Counter Efficiency Practices for Job Security

fav

By agentrnge , at 10/28/2009 6:46 PM to Work & Money

Reputation Level: 44 - Post Count: 34

Location: New Jersey USA

None

When businesses speak of budgets for certain expenses, I often hear: "Its in the budget so lets use it" and "If we don't use it, we loose it." A predetermined dollar amount has been allocated to handle the given set of expenses.

The same mentality is applied to staff. There are two ways this idea is applied. The more common one in recent history, applies this logic to justify terminating employees. Efficiency in a process is increased to allow less staff or less equipment to do the same amount of productive work. If the work is truly done and productive, and just as importantly the staff is not being burned out into uselessness, then I am for this. This is progress. It is inevitable and should be embraced as a means for our civilization to advance. This progress has enabled us to specialize in skills, rather than be hunter-gatherers.

The other side of the coin applies forced inefficiencies to provide further job security. This is apparent in many fields, I will discuss two state related entities: The Motor Vehicle Services, and the Road Department.

--------
While in a MVS office a few months ago I was astonished at how many extra steps were added that seemed to provide no service. I will run through them step by step.

You sign in and one of two people at a desk assign you a number. Then you wait. A third person shuffles around between different lines and relays which numbers to call to a fourth person. The fourth person calls out numbers. You speak to the person who called your number and they tell you which line you can wait on.

You get on that line, and wait again. You reach the end of the line and go to a counter. This fifth person provides you with forms you need to fill out. This desk station is occupied ( the attendant is idle ) while you fill out the paper work. After you complete the forms you give them to the person behind the counter, they take them and advise you to wait on a different line. A sixth person calls you and tells you which other form you need next after having looked at the forms from the last step. You fill that out and wait again. Then you get called by a 7th person to go wait on another line. Assuming everything has gone smooth, you are done after the 7th person.

I am quite sure they were able to increase staffing budgets by saying "Oh my look at the lines and how jammed we are. The queue time is over 3 hours. We really need more people." At any given time there was 1/2 of the MVS employees doing nothing for 20 minutes at a stretch. Some just standing , some sitting. There was another 3 or 4 "coordinators" who seemed to just stand around and look frustrated.

So lots of people seeming busy. Lots of idle employees. Lots of people queued. Is this in fact intentional inefficiencies introduced for the sake of providing jobs?

---------
The Road Department, will "work on" a stretch of road for years at a time it seems. Constantly patching , re-patching, digging up, redoing. "Keeping the guys working!" The Union head may cry out with cheers from the workers.

The problem, it seems, the work is never complete, and never done correctly, to ensure that there is always more work to be done. Humans do not need to "keep busy" to justify their jobs. Nor should getting the job done faster, and better, lead to penalties from less hours at the task.

Instead of letting projects drag on "providing hours" of work, encourage the workers to get the job done once, get it done right, and pay them them the same. No need to waste time and create 100 times the traffic problems and not to mention adverse road conditions due to perpetually incomplete work.

Lets say it costs 100 million dollars a year to maintain 1000 miles of highway. ( arbitrary numbers ) Lets say a crew of 100 guys is assigned the task. Lets say 10 million goes to wages, 40 million for operating equipment, and 50 million for raw materials per year. Lets say that the road crew could get their work done in 6 months a year. Lets say that would equate to only 5 million in wages and 20 million in operating the equipment. Let us also say we still used the same 50 million for materials.

Keeping the crew "busy" for the extra 6 months, to pay them the other 5 million in wages, and also spending anther 20 million running the equipment is very wasteful. For sake of argument, if you payed them the same 10 million over a year, and *did not* run the equipment for the extra 6 months. You get all the work done, the crew is payed the same. The department has saved 20 million in operating expense. The road ways have only been shutdown during maintenance for half as much time.

Companies need to stop being wasteful with resources, be it cash, humans, office supplies, equipment, in order to keep up appearances of working to make sure you can keep more people employed.

Tags: efficiency, employment, lay-offs, waste, busy

3 Shoutbacks so far

Add Your Own!