spend years, if not decades, in jobs they're not well suited for or even hate. Getting fired is often a blessing in disguise, as it frees up one's mind, time, and energy to seek out a job that they really enjoy.

As the rainy storms of autumn touch down upon Vancouver more often, perhaps the good folks on the picket line will reflect upon a simple question: Is it really in their own best interest to forego their good wages to support an historical union objective that's might just be more important to their leadership than to anyone else?