Greece to fire 180,000 public servants

[Dr. Trainwreck]

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.

It might have come from a Greek official. But the line between "government official" and "official IMF spokesperson" is blurred these days, and you shouldn't accept absolutely anything that isn't backed by an independent third party.

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.

I agree on both counts. Permanency as it is allows firing an individual, but it needs evidence of serious offenses, and has to be judged by a committee of his or her peers. Criminal offenses are exempt from this.

This is a big problem. Probably the least democratic single function of Greek law is that MPs hold legal immunity for everything except high treason, which can only be revoked by a vote in parliament, but variations of this arse-covering exist everywhere in the public sector. Some of these things going would be a good thing.

There is little point in having a constitution unless it's harder to change than ordinary laws and regulations.

You need a 60% majority for any minor change (outlying articles), and any major amendment requires dissolution of parliament and new elections (core articles). In which you have to get 60% of the seats again. And then, you can only change it again after two terms of parliament. Looks hard to me.

<and snip>

We've just covered this. But right now, what will stop any reform is inertia and corruption/political gain.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

I agree on both counts. Permanency as it is allows firing an individual, but it needs evidence of serious offenses, and has to be judged by a committee of his or her peers. Criminal offenses are exempt from this.

Well that's the problem then. Positions should not be inherently permanent- there should be some kind of process for reviewing whether a position is necessary, possibly a government office specifically chosen for the purpose with whatever provisions you can find to keep it nonpartisan.

There is little point in having a constitution unless it's harder to change than ordinary laws and regulations.

You need a 60% majority for any minor change (outlying articles), and any major amendment requires dissolution of parliament and new elections (core articles). In which you have to get 60% of the seats again. And then, you can only change it again after two terms of parliament. Looks hard to me.

Exactly. I have no problem with that- the point of a constitution is to be changeable, but hard to change, such that it has to reflect some very obvious national need, or a massive, enduring shift in public opinion.

<and snip>

We've just covered this. But right now, what will stop any reform is inertia and corruption/political gain.

True, but "reform cannot happen because the system is broken in way A" is not exactly a counter to "the system is broken in way B." My point is that making it impossible to disband a civil service position ever is broken in way B; your point is that fixing the problem is nigh-impossible because of problem A.

I'm aware of this, but I think my point stands. Do I favor the current layoffs? I don't think I even have an opinion on them, only on the wisdom of the original measure in the Greek constitution.




This sort of thing is why I really think the Greek population should have a right to say "you know what? To heck with it, we're holding a new constitutional convention." The rules under which the existing government came into power are so inherently corrupt, and said government is so determined to hold onto power rather than change those rules, that it seems almost impossible for Greece to get out of its troubles with the same kind of constitution that got the country into it.

Unfortunately, this would probably not improve the situation because of the same politics.

And as far as I can determine, the outside involvement of the IMF and the rest of Europe doesn't seem to be helping either, because their focus is on getting as much of their money as possible back with the cooperation of the existing power structure. Fixing Greece is not their job.