How dumb is government?

It's important to draw a distinction between 'government' as an entity and the people who take these jobs.

In the OP, the woman at the counter's job--her reason for being there every day--is to ensure that people sign in, take a number, and move to the correct counter in an orderly fashion. She may feel that if she takes her job seriously she needs to make sure people are following the rules, even if to you it seems absurd.

What kind of personality type is attracted to a job like that? The kind of person who makes you take a number when there is no one ahead of you in line!

The process is the process until the process changes.. but you will follow the process up until that point.

I operate a side business with those coin operated binoculars you find on piers and other scenic areas.

I give the location owners a percent of the revenue on a monthly basis and in most cases, the owners are a government agency. About a year ago, one of my government owned locations asked me to switch from a monthly to a quarterly reimbursement schedule. I get that the cost of money is at near historic lows but still, who in the hell goes out of their way to slow down their revenue stream; nobody in the real world that’s for sure.

I imagine they looked at their transactional cost and determined that the opportunity cost was less than it and said berk it, let’s go quarterly. In the real world, the transactional cost would have been the focus of attack (let’s go electronic, etc.) but the thought process in this case pretty clearly was…it’s such a hassle cashing all of these damn checks…how can we make them go away…how can we make our life easier…I know, let’s just tell people to start paying quarterly.

So, I think we need to be careful to avoid jumping to the conclusion that everything the government does is driven by laziness and stupidity but at the same time be quick to appreciate how amazingly effective the accountability and consequences associated with the private sector are at driving efficiency and excellence.

Competition serves as a real time bench mark of what can be accomplished…take away the competition and the only driver of excellence that remains is what…some altruistic desire on people’s part to do their best for others; good luck with that.

Why zigzag through a bunch of pylons?

Welcome to the world of Process. We eat, live and breathe Process.

trucke wrote: Why zigzag through a bunch of pylons?

Exactly, the government owned location committed waste #7 “over processing” by failing to transition from physical checks to electronic transfer resulting in their committing waste #3 “waiting” in the form of slowing down their revenue stream.

I’m a certified Lean / Six Sigma Master Black Belt and people can make fun of it all they want (admittedly, I do too) but the principles totally, totally work.

In reply to RX Reven':

I would love to know the details of the business. All those quarters adding up......it sounds fascinating.

SVreX wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: How dumb is government? So dumb they put a man on the moon, the ISS into orbit and the LHC in the ground, all while keeping most countries from being Somalia. Any other questions? (She probably has to follow a strict line-control protocol in which there's no exception for having only one person in the room. It's there to make sure people always get served in order of arrival no matter how forgetful an employee is or who's friends with who. You got through quickly, congrats!)

So what's the point of a protocol that makes me come back from the elevator after I have already completed my business and print my name? How does that serve anyone? Next time, I think I'll write "Jack the Ripper". I'll make sure to print it legibly, and sit quietly until they call it out loud.

Because the rule states "Customer writes their name"

SVreX wrote: I expect beurocratic silliness when I have to do this stuff, so it's really not a big deal. However, those of you who are defending Building Inspectors because you think they are providing a service that makes buildings safer are sadly mistaken. It's just not the case. Ever.

Being a builder at one point in your life, it seems as if there's a place to get involved in Government to actually fix things.

Don't just brush it off. Fix it.

WE are the government. That's how it works. It's not them- it's us.

nderwater wrote: It's important to draw a distinction between 'government' as an entity and the people who take these jobs. In the OP, the woman at the counter's job--her reason for being there every day--is to ensure that people sign in, take a number, and move to the correct counter in an orderly fashion. She may feel that if she takes her job seriously she needs to make sure people are following the rules, even if to you it seems absurd. What kind of personality type is attracted to a job like that? The kind of person who makes you take a number when there is no one ahead of you in line!

Right. A lot of government is filled with people who don't question authority and appreciate the job security in knowing as long as they do it the way it's always been done, they'll get paid all the way to retirement.

In fact, this same attitude is held nearly world wide, in nearly ever profession, aside from maybe those whom are searching and providing venture capital.

Why do we do that way? "Because that's how I was told to do it, and that's the way we've always done it."

I had a similar problem when I was trying to keep my son in his room:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OdKa9bXVinE

alfadriver wrote:

SVreX wrote: I expect beurocratic silliness when I have to do this stuff, so it's really not a big deal. However, those of you who are defending Building Inspectors because you think they are providing a service that makes buildings safer are sadly mistaken. It's just not the case. Ever.

Being a builder at one point in your life, it seems as if there's a place to get involved in Government to actually fix things. Don't just brush it off. Fix it. WE are the government. That's how it works. It's not them- it's us.

I've seen better people than me try to do that and get their teeth knocked in by "THEM" because it certainly is "THEM", even though you're totally right in theory.

SVreX wrote: Next time, I think I'll write "Jack the Ripper". I'll make sure to print it legibly, and sit quietly until they call it out loud.

Yeah, falsifying their form will make everything better.

I bet there's a process for handling that, too.

In reply to pheller:

I run in to two groups of people in the agency I work for who do exactly what the rulebook says all the time. The first never worked anywhere else. They come here and are trained to follow a procedure which has been developed so that anyone can do the job properly. They assign each and every step the same importance and none can be skipped. They've never had to problem solve or prioritize anything. The job will get done but things can get dicey if anything goes wrong.

Then there's the second group, they've worked under one of the people in the first group. They've been disciplined and lost time because the first group treats not wearing a tie in the winter with the same seriousness as running over a pack of kindergarteners. We have rules for a reason and they must be followed. Lose pay for nonsense a few times and you will follow every rule regardless of how silly it seems.

STM317 wrote: It seems possible to me that having the proper paperwork filled out thoroughly may be part of her job performance expectation. If it's going to get me in trouble, or affect my bottom line, you bet I'm going to make people do whatever is necessary to avoid making myself look bad to superiors. If you know your signature is difficult to read, and you expect someone to read it at some point, why wouldn't you just print your name to begin with? Or slow down enough to make your signature legible?

Sure that's possible. I never accused the woman of wrong-doing. It's still dumb.

Are you really trying to make it my fault because of my handwriting? Form said "Sign your name". I did.

In reply to SVreX:

Not insinuating that it's your fault, but I don't see you as being blameless here either. It takes 2 to tango so to speak, and you had as much to do with your interaction as the woman behind the counter.

If you write your name, and expect it to be read (which sounds like the case here) then why are you upset when the reader can't read it and asks you to redo it? Either there was a spot to both sign and print, and you missed the print portion, or you signed it and it couldn't be read, so she made you come back and write it legibly. In either case, you have some responsibility for the outcome.

I'm sorry for your minor inconvenience. I don't think it's worth getting worked up enough to go on the internet and complain about. The worker you interacted with is probably on some Gov employee website right now complaining about the guy who couldn't fill out the form, and mildly inconvenienced her today.

SVreX wrote: However, those of you who are defending Building Inspectors because you think they are providing a service that makes buildings safer are sadly mistaken. It's just not the case. Ever.

That's just not true. You can claim it but it has the same effect as claiming the sky is green: none. If you're going to go off on some semantic argument save it, but inspectors do a job that's important and can and does make buildings safer. Do they always do their job well? No but all positions and industries have that problem.

If inspectors never made buildings safer then earthquakes would harm LA as badly as they do Mexico City and that's not the case.

Without them, building code is meaningless.

STM317 wrote: The worker you interacted with is probably on some Gov employee website right now complaining about the guy who couldn't fill out the form, and mildly inconvenienced her today.

She should just come here like I do.

dculberson wrote:

SVreX wrote: However, those of you who are defending Building Inspectors because you think they are providing a service that makes buildings safer are sadly mistaken. It's just not the case. Ever.

blah blah blah building code is meaningless.

I think that's his point. Having been through a few inspections, and seen a few secondhand, I would tend to agree.

Datsun310Guy wrote: In reply to RX Reven': I would love to know the details of the business. All those quarters adding up......it sounds fascinating.

Hi Datsun310Guy,

Here’s a picture of the type of binoculars I have:

My Grandparents brought the business from the East Coast to California way back in the 50’s and turned it over to me when I began college so that I could pay my way.

30 years later, I’m still operating the business because the machines are in incredibly beautiful locations and I enjoy wrenching on mechanical things and I totally, totally know what I’m doing which provides a nice contrast to the stresses associated with my ever changing corporate engineering job. All up, I spend about 180 hours on the business per year and my net income is negligible compared to my regular job.

Pro’s: I have no product (basically selling air rather than soda’s, etc.) so I could operate out of a Miata all but once per year when I do major overhauls if I wanted to - I can justify buying nice tools and stuff – extremely flexible schedule.

Con’s: The business is basically a novelty (why pay me a quarter when you can just take a picture with your smartphone and share the experience with your buddy in Hong Kong for free) so investment in new technology doesn’t make a lot of sense, rather, I’m just letting inflation take its toll on my effective income. - Banks absolutely hate me so it’s a constant struggle finding ways to force them to take my bags of loose coins. – could get robbed (never happened but I’ve had two close calls).

Basically, it’d be impossible to start the business today as the start-up cost would represent far too many years of income before hitting the breakeven point and being profitable but they’re in place, I have a sincere affection for them (kinda’ creepy but true), and so I quietly soldier along keeping them operational.

Thank you for inquiring…it was fun sharing what I do.

bureaucracy

In a not-so good mood one day, I sauntered into a Starbucks. There was one family sitting at a table with drinks and no one in line. I walked up to the counter (not around the coffee display) The Barista told me I had to go around. I chuckled only to realize she was being serious.

So I went around. Then she mustered this completely fake smile and said "Now, what can I get you today?"

I said, (with an equally patronizing smile) "nothing, you self-righteous control freak" and walked out.

Judging by the reactions of her fellow baristas, it must have been a consistent personality issue.

curtis73 wrote: bureaucracy

Speaking o that, we may need one of these for this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxo3Jy3p8zo

dculberson wrote:

SVreX wrote: However, those of you who are defending Building Inspectors because you think they are providing a service that makes buildings safer are sadly mistaken. It's just not the case. Ever.

That's just not true. You can claim it but it has the same effect as claiming the sky is green: none. If you're going to go off on some semantic argument save it, but inspectors do a job that's important and *can* and *does* make buildings safer. Do they always do their job well? No but all positions and industries have that problem. If inspectors never made buildings safer then earthquakes would harm LA as badly as they do Mexico City and that's not the case. Without them, building code is meaningless.

Building inspectors have absolutely nothing to do with writing the code, or defining better ways to build. They ONLY enforce rules, most of which they do not understand, and certainly do not understand the intent.

I'm sorry. You are mistaken.

I could literally give thousands of examples. Bottom line is that the role of a modern day Code Enforcement Official is primarily a political position, not a safety position.

They don't even call them "Building Inspectors" any more. They are called "Code Enforcement Officials". That's because their primary job qualification is that they can read the building code.

I've been doing this long enough to remember when the Code was literally less than 2% as long as it is today, and easily 1000% as effective.

When I began, Building Inspectors were trusted professionals with experience who made judgement calls on the quality of work. They had authority, and knowledge. Current Code Enforcement Officials have far too much political pressure on them to take that kind of responsibility. They are typically not experienced at building, do not understand the processes, and don't make judgement calls. They enforce "The Code", which is chock full of errors and inadequacies. They are not skilled at applying the code to varying conditions that don't fit precisely in the little box.

I spent the first half of my career defending them and the role they played in safety and building quality. I have spent the second half of my career kissing their ass, because they are so fragile and want nothing more than to be stroked.

Inspections now are a complete joke. I have worked in 26 different states, and hundreds of different communities, and find VERY few exceptions to this.

You and I will have to disagree on this one.

tuna55 wrote:

dculberson wrote:

SVreX wrote: However, those of you who are defending Building Inspectors because you think they are providing a service that makes buildings safer are sadly mistaken. It's just not the case. Ever.

blah blah blah building code is meaningless.

I think that's his point. Having been through a few inspections, and seen a few secondhand, I would tend to agree.

Don't edit what I said. It's literally putting words in my mouth. If you think building code is worthless spend some time in a country without them or without an effective enforcement system. I can almost guarantee you'll change your tune.