[quote=CA renter]Yep, a relatively new program, and a bad one. They’re stopping it immediately because of a newspaper article/investigation. My guess is that someone from the inside blew the whistle on it. Good for them.
Note that many people who tried to go through this program did NOT get hired. Not sure why some were and some weren’t, but my guess is that most of the people who were hired through the program were qualified. Some bad apples got through the screening process, though some investigators/hiring officials apparently tried to stop some of them from getting through.
Let’s see what happens. IMO, it’s probable that people are going to lose their jobs over this. Not only that, but some people might end up being criminally charged. It will be interesting to watch.
Tell me, nsr: What would happen in the private sector (where you seem to think hiring standards are higher) if someone hired a friend or relative who wasn’t qualified for the job? Would their names be in the paper along with the names of the hirees and the disqualifying factors? Would there be official investigations? Would they lose their jobs? Would they be criminally charged and/or end up in jail?[/quote]
No CAR, you’re the one always asserting that the Government employs such stringent hiring criteria.
Relatively new in this case means 8 years old. Basically it’s as old as Piggington’s. Granted Piggs about a year on it.
As for private enterprise, what private people do with their money is their business.
What the Government does with OUR money is OUR business. But you chronically have a problem with that along with the concept that the Government employees work for “the people” and instead insist they work for their department.
As we saw in the other thread, you can’t even acknowledge that the pubic sector unions are just as manipulative and just as dirty for gaming the political system as any CEO and company. As such, anyone taking their living from the ill gotten gains of the union is just as dirty as any CEO bilking the system.
