I've worked for the government before and (imo) the pace of work is indeed slower. Much of it is caused by abuse of systems designed to help those who aren't doing well - eg. workers not liking their performance being monitored to see what exactly they do, so they claim 'stress leave'.

I have witnessed hard workers within the public services. What lets them down is a high proportion of workers who are lazy and incompetent, but who are also painfully difficult to fire. Prodigious protections mean that a public servant can't just be fired for doing nothing - it is a huge, bureaucratic labyrinth of meetings, assessments, reassignments, consultations, mediation and appeals that are highly costly in money and time before a poor performing salaried worker gets the chop.

It's not just the laziness of many workers either. It's the pointlessness of much of the 'work'. Just like firing someone, getting anything done requires committees and meetings far lengthier than any organisation should reasonably expect. And when something is finally done, it is often wrong or pointless in itself. I routinely mock a friend of mine who works in the public service about her office's 'diversity co-ordinator' (or whatever she is called) - who's little work usually consists of ruthlessly policing jokes and holding mediation between joke-tellers and the overly sensitive.

arry: "You are fundamentally wrong. Your argument assumes governments have unlimited financial supplies which of course is not the case. They have limited tax revenue (which has been reduced of late due to economic downturn) which they must spend to maximise the delivery of goods and services."

Limited resources? I'm sure it's different in Australia but in the U.S. the governmental bodies are busy raising taxes and finding new taxes.

arry: "I don't know about America, but in Australia the government certainly does this in most cases. In fact, most of the time, it is the government departments that are over- stretched and under- staffed and the private companies that waste money on lavish furniture, hundreds of secretaries etc."

I went through budget downturns when I was working. Normally, the government employees developed plans for accommodating a reduced budget that would cause the maximum inconvenience and reduced service to the public. Their goal was to retain as much of their budget as possible. The departments who did the best during hard times weren't the ones that served the public but were the ones that served the organization and the politicians. My favorite downtown was one that was announced by the City Manager to all the department heads and their staff in a large meeting. As we were being told about the "budget crisis" a truck pulled up to deliver $50,000 worth of furniture for the City Manager's office. I asked if he wanted me to tell the men to put the furniture back on the truck. He didn't and I was told to leave the meeting. I liked the year when an employeed designed the "Third Annual Budget Crisis" t-shirt. They sold like hot cakes to the employees and some citizens.

arry: "Instead of calling out 'poor management' rhetoric why don't you actually go to a government department and see how hard these people work."

Good idea, arry. I think I'll try the Federal Department of Education first. I'll stroll in and say, "I'm here to see how hard you're working."

Oh, and working hard isn't the issue. Providing service to the public, hopefully cost effective, is the purpose of the governmental organization. And why bother when you can cook the books anyway?

We had another program I liked a lot although most of the police officers didn't. It was called the Ride-Along Program. Citizens, with age restrictions, could ride with officers, see what they do, and chat with them. It was, in my opinion, good for the officers and good for the citizens. The union and some of their members, of course, didn't like that either.

All I am saying is that business is no better. Whenever there are corporate bankruptcies those at the top seem to always do ok while the little guy gets screwed. It's all about power- no matter whether it's government or business- those at the top have the power. There is no significant difference in that sense.

Although, to be fair, as I originally stated, I think private companies are more excessive, I've never heard of a public servant receiving a 20mil public payout... heard of plenty of private CEOs receiving such ludicrous sums though.

Taxes are unpopular. Every new tax you introduce, you risk your political position. Government funds are always limited. Every tax dollar is money not circulating in the economy, and in the long term, government is very aware that this is a problem.

Great. Even if businesses were no better that's no excuse. Businesses are better on three counts. One, they have to follow the law. Two, they need satisfied customers. Three, I don't have to do business with them.

Back to unions. Personally, I don't care about unions unless I'm being forced to join one either by law or threats. I've dealt with both. Given the choice, I'd prefer not dealing with unions as a consumer, either, since they have zero interest in the consumer. By rejecting volunteers, they're increasing the cost to the consumers with no, zero, benefit to the consumers.

It's exactly the same with government.
1. they have to follow the law (watergate?)
2. they need satisfied voters
3. the public can vote them out if they no longer want to do 'business' with them.

arry: "1. they have to follow the law (watergate?)"
Wow, you only had to go back 35 years. In the time since then, politicians get away with perjury, accepting bribes, using government powers to persecute their personal enemies, destroying evidence, and, their personal favorite, cheating on their taxes. When our current President was made a Senator his wife suddenly had her pay raised from a little over $100,000 a year to over $300,000 a year by a government-funded operation. Isn't it wonderful? What good luck.

"2. they need satisfied voters"
No, they have to get reelected. We have elections where the number of people voting exceeds the number of registered voters. That's after politicians have paid ACORN to get them votes. We have what are called "safe seats" where absolutely nothing can get the incumbent out of office except death. Representative Barney Frank and recently deceased Senator Kennedy are two wonderful examples.

"3. the public can vote them out if they no longer want to do 'business' with them."
I've already addressed that but in any case, I can't vote them out. If General Motors cheats me I never have to do business with them again. If the government lies and cheats and steals, well, I still have to give them my money, don't I. I can't refuse to do business with the I.R.S. and survive.

Of course, all of that is still beside the point. The thread is about volunteering.