Ignoring the age of the people involved, the idea that what is happening is in the name of "efficiency" is laughable.
Maybe these departments are all wasteful but there are better ways achieve "efficiency" than just shutting down departments without having plans about what is going to happen afterwards.
What is efficient about shutting down departments without notice or without looking at the impact or having alternatives besides just not providing those services. How about seeing if there are better ways to do the same things before just shutting down departments? Or looking at the areas of the government that have more significant budgets? Or considering that there is more to efficiency than money?
I think it’s because leadership at large organisations doesn’t actually understand how things work on the ground, and also knows they’ll never be able to.
A blanket ban on newspaper subscriptions is a pretty easy way to save a few million dollars with minimal effort and relatively low risk.
Actually evaluating whether each employee who gets one needs one along with potential subscription renegotiations could be theoretically better, but requires a great deal of managerial time and talent in the context of a large organisation.
Maybe these departments are all wasteful but there are better ways achieve "efficiency" than just shutting down departments without having plans about what is going to happen afterwards.
What is efficient about shutting down departments without notice or without looking at the impact or having alternatives besides just not providing those services. How about seeing if there are better ways to do the same things before just shutting down departments? Or looking at the areas of the government that have more significant budgets? Or considering that there is more to efficiency than money?