Greece to fire 180,000 public servants

[Murazor]

From the Macedonian News Agency

Greece starts firing civil servants for first time in a century
Saturday, 27 April 2013

Pushed by its European creditors amid its crippling economic crisis, Greece began this week to do something it hasn't done in more than 100 years: fire public-sector workers en masse.

Following weeks of tough negotiations with its lenders – the "troika" of the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, and the European Central Bank – the Greek government started laying off public-sector workers in an effort to implement the austerity that the troika has demanded. The first two civil servants were let go on Wednesday under a new law that speeds up the process – one, a policeman, for stealing debit cards, and the other for 110 days of unexcused absence.

The mass layoffs were announced last week in a televised address by the Greek prime minister himself, Antonis Samaras. Despite the massive unemployment in Greece, the goal of the government has become the laying off of 180,000 civil servants by 2015. “This is not a human sacrifice," said Prime Minister Samaras. “It’s an upgrading of the public sector and it’s one demand of Greek society.”

Samaras though, promised new positions to be created: “An equal number [of employees] will be hired on merit,” he added.
A century without layoffs

Civil servants’ jobs have been protected by a law that dates back to the 1880s, which became enshrined in the century-old Greek constitution. Until that provision became law, each newly elected government would sack the civil servants hired by the previous government to replace them with their own party members, creating civil unrest and a dysfunctional state.

“The logic [behind this law] was that the public administration has to be politically independent, feel secure, and ensure the state’s continuity,” said Dimitris Charalambis, professor of political science at the University of Athens.

Even though the 19th-century law was initially intended to fight nepotism, it caused its own problem: Each successive government hired its own people, adding to a continually expanding civil service without making the public sector any more effective. As a result, the Greek public sector became infamous for being dysfunctional and bureaucratic.

Further, although the law had allowed the firing of civil servants convicted of misappropriation of public funds and other serious crimes or when their jobs are phased out, the civil servants were still guaranteed a right to appeal. The appeal process could take two to three years, during which they were able to remain at work.

The law was changed last November to speed up the appeal process and suspend civil servants charged with crimes. A separate effort today to remove the appeal entirely was blocked by the justice minister as unconstitutional, however.

“[The civil servants], who are charged for disciplinary offenses, have the right to a hearing before the disciplinary council of the civil service and a right to appeal,” says George Katrougalos, professor of law at the Demokritos University of Thrace. “Until the final decision is reached, they cannot be fired.”

But while the law now strengthens the government's ability to fire civil servants, it also makes the workers more vulnerable – a particular problem amid Greece's politically charged economic struggles. This week, for example, a teacher was suspended after he was arrested during an anti-austerity demonstration – a situation more common as of late.

For reference, Greece has a population of some 11 million people. If the United States were to do a proportionally equivalent layoff, they'd have to fire well over five million people.

[TimothyC]

For reference, Greece has a population of some 11 million people. If the United States were to do a proportionally equivalent layoff, they'd have to fire well over five million people.

What is the total size of the Greek Civil service in the first place? I ask because Federal and State governments only employ about 9 million people in the US. While obviously local governments would be included in the total for the Greek layoff numbers, I can't help but think that percentage wise that more people are employed by the government in Greece than in the US.

[Murazor]

What is the total size of the Greek Civil service in the first place? I ask because Federal and State governments only employ about 9 million people in the US. While obviously local governments would be included in the total for the Greek layoff numbers, I can't help but think that percentage wise that more people are employed by the government in Greece than in the US.

According to this 712,000 as of a year ago, from a previous maximum of 768,000. Equivalent for the USA would be twenty two million, plus change.

[Stark]

Its a shame that huge public services are a bad thing, but people only care during hard times... which are the worst possible time to mass-fire people. I think cuts to public service employees can be a good thing, but at a time like this in Spain, it's going to make things worse for a lot of people.

[Simon_Jester]

Assuming you mean Greece, yes.

I think the problem is that modern society is so productive that when things are working properly, it's not really a problem to have 10% of the workforce doing something unproductive like shuffle paperwork. Other societies arguably do that anyway, just with the private sector, as in having each corporation have a bunch of advertising men who largely cancel each other out, or lawyers who exist to cancel out the threat of lawsuits from other lawyers.

They're there, they're doing a job that has economic value to someone, but from a grand social perspective it's the functional equivalent of digging holes and filling them in again. Someone's got to dig holes, someone's got to fill holes in, occasionally the two jobs cancel each other out and earth is moved that does not have to be, but so what as long as it's kept within reason.

During times of crisis when government revenues are falling, though, yeah. People pay more attention to "should the state be doing this," especially when they're under the influence of a sovereign debt obsession.

[Stark]

Blergh.

My state recently fired a bunch of public servants amidst a bunch of whining, but the impact is nothing compared to what I'd expect from basically ejecting people into unemployment.

Who knew displacing tough decisions into the future makes victims??!

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I think the problem is that modern society is so productive that when things are working properly, it's not really a problem to have 10% of the workforce doing something unproductive like shuffle paperwork.

Disregarding the worse excesses of the Greek public sector, how exactly is shuffling paperwork unproductive? Organizing an entire country requires paperwork one way or another.

As a side note, the article is wrong; worker permanency laws were instituted in 1913, not the 1880s (which, funny enough, had an economic crisis of their own).

[Simon_Jester]

From context I hope it is clear that when I talk about "shuffling" paperwork, I am referring to the less and least valuable parts of the paperwork management system.

Examples of this:
-Forms that must be filled out before action can be taken, and which theoretically prevent corruption, but in practice just give bureaucrats something extra to justify delaying action until the customer comes up with a bribe.
-"Supervisory" positions that in practice supervise nothing of consequence, and exist mainly to add an extra layer of overhead work to the employee's job of informing his boss(es) of what he's doing.
-Money spent on maintaining empty bank accounts, warehouses for broken parts that under current procedure cannot be disposed of quickly and cheaply...

...you get the idea. All these things really happen, and they do represent a very real overhead cost. Just like civilization suffers from overhead costs when every corporation needs to hire its own squad of lawyers who exist only to cancel out spurious lawsuits filed by the other lawyers. Or when advertising budgets expand drastically and effectively cancel each other out.

It's waste. But you can't get rid of waste.

[weemadando]

From context I hope it is clear that when I talk about "shuffling" paperwork, I am referring to the less and least valuable parts of the paperwork management system.

Examples of this:
-Forms that must be filled out before action can be taken, and which theoretically prevent corruption, but in practice just give bureaucrats something extra to justify delaying action until the customer comes up with a bribe.
-"Supervisory" positions that in practice supervise nothing of consequence, and exist mainly to add an extra layer of overhead work to the employee's job of informing his boss(es) of what he's doing.
-Money spent on maintaining empty bank accounts, warehouses for broken parts that under current procedure cannot be disposed of quickly and cheaply...

...you get the idea. All these things really happen, and they do represent a very real overhead cost. Just like civilization suffers from overhead costs when every corporation needs to hire its own squad of lawyers who exist only to cancel out spurious lawsuits filed by the other lawyers. Or when advertising budgets expand drastically and effectively cancel each other out.

It's waste. But you can't get rid of waste.

But if you eliminate that "paper shuffling" I bet you'll be the first to scream about unregulated govt without oversight or accountability.

[fordlltwm]

From context I hope it is clear that when I talk about "shuffling" paperwork, I am referring to the less and least valuable parts of the paperwork management system.

Examples of this:
-Forms that must be filled out before action can be taken, and which theoretically prevent corruption, but in practice just give bureaucrats something extra to justify delaying action until the customer comes up with a bribe.
-"Supervisory" positions that in practice supervise nothing of consequence, and exist mainly to add an extra layer of overhead work to the employee's job of informing his boss(es) of what he's doing.
-Money spent on maintaining empty bank accounts, warehouses for broken parts that under current procedure cannot be disposed of quickly and cheaply...

...you get the idea. All these things really happen, and they do represent a very real overhead cost. Just like civilization suffers from overhead costs when every corporation needs to hire its own squad of lawyers who exist only to cancel out spurious lawsuits filed by the other lawyers. Or when advertising budgets expand drastically and effectively cancel each other out.

It's waste. But you can't get rid of waste.

But if you eliminate that "paper shuffling" I bet you'll be the first to scream about unregulated govt without oversight or accountability.

FFS I'm sure there are levels between excess amount of paper moving exercises being conducted and no oversight or regulation at all. It's not a binary system.

[Stark]

I think his point is that Simon is just clueless; Ando works in the Australian public service and I'm 100% sure he knows all about 'government waste'. He probably also understands why simple solutions don't work without harming deliverables.

[weemadando]

Stark is spot on. Every time someone decides to have a "public service efficiency" bender, they target the wrong stuff. Stuff like "needless paperwork".

Last year we had a change in policy as we were required to provide more evidence that we were not engaging in irresponsible purchases or commercial agreements and to show we were getting value for money. And so we had to provide 3 written quotes for each item to prove we were not engaging in bad deals. At one level, this makes great sense, if we're leasing vehicles or buildings or doing IT purchases. But at a smaller level, like mine where we had to provide 3 written quotes for every line item in a stationery order (pens, pads, staples etc) we ended up spending more "money" in mam hours than any savings we could ever achieve.


*edit* thankfully, since then, there's been other changes which have rendered most of my issues moot.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

My father also works in the public sector. Every time he hears about mass layoffs, he says that will just fold more responsibilities in the remaining people and slow down any procedure further. So it's a personal peeve, and besides "unproductivity gah" is the wrong way to look at it. When your government begins operating as a corporation, that's not reassuring. Governments aren't supposed to treat their populations as sheep (eh, consumers) unless your policy happens to be austerity.

In general it looks to me like government work in any country is like an IT guy who tries to explain to his tech-illiterate boss why the company will crash and burn without him.

[Thanas]

Greece's share of public workers is 29%, German share is 19%. Overhead costs are IMO insufficient to show a 10% difference and the fact that France has 31% public workers probably is an indicator that government policies or general inefficiency are to blame for this.

[UnderAGreySky]

Greece's share of public workers is 29%, German share is 19%. Overhead costs are IMO insufficient to show a 10% difference and the fact that France has 31% public workers probably is an indicator that government policies or general inefficiency are to blame for this.

Not sure if you can generalise this: A country that has "privatised" its railways by providing contracts to private firms will necessarily employ less public servants (all other sectors being equal) than a country whose government runs the railways. Doesn't necessarily mean it is the result of inefficiency. The reason I bring this up is that tourism plays (played) a big role in the Greek economy, maybe that could explain some of the discrepancy.

But coming back to the main topic, I'm worried about the effect this is going to have on Greece's political and economic climate - I'm not looking forward to it.

[spaceviking]

Also the high level of public service probably has to do with Greece having high infrastructure costs for its low level of potential economic output.

[Simon_Jester]

I think his point is that Simon is just clueless; Ando works in the Australian public service and I'm 100% sure he knows all about 'government waste'. He probably also understands why simple solutions don't work without harming deliverables.

I don't think we should eliminate all government workers who keep track of funds or whatever, any more than I think we should get rid of all lawyers or advertisers.

But how is it even controversial that some of the effort we put into these areas is wasted? I always took for granted that social engines can't run at 100% efficiency, any more than machines can. A certain amount of work that human beings put in in a realistic society is going to go to waste- accomplish nothing in the long run, or serve only to cancel out someone else's labor.

This is not new, this shouldn't be controversial to anyone with a shred of objectivity, and if you think you need to go "har har har" about how this proves that I don't understand the need for bureaucracy or management, you're an imbecile.

Last year we had a change in policy as we were required to provide more evidence that we were not engaging in irresponsible purchases or commercial agreements and to show we were getting value for money. And so we had to provide 3 written quotes for each item to prove we were not engaging in bad deals. At one level, this makes great sense, if we're leasing vehicles or buildings or doing IT purchases. But at a smaller level, like mine where we had to provide 3 written quotes for every line item in a stationery order (pens, pads, staples etc) we ended up spending more "money" in mam hours than any savings we could ever achieve.

Which is a perfect example of waste in action; I even specifically listed "time-wasting forms" as an example of how work can go to waste in government.

My father also works in the public sector. Every time he hears about mass layoffs, he says that will just fold more responsibilities in the remaining people and slow down any procedure further. So it's a personal peeve, and besides "unproductivity gah" is the wrong way to look at it. When your government begins operating as a corporation, that's not reassuring. Governments aren't supposed to treat their populations as sheep (eh, consumers) unless your policy happens to be austerity.

I'm not saying government should be profitable. But government exists to serve the public; they have a right to expect results for their tax dollars, and to get a good ratio of results per person they hire with those tax dollars.

In general it looks to me like government work in any country is like an IT guy who tries to explain to his tech-illiterate boss why the company will crash and burn without him.

The real question is, is it in the best interests of the Greek people to have 30% of the Greek people employed purely as civil servants for the other 70%?

The answer might be "yes," or "no," but it sure isn't "we can't cut back manpower because of a law we passed in 1925," because that's a bloody stupid way to set hiring policies for ANY institution or organization.

[weemadando]

But the point is that there's unexpected consequences. What seems like a reasonable measure to cut waste and eliminate opportunities for nepotism and corruption led to other issues.

Cutting numbers of staff without reducing the services they're expected to produce is probably not going to help unless you're also reforming the services offered or the work processes involved too.

As for it being in the interests of the people to have 30% of the people employed as public servants? If the country can support it, it can do good - provide employment in otherwise economically depressed areas, have gov't funded development and maintenance of infrastructure rather than relying on private industry.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The real question is, is it in the best interests of the Greek people to have 30% of the Greek people employed purely as civil servants for the other 70%?

Last I read the percentage was around 12%, with a EU median of 15% or so. Our problems have nothing to do with the number of civil servants and just firing a few or a lot won't help.

The answer might be "yes," or "no," but it sure isn't "we can't cut back manpower because of a law we passed in 1925," because that's a bloody stupid way to set hiring policies for ANY institution or organization.

This law is, I think, somewhere in the Constitution; it was certainly passed with the amendment that happened in 1911. When discussing government matters, saying "we can't cut back manpower because the Constitution doesn't let us" is quite the argument.

[Simon_Jester]

Not sure if you can generalise this: A country that has "privatised" its railways by providing contracts to private firms will necessarily employ less public servants (all other sectors being equal) than a country whose government runs the railways. Doesn't necessarily mean it is the result of inefficiency. The reason I bring this up is that tourism plays (played) a big role in the Greek economy, maybe that could explain some of the discrepancy.

Interesting point.

But the point is that there's unexpected consequences. What seems like a reasonable measure to cut waste and eliminate opportunities for nepotism and corruption led to other issues.

Yes, I very much agree. This is why in the abstract you "can't get rid of waste." And why in specific I used the word "obsession" to describe the attitude toward sovereign debt that makes people fixate on "should the state be doing this, should we cut manpower or change other procedures," at the exclusion of other concerns.

I did, though, not place enough emphasis on how dumb this can get if it's done carelessly or in a slipshod way. Which is almost the only way to do it in a massed layoff. Because practically by definition you're mandating that each department fire X% of their workers, not stopping and asking "which positions are most dispensable? Is it desirable that we dispense with ANY positions in a time of double-digit unemployment? Will the improvement to our sovereign debt situation offset the consequences of unloading another charge of buckshot into our feet?"

Cutting numbers of staff without reducing the services they're expected to produce is probably not going to help unless you're also reforming the services offered or the work processes involved too.

IF there is a serious problem with the Greek bureaucracy, I suspect it's one of systematically poor work processes. If you've had a law which allows you to add positions to your system, but never remove them, and if multiple successive administrations have added their own men in newly created positions in the bureaucracy... I for one would expect to see bad work processes almost by default.

As for it being in the interests of the people to have 30% of the people employed as public servants? If the country can support it, it can do good - provide employment in otherwise economically depressed areas, have gov't funded development and maintenance of infrastructure rather than relying on private industry.

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with it as such, but it's catastrophically bad hiring policy to be unable to even ask the question without slamming into a constitutional limit.

The real question is, is it in the best interests of the Greek people to have 30% of the Greek people employed purely as civil servants for the other 70%?

Last I read the percentage was around 12%, with a EU median of 15% or so. Our problems have nothing to do with the number of civil servants and just firing a few or a lot won't help.

In that case, Thanas's numbers are off by a factor of about 2.5, in which case the whole question does not arise and you are almost certainly right that firing government employees is a stupid move. It might NOT be stupid if 30% of the population was government employees, at that point it really might be better for the economy to cut back, but it is very unlikely that you'd unlock great hidden efficiencies by cutting from 12% to 10% or 9%.

The answer might be "yes," or "no," but it sure isn't "we can't cut back manpower because of a law we passed in 1925," because that's a bloody stupid way to set hiring policies for ANY institution or organization.

This law is, I think, somewhere in the Constitution; it was certainly passed with the amendment that happened in 1911. When discussing government matters, saying "we can't cut back manpower because the Constitution doesn't let us" is quite the argument.

OK, let me unpack that so it's more than a soundbite.

I think that the basic decision of "should the state hire/fire more workers, yes or no?" should be a matter of routine administrative policy, not a matter of constitutional law. A constitution should define a government's structure, powers, limitations, and responsibilities. It should probably not be too specific about the details of HOW the government carries out its responsibilities, or how many people it does it with. Not unless you want to have to go back and change your constitution every decade or two to react to changing circumstances.

So I think this represents a flaw in the Greek constitution- though obviously one that seemed like a good idea at the time, for logical reasons of its own.

The obvious problem, for Greece, is that the state not being allowed to remove positions is a cornerstone of the anti-corruption protections in their constitution. Since it ended a spoils system that's obviously a point in the rule's favor. But I would think there has to be a better way- just as a matter of logic, permanently setting the hire/fire decision on a one-way ratchet can't be a good policy.

Imagine being unable to, say, remove the position of "harbormaster-general of Wyoming," when Wyoming is a landlocked province...

[Stark]

You can't honestly be this dense. Are you aware that Greece has bad endemic systemic problems for decades, and how do you see this working with legal reform? Indeed, without sweeping process and organisational restructuring how do you know firing people would even help? How would you identify those who should be

Jesus I'm just going to stop wasting my fucking time.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

In that case, Thanas's numbers are off by a factor of about 2.5, in which case the whole question does not arise and you are almost certainly right that firing government employees is a stupid move. It might NOT be stupid if 30% of the population was government employees, at that point it really might be better for the economy to cut back, but it is very unlikely that you'd unlock great hidden efficiencies by cutting from 12% to 10% or 9%.

Now that I've looked at it, the labour force in Greece is only 5 million, so it depends on how you can drop out of these statistics; if you're dropped after 6 months in unemployment, it'd make sense the number would be so low. But even as a percentage of total labour force, we're looking at what, 1/7th of them work in government? And this percentage includes the armed forces as well.

I think that the basic decision of "should the state hire/fire more workers, yes or no?" should be a matter of routine administrative policy, not a matter of constitutional law. A constitution should define a government's structure, powers, limitations, and responsibilities. It should probably not be too specific about the details of HOW the government carries out its responsibilities, or how many people it does it with.

Ehm, it does define the powers and limitations of government. One of the limitations is "you can't fire all your workforce and replace them with your voters in a single night". The rest are defined by the Civic Service Code.

There is a serious problem, though, in that it is unavailable to the public. If an asshole tells you "the law is cumbersome, but I can help with your form if you hand me money", he might be lying or the law might truly be this fucked up; you can't force him to show the official documents on this. This is incredibly bad (TM), but won't be solved by firing anyone.

Not unless you want to have to go back and change your constitution every decade or two to react to changing circumstances.

What, you mean actually evolve our system as time goes by? What if I think that this is a fuckawesome idea? <insert pithy remark about American Founder-worship here>

But I would think there has to be a better way- just as a matter of logic, permanently setting the hire/fire decision on a one-way ratchet can't be a good policy.

What way, and how could you go about implementing this?

[Simon_Jester]

You can't honestly be this dense. Are you aware that Greece has bad endemic systemic problems for decades, and how do you see this working with legal reform? Indeed, without sweeping process and organisational restructuring how do you know firing people would even help? How would you identify those who should be

Jesus I'm just going to stop wasting my fucking time.

Are you so dense that you always assume that if I don't answer every question you might ask, I must be ignorant of the existence of the question, or too stupid to understand it?

Do you need your opinions pre-chewed for you that thoroughly?

Now that I've looked at it, the labour force in Greece is only 5 million, so it depends on how you can drop out of these statistics; if you're dropped after 6 months in unemployment, it'd make sense the number would be so low. But even as a percentage of total labour force, we're looking at what, 1/7th of them work in government? And this percentage includes the armed forces as well.

OK, in that case the 29% figure I was working off of from Thanas is totally delusional and irrelevant, and my own 30% example is equally irrelevant.

Ehm, it does define the powers and limitations of government. One of the limitations is "you can't fire all your workforce and replace them with your voters in a single night". The rest are defined by the Civic Service Code.

There is a serious problem, though, in that it is unavailable to the public. If an asshole tells you "the law is cumbersome, but I can help with your form if you hand me money", he might be lying or the law might truly be this fucked up; you can't force him to show the official documents on this. This is incredibly bad (TM), but won't be solved by firing anyone.

Then that is an obvious target for reform: make the laws which govern the civil service's actions available to the public, for the sake of transparency.

And in general- there's a difference between firing all your workers, for purposes of bringing in new employees on the spoils system, and firing some of your workers, either because they did no actual work or because the position they occupy has become useless.

Not unless you want to have to go back and change your constitution every decade or two to react to changing circumstances.

What, you mean actually evolve our system as time goes by? What if I think that this is a fuckawesome idea? <insert pithy remark about American Founder-worship here>

There is little point in having a constitution unless it's harder to change than ordinary laws and regulations. If it is hard to change, then you need to be careful that the only things in your legal code that are that hard to change are the ones which should be that hard to change. Freedom of speech should be hard to change. "We have a harbormaster-general for a landlocked province" probably shouldn't be.

But I would think there has to be a better way- just as a matter of logic, permanently setting the hire/fire decision on a one-way ratchet can't be a good policy.

What way, and how could you go about implementing this?

You might distinguish between firing individuals and deleting positions. Firing individuals would have to be done on a for-cause basis (i.e. "this worker hasn't shown up to work in 90 days and hasn't so much as called us to explain himself.") Deleting positions, which is more or less what you do in a mass layoff, would have its own set of protections and circumstances so that a new government couldn't do it to reward its party membership. A review process, through whatever extrapartisan or multipartisan organizations might exist in Greece, would be nice.

But it shouldn't be entirely impossible, because the needs of a government agency do evolve over time and you shouldn't have to keep paying a harbormaster after the port silts up beyond repair.

The point is to distinguish between, say, "fire the entire board of mine inspectors, and replace it with your party membership" (which used to happen in the US too) and "fire 10% of the mine inspectors because the there aren't as many mines in the country as there used to be." The latter should be illegal. The former should be legal without having to rewrite the constitution, or at least without having to rewrite the constitution every single time you need to shrink a government agency.

[K. A. Pital]

But you can't get rid of waste.

Not now, certainly not. Although a permanent process of... hmm... punishment and replacement of the bureaucracy might breed more public-subservient bureaucrats.

[Simon_Jester]

You still couldn't get rid of waste; not all the waste is the bureaucracy's fault.

Moreover, any society which can govern itself* so well that it can get by with effectively zero waste is probably so generally high-performing that it doesn't need to eliminate waste. It can afford perfectly well to waste 5% or whatever of available labor resources, because a quite satisfactory life can be achieved for all without it.

Arguably the developed world has already reached this point- our fundamental problem is not that labor is wasted; it is that we have not solved other unrelated problems. We haven't solved the problem of nonrenewable resources, or environmental issues in general. And while there's plenty of prosperity to go around, we haven't done a thorough job of making sure that it does go around.

But the problem in a country like the US or France isn't "a large fraction of all potential man-hours are wasted." Quite the opposite; the problem is allocating those man-hours so everyone has a job, no one is overworked, and the essentials get done. Some of the jobs being strictly irrelevant to economic function isn't really a problem.
______________

*In the general sense of "govern," which includes "direct oneself, discipline oneself, etc."