EDITORIAL
Bring back Public Works?
The Charbonneau Commission’s revelations of corruption among (some) municipal officials and private contractors surprised us all. They led to the resignation of several unhappy mayors, including Montreal’s, with legal charges laid against them. Surprised and dismayed. It is the extent of the fraud that is so telling, although we must add that no Gatineau city officials were found entangled in these dealings.
Now it appears that there is also collateral damage – to the provincial political parties, all three major ones. It seems campaign donations to the parties were tied to those parties awarding certain contracts . . . oh, oh!
Austerity’s pretend cost-cutting and the switch to contracting out work has opened the door to these abuses. But what to do about all this is much less clear.
Increased surveillance and policing seems a given, but, holy smokes!, this leads to even more bureaucracy, to yet another “Office”. More regulatory bodies do not seem a profitable direction, but what’s our alternative?
More, or real, transparency would be one very helpful alternative. Right now, “transparency” is all about optics, not about procedures and process. The media’s access to information is still shamefully delayed. Public stonewalling, popularized by the Harper regime, makes reporting extremely difficult. So, make transparency automatic, not subject to request. Every contract and decision should automatically be in the media. That’s transparency: lots to read, lots to pay for, and all necessary.
Another step to address private contactor fraud would be to go back to the old, traditional practice of having a Public Works department that does the work – repairs bridges, lays new roads, erects municipal buildings. Yes, expensive for the city, but perhaps not, once these corruptions and bribes are factored in.
More problematic about municipal public works is that they are so union-difficult. That’s a shame and inexcusable. Public service unions have harmed democratic government more than all the proto-fascist groups, and that’s because we accept single unions for multiple jobs and venues. This gives the unions the ability, in a labour dispute, to threaten a shut-down of all government services. Presto, the union wins! – and not just salaries and benefits, but in featherbedding, especially.
Legislators can legitimately separate public service unions, so each must bargain only for its own unit. No big threats – or chaos. Public Works could function efficiently.
While such an aggressive approach would be better than today’s cowering by legislators, a more cooperative attitude might even be better. That means bringing workers and management together, no union reps. Blue collar workers would share management powers – and big responsibilities. Those responsibilities are to serve the public, first of all; there’s no responsibility to serve the union’s interest.
Worker-management cooperatives are an apt management model for all sorts of enterprise, including many parts of the public service. Everyone gets their say – but their say has to be on how to serve the public. Wouldn’t that be refreshing from city employees and contractors?