I work for the one of the branches of the Federal Government and we are constantly reminded about the need for Value and Ethics and Transparency in all that we do. In fact, I have taken the same values and ethics online course for 2 years in a row because my manager insisted we needed to take the course again. Of course you soon realize that they want the minions to live a life of value, ethics and transparency, that in regards to upper management, their transparency has more of an opaque quality to it.
I have looked after Executive Correspondence requests dealing with letters from Ministers, the public and everyone in between for the last three years as well as handling Access to Information (ATIP) requests that come into our area. Last year the powers that be decided that they needed someone dedicated to only doing ATIP requests, that the position needed to be bilingual at the B levels of competency and that this position would be at a level higher than my current one. The bilingual requirement was not based on the needs of the job since there had been less than 10 requests that had come into our area in French in the 3 years I’ve been doing the job, and they were translated and dealt with in the normal way. After months of trying to figure out why they had this language requirement, it came to light that the Government wants all of the areas to mirror the business lines in the capital region. It seems they felt that this position should be bilingual to match in every area – not because the job required it – but because they want things to look the same. This doesn’t seem to value employees or to be very ethical.
I competed for the position and while I was screened in because of my work skills as presented in my resume, when I took the French as a second language tests, I only managed to achieve high A levels, and not the required B levels in reading and writing. I kept holding out hope that somehow I would still be considered for the job and was disappointed when I finally received the letter stating I did not meet the language requirements and was no longer in the competition. It turns out they only found one candidate in the area of Western Canada that had the work and language skills for this job and that person chose to retire instead of accepting the job. I became excited about the possibility of the job now being posted without the bilingual requirement and that I, and many other people with a diversity of skills would have the opportunity to apply for this job. I did my due diligence and filled out a 14-page resume-cover letter and follow up 14-page clarification of skills for a massive administrative competition that possibly would be used to fill this position. I was hopeful. I waited to hear about a new posting or using that competition and heard nothing. I had scheduled two weeks of vacation for the beginning of April to head to Hawaii and do some outrigger paddling with a group of people from my canoe club. The day before I was to leave, my manager called me in to let me know they had filled the position with the bilingual requirement still in place. I was shocked! I asked if they had gone outside the process to fill it and she said since the process wasn’t successful, that’s what they did. I was told that I would be getting my surplus letter when I returned from vacation. Where’s the value, ethics and transparency in going outside a staffing process to staff a position that didn’t need to be created with language requirements that have nothing to do with the work that is being done?
I headed off to Hawaii and managed to let the Aloha fill me from top to bottom. I had resigned myself to the fact someone was getting the new job and that I had to move on with my career and my life. I was calm and relaxed.
I received my surplus letter on April 17th, which gives me the option of being in a 12-month surplus priority period followed by layoff if I haven’t been appointed to another position. If I refuse a reasonable job offer, I can be laid off one month after the refusal but not before six months from the date of declaration. I can take the transition support measure of a cash payment in exchange for my resignation or I can opt for an education allowance plus an amount of not more than $10K for books, mandatory equipment and tuition from a learning institution. If I opt for the surplus priority and refuse a job, I can no longer choose the cash payment option. I have 90 days to make my decision.
There is a job that I used to do that is available for me and I have been assigned there for now. The thing is I don’t really like the job, I have moved on and I had let people know for months that I could do this job but that really wasn’t my 1st choice in new job options. It certainly is to management's benefit for me to be there, it just isn't a benefit to me. The other unfortunate circumstance is that they filled the new position with someone I have worked with, who is past 65 but who wants to continue to work at a lower level than her management position until she decides to retire. She is being accommodated and I feel like I’m being kicked to the curb. There is a lot of angst in going to work to see someone doing the job you are quite capable of doing but is no longer yours and then having to doing work I really have no interest in doing. The Aloha is gone.
What I really would like to know from management is where’s the Value, Ethics and Transparency (VET) in how I’m being treated?
So Now What?
I really don’t know how I am going to cope with my work situation but I do pride myself in being a person of integrity so will go in and do my best to do what’s asked of me. I will keep you posted…
No comments:
Post a Comment