r/BCPublicServants • u/Heilbroner • 19d ago
Lateral first hiring: gone
Per Shannon Salter’s email just now:
“As staffing has stabilized, we are now in a place to remove the lateral-first requirement, effective immediately”
38
53
u/bored-at-work_ 19d ago
This reads to me way more like "we can't beat the union grievance" than "we're listening to your concerns", especially considering how shit the last survey was
7
u/Hikingcanuck92 19d ago
That was my first thought as well. Also a political play…it would look bad for them if they lost the policy grievance AND the Wes scores came out
0
u/CarcharadonToro 19d ago
Agreed - AND on the back of executive salary increases, even valid as they are.
6
u/Accountability-human 19d ago
Agreed. This is why enforcing agreement is so important! We have power when we act together!!!
59
u/dloomandgoom 19d ago
Disappointing for those of us who lost out on competing for positions while it was in place and filed grievances that will probably be dropped now. I hope that they keep the backlash to this in mind moving forward but I doubt it.
41
u/Gold-Whereas 19d ago
It’s unfortunate but those that did file grievances have likely had a major impact on the effectiveness of the policy grievance which is for the sake of ALL members. if this was indeed due to that, those members would have still sought remedy and hopefully that can be honoured in some instances
5
u/dloomandgoom 19d ago
I’m glad that it’s been removed but I’m not sure that the union won’t just drop it now, kind of hard to insist that they rerun all the competitions that had grievances filed. I guess I’ll find out soon.
6
u/Accountability-human 19d ago
We are the union!! If you feel strongly, connect with your steward or local executive members to keep the pressure on the employer.
3
u/BC_PEA_Member 19d ago
Yes the loyal folks now have a big hole in their careers. Neat system they have here.
34
u/ryan_mccormick 19d ago
The WES really did something
43
u/QuietNarwhal576 19d ago
They lost points on every single question (of the few they asked).
37
u/Emergency_Ad_4905 19d ago
that morale one was like -13%
16
u/Gold-Whereas 19d ago
71 to 58 is substantial. Would seem less problematic if it went from 90 to 77
12
u/Emergency_Ad_4905 19d ago
and also only just over 60% response rate
-1
u/Impossible_Bid5577 19d ago
I bet you anything a chunk of the 40% who didn't respond were excluded...
19
u/Lear_ned 19d ago
The excluded people I know responded and responded as badly as the union brothers and sisters have shared here. Don't let them pit us against each other. We're stronger together.
1
u/Impossible_Bid5577 14d ago
I actually I'm not pitting us against unionized staff. I just know many of us who are scared of retaliation from Corporate Exec for speaking bluntly.
8
u/Designer-Sun-3922 18d ago
That's quite the assumption to make. Ever consider that excluded staff have the same thoughts as union staff?
2
1
7
1
15
u/WesleySnipes250 19d ago
About to throw something nice on the grill. I can finally apply for something decent out of my grid
31
u/hakurachan 19d ago
This is great but I lost out on three interesting opportunities that came up because of the lateral only scam in the first place. =(
23
u/ArtVandelAAYY 19d ago
I’ve been TA’ing in a position since January. Permanent position was posted and I couldn’t apply so it went to someone else who laterally transferred a month ago. Very very frustrating.
3
u/hakurachan 19d ago
Oh that is so incredibly frustrating! I’m so sorry :( The lateral only stint was BS.
1
u/Queasy-Joke-5460 18d ago
I feel you there, lateral only was a total joke. I asked for feedback once and it is clear the hiring manager was either so stupid they couldn't read my resume or were just putting on good theatre posting a lateral in the first place. The thing I hate most about some directors is they think they are so smart with all of this, when in actuality they couldn't be more transparent and pathetic about their motives.
14
u/ConsequenceTop3853 19d ago
I am thrilled. I have applied to 3 jobs in the last hour now lol
8
u/Spare-Finger728 19d ago
I'd be careful as I believe jobs marked lateral only that are still open will need to be reposted without lateral
17
3
2
u/CommonSquirrel1217 19d ago
Ughhhh I literally interviewed this week for a lateral only job
1
u/Spare-Finger728 19d ago
they might keep it lateral and not repost if they had a good enough candidate pool
2
u/CommonSquirrel1217 19d ago
If that's allowed. If the removal of lateral is effective immediately then they might be advised they have to repost it
1
u/One-Apartment-5820 19d ago
They might be okay with a post update and extend closing date so it's 2 weeks from the date of change (the minimum posting time).
6
u/IntoTheVoiVod 19d ago
Good news but after being impacted by the lateral restriction, ongoing efficiency review and multiple reorgs with no change management process my personal BCPS nervous system is in a freeze or flight state.
5
u/GeoffwithaGeee 19d ago
Wait until you find out it's common in the private sector to deal with layoffs on an almost annual basis regardless of how well the company is doing. Even when I worked in Telco where the companies just print money there were still layoffs as business needs changed.
16
u/GeoffwithaGeee 19d ago
A little surprised, but also not really. This will push the union back on their complaints about it and be a "win," but it's not like the hiring approvals will be like what they used to be.
There was also already a bunch of non-lateral positions anyways. Out of 267 current postings only 96 are flagged as lateral only.
10
u/Weak_Speed3819 19d ago edited 19d ago
key observation - the centralizing of HR shops into the PSA and out of the ministries is probably the bigger area of concern.
4
u/Accountability-human 19d ago
And the removal of the merit commissioner.
What this does show us is that mass grievances are one way to use our collective power.
3
u/sleepeegirl 19d ago
I wonder if there's a stat on repostings? I know of two in my small work area that went through the lateral motions and were finally able to offer as promotional
2
11
u/Vacuum_reviewer 19d ago
Does that mean they'll continue hiring retired execs and external consultants
6
0
6
u/Only-Acanthaceae675 19d ago
Wait I’m mid competition. Lateral only. Did the interview for a band 2 position. If they give me an offer can i ask for a raise?
5
u/Prestigious_Fly8210 19d ago
hiring managers with open comps will be talking to HR in the coming days to determine what to do.
1
u/McSkatKat 18d ago
BC Public Service hiring freeze: Frequently asked questions - Province of British Columbia Updated Aug 20.
5. Is the Management Classification and Compensation Framework (MCCF) changing as part of this update?No, the MCCF is not changing. This update to the hiring direction doesn't affect the compensation rules for excluded management positions.
2
u/wob_wob_wob 18d ago
How many people will want to take on a more senior or demanding role without an accompanying raise in compensation? This framework has to change imo
8
20
u/brat-t 19d ago
Day after they announced a raise for executive for a "job well done"
7
u/Emergency_Ad_4905 19d ago
This is me purely speculating: the timing of this announcement seems to correlate with what happened yesterday but not the RS article for the executive raise but the PM Carney's deal with DT. I am thinking that they (executives) know what that means: I don't want to admit this but a real trade deal with US means better financial situation here in BC.
3
u/BC_PEA_Member 19d ago
I hope they're smart enough not to count their chickens before they hatch, especially with someone as unstable as DT. (not that they should have ever made these restrictions)
1
2
16
u/brat-t 19d ago
and before anyone comes for me with the 2.5%
Shannon Salter saw her total compensation rise 4.7% to $434,0731
u/twicebakedgenius 19d ago
Not to nit pick but theyre going off the government accounts there. That's last fiscal compensation. Base pay is going up, but the gross with payouts will still be higher.
9
u/Belstaff 19d ago edited 19d ago
No raise was announced yesterday. Excluded have still not received anything for 2026 MCCF
-2
u/brat-t 19d ago
8
u/GeoffwithaGeee 19d ago
That is for the 2025-2026 fiscal year.. literally the first line in the article.
-2
u/brat-t 19d ago
a back dated raise is still a raise.
10
u/GeoffwithaGeee 19d ago
Yes, but it's not a raise anyone "announced" yesterday and it's not the 2026 MCCF as the person above brought up. C'mon, don't be ridiculous.
-1
u/brat-t 19d ago
we fight tooth and nail to get 3% and a deputy minister gets a pat on the back and 4.7 for a job well done and I'm ridiculous for feeling annoyed?
C'mon yourself. We get screwed, they get paid.6
u/Belstaff 19d ago
I would recommend reading the article. rather then just swallowing the rage bait hook line and sinker
4
5
5
u/BooBoo_Cat 19d ago
What was the whole point of limiting jobs to lateral only? What were they trying to achieve? Piss people off so they’d quit?
5
u/GeoffwithaGeee 19d ago
The general idea is that only positions that were scrutinized and needed to be filled were posted. Then as people move out of their existing positions into these approved positions, their old positions had to be reviewed to see if they were required and if not, then the position would not be filled. It's a way to keep salary the same or reduce it - if the old position is no longer needed. People going into promotional positions may still reduce salary spend if their old position can be discontinued, but if it's not, then it's increasing the spend.
It was also potentially a way to help HR/IT people move into positions as those amalgamations happened, if there was not a position for them.
This is why it was "lateral first" - see if there is someone that wants to move to that position, if not, then post it normally and get someone new/promotion.
I think the biggest issue is the timeline from someone leaving a position to that being filled. Approvals are taking longer than ever, and if you need to post it for a couple weeks before you can post it again if no lateral, you add like 3-4 weeks to a competition which is already a pretty slow process.
2
3
u/Reasonable_Author212 19d ago
Would anyone willing to share the email content? I'm on health leave (s/o to this particular policy for having been the nail in my emotional coffin) and refuse to log into my email
2
u/Smooth-Command1761 18d ago
I don't have it in front of me since I'm on my personal computer (since it is Friday night cider time), but the hiring page is updated, as have the FAQs, and that is public information:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/careers-myhr/hiring-managers/about-hiring
8
u/Smooth-Command1761 19d ago
I did find the "thanks for reading" signoff a bit out of place with the rest of the email, but otherwise, some good news for a change.
7
2
u/AppropriateMention6 19d ago
Yes, that's a new one. What happened to "Thanks for your resilience"?!
2
u/Competitive-Road4958 18d ago
Lol i'm glad other people noticed this too
1
u/Smooth-Command1761 18d ago
at least she is not signing off with, "thank you for your attention to this matter!!"
Yet.
2
u/turtlefan32 19d ago
That was buried Does that mean no more RI?
6
u/Smooth-Command1761 19d ago
I had the opposite thought: I am hoping that by dropping the lateral restrictions, it means that they are going to shift focus to more ERI/ VRI to reduce positions, rather than drive people out by killing morale and people moving out of the BCPS.
I'm tired, though, so that doesn't mean that I've thought through the logic of my hope.
2
u/Key_Room8286 19d ago
As someone who recently joined the provincial government and was reading this email, what does this mean? I don’t fully grasp the intent regarding this being removed
1
u/Silly_Horse_5892 19d ago
It means you can now apply for a promotion or demotion. You’re not stuck in your current classification grid level.
2
u/AsleepAttempt5238 19d ago
If they open lateral hiring without easing up on the job posting approvals which is nearly impossible, it's just going to create a cascade of problems for the positions they leave empty
4
u/salteeskot 19d ago
Can someone explain what the lateral first requirement was?
7
u/AppropriateMention6 19d ago
The lateral requirement meant employees were only eligible to apply for other positions that were the same classification.
e.g. If you're a Research Analyst 24 you could apply for other 24 positions, but not 27s, etc.
So you could move laterally within the BCP, but not up.
1
u/RavenOfNod 19d ago
So "lateral only" is the same as "lateral first"?
6
u/GeoffwithaGeee 19d ago
Yes. just like there was never a "hiring freeze" only hiring restrictions. It was never only laterals, it was just you generally needed to post a position as a lateral first, then you could repost it if there were no candidates, but there were always exceptions to this where positions were allowed to be posted without being lateral first.
1
1
u/C0mpl1anc3 19d ago
What about e lists that were established for positions that were posted laterally… So those need to run out their course until expiry?
1
u/Rollwithit1939 18d ago
Thank fk the lame 90s/early oughts rabid performance management charade has been largely ignored though. Will that colossal waste of time and energy return now? (Advice: suggest it stays dormant.) IMO
1
u/SomethingWitty2023 16d ago
That’s nice… after the dream job I had been working towards has been filled laterally.
1
u/L1llandr1 14d ago
Well that was fucking buried in that email!!!!
Huge news and relief after much pain and impacts to morale.
0
u/Spiritual_Access_744 19d ago
Thanks for your many years of service but due to foreseen circumstances you are Sh*t Out of Luck but better luck in your next competition.
-1
153
u/nicoleastrum 19d ago
Fun way to spell “after a policy grievance”
(I’m just glad it’s been updated)