Alberta Health Minister fires board of AHS

[para transit fellow]

Has anyone noticed that AHS managers were the only government managers continuing to receive performance bonuses after the provincial government stopped the practice in 2009-2010?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

^^^^^ let me guess, you two are in the Public service?

They don't meet their targets, why should they get bonuses, unless I am completely confused on the whole premise of what a bonus means and why it should be rewarded. Or should they just flat out change the name from bonus to entitlement.



http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/03/27...d-over-bonuses

Not that I'm neccessairly agreeing with Slava or any of the others on this. But we have to be careful when we talk about bonuses based around targets. While its true that AHC failed in 8 of 9 areas, we don't know if the bonuses are predicated on meeting any of them. for all we know the bonuses are based on attendance, wearing a colorful tie on wacky tacky tie day, or going 365 days without a sexual harassment lawsuit.

At the end of the day the budget and the standards set are really set by the government who has ultimate oversight.

But until we know what they were suppossed to be bonused based on we just don't know if the sacking is justified.

To me because I'm jaded, this is justt a ineffective and terrible minister trying to buy himself time and to cover his a$$.

We'll look, I'm doing something he says, but we're not buying, the daughters already missing and the dogs pregnant, I've seen it a thousand times.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We'll look, I'm doing something he says, but we're not buying, the daughters already missing and the dogs pregnant, I've seen it a thousand times.

See, I feel the opposite, I'm glad somebody is doing something to change a dysfunctional entity instead of doing nothing, or giving the line, well there's nothing we can do about it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

^^^^^ let me guess, you two are in the Public service?

They don't meet their targets, why should they get bonuses, unless I am completely confused on the whole premise of what a bonus means and why it should be rewarded. Or should they just flat out change the name from bonus to entitlement.



http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/03/27...d-over-bonuses

Knowing Cowboy89 and his background, as well as mine thats pretty hilarious! I know that its unintentional and all, and how could you ever know, but no I'm not in the public service at all.

I just think that this is easy pickings for the media, but a signed contract is a signed contract. Its great to say "the system is terrible and people aren't meeting targets", but the targets for the bonus are set-out for everyone to see. If they meet 1/9 targets then they're eligible for 1/9 of the bonus. Seems like a fairly reasonable approach to me.

According to Stephen Duckett he never received his full bonus (which is more aptly called "pay at risk") because the targets were quite difficult to achieve. There is a lot to be fixed at AHS, and therefore the targets are going to be quite elusive and require a great deal to achieve them all!

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Slava

Knowing Cowboy89 and his background, as well as mine thats pretty hilarious! I know that its unintentional and all, and how could you ever know, but no I'm not in the public service at all.

I just think that this is easy pickings for the media, but a signed contract is a signed contract. Its great to say "the system is terrible and people aren't meeting targets", but the targets for the bonus are set-out for everyone to see. If they meet 1/9 targets then they're eligible for 1/9 of the bonus. Seems like a fairly reasonable approach to me.

According to Stephen Duckett he never received his full bonus (which is more aptly called "pay at risk") because the targets were quite difficult to achieve. There is a lot to be fixed at AHS, and therefore the targets are going to be quite elusive and require a great deal to achieve them all!

Oh wait, aren't you a financial guy? sorry about that.

But anyways, I'm fine with "If they meet 1/9 targets then they're eligible for 1/9 of the bonus. Seems like a fairly reasonable approach to me."

and if they are as executive as they think they are you'd think they'd be able to get more attainable target goals during their negotiations.

anyways, bottom line is, it's fubared, someone with the power to do something is doing something, and hopefully it turns into a better system in the future.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Oh wait, aren't you a financial guy? sorry about that.

But anyways, I'm fine with "If they meet 1/9 targets then they're eligible for 1/9 of the bonus. Seems like a fairly reasonable approach to me."

and if they are as executive as they think they are you'd think they'd be able to get more attainable target goals during their negotiations.

anyways, bottom line is, it's fubared, someone with the power to do something is doing something, and hopefully it turns into a better system in the future.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence? I can't really figure out what you're saying there.

I think more and more this is just politically expedient for them to say "no bonuses" when really the executives have probably earned them as defined by the contract. I think that the targets are intentionally set very high, because the system isn't in good shape. If the targets are high though, and met then that is all the more reason to pay the bonuses.

[corporatejay]

What is the point of setting up an independent board if the minister can just tell them what to do?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

What is the point of setting up an independent board if the minister can just tell them what to do?

That's really what the contention in this is about and not really the phrase "bonus." The CBE teacher's contract battle with the province was the same thing, the province ramming things down the throats of independent boards for the sake of political expediancy. I don't necessarily have a huge problem with the executives not getting their bonuses as much as I do with the process of the government running around and disassembling the checks and balances against their political interference.

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm actually in that camp too. Everyone talks about how bungled up government mangement is in education and health and then expect the higher ups in those organizations to work for less than six figure salaries with absolutely no bonuses or raises ever. I can't see how under those political constraints you can ever hope to get the proper people to build a good organization in a province where the private sector pays hefty coin. Who would want to work for a organization that promises bonuses for certain targets being reached and then has them yanked whenever it's politically expediant for the health minister to do so?

I can't even imagine the fallout if my company pulled bonuses out from under us if our targets and goals were met for them.

Another negative with working in the public sector is the scrutiny on Expenses. I'm just a lowly peon, but even my expenses on business trips wouldn't pass the pitchfork crowd test.

I have a hard time seeing a lot of successful executives ditching their private positions for an executive position in the public sector. I can see people jumping ship to move up to executive positions but you need the experience people to fix the mess that is AHS, and CBE.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

How exactly does anyone working in health services warrant bonuses for doing their job?

Well, if it is like any industry out there, it is about maximizing profits, or reducing losses. Since we are talking not for profit government s4rvices, it would be the latter. Which means these people are being bonused to cheapen health care and justify poorer service.

Great business model.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

How low was the bar set on these bonuses that an organization like the AHS would be handing them out like candy?