Beware the Unstable Public Service

Is the chemistry of public servants' brains of more concern than the working conditions and health status of Canadians? The framing of worker mental health concerns as public service issues serves to divide rather than bring Canadians together about shared values. Similarly, focusing on mental health serves to ignore the basic determinants of health.  Why separate mental health from the usual health indicators, or quality of life indicators...who benefits from this analysis?



We have on hand actual evidence and deeper treatment of the issues. The research is framed to look at working conditions across public service, not-for-profit, and private sectors.

Representatives of public service employers, their bargaining agents, and individual public servants' have shared accountability here, as well as elected officials in their roles & discharge of their obligations concerning governance.

Canadians workers who are not public servants, the recently unemployed and the underemployed will not be particularly enlightened or sympathetic to the mental health of public servants, in  an environment of backlash against collectively negotiated benefits, particularly pensions - nor should they be: we know exactly what its like working for NGO's and in the private sector in a variety of service areas, no pension, limited benefits, no job security, shifts from hell, ridiculous dress codes, etc. Fewer wacko's may be calling the shots, but they have a much greater impact on the particular workplace environment.

I would be interested in the value-added analysis of looking at mental health indicators for a particular social-economic sector/population, to federal health workplace policy. I can see how this benefits
specific individuals, including particular pundits leading results of a round table. What is the insight for the management of workplace health in the federal or other public service environments? What is the insight of value to Canadians? Why is it worth separating mental health from other health status indicators?

What's needed is a cultural overhaul that brings back "human relations, not labour relations," said Wilkerson. That means treating people fairly, with respect, giving them authority and fulfilling jobs. Without these basics, people "ruminate" and seethe -- the key indicator to stress and depression, Wilkerson said.

Sounds a bit like a soundbite from a paternalistic employer...who wants to talk about boring labor market realities, the value of particular skill sets, and social/economic inequities when we could just be nicer to each other, confer authority and "give" fulfilling jobs in the public service away? Thank you O boss of bosses....the un- and otherly employed are just as likely if not more likely to be stressed than federal public servants...an obvious question is can we count their meds & self medication & therapeutic interventions the same way we count those of the public service? Can we count their days on EI and workers comp when their sick benefits ran out? Not when this health issue is defined as a broad strategic issue with in "the economy of mental performance."

Elected officials and the electorate both have plenty of justification for reduced public spending by way of public service cutbacks, whether that stands up to analysis against data, or whether it relies on false assumptions & data-free speculation. I'm not confident that the reportedly dismal mental health of some public servants is going to tip the scales...

When I think of the seethe-worthy, I don't think about public servants who are either incompetent or let their values get in the way of informed decision-making, nor the ridiculous procedural warrens that discourages people from openly challenging or grieving their actions, nor the sage articulate individuals discharging their responsibilities gracefully while giving a shit,  nor the amazing opportunities for growth and resources public servants have access to. I think about the self servers.

Then again, perhaps I've just become a little more OC about the omissions and commissions of public policy which result in greater disparity, and more centralized control.