It’s completely unsurprising that a top-down mandating of shared services requiring a rewrite / reimplementation of pretty much everything that government departments use would go bad very quickly and have lingering effects. It’s also understandable that it was impossible to reverse the course once started, because institutional knowledge was lost (people who knew how the old systems worked retired out or quit, etc.). This, of course, has led to throwing more money at a money pit.

Fortunately, it looks like they’ve finally filled it—but that doesn’t do anything for the thousands of people who were broken by this boondoggle.

However, that isn't an excuse for the "we need to be able to audit the system and explain where each cent in the deductions goes." For anything dealing with money, that is a fundamental and necessary requirement.

Bugs happen. Payroll is one of the the more complex systems. Payroll without auditing is something that is unforgivable.

Honestly, I doubt the fault lies with unions. Did their previous pay system handle this? Don't private sector companies handle lots of different union rules? Doesn't stuff like SAP handle far more complicated legal and accounting rules across many many nations?

My guess is what really happened is they cheaped out given their requirements and/or adopted too-aggressive deadlines, and the failure proceeded from there.

> Because of this complexity, the software handling it is full of bugs.

The world is complicated. It's hella backwards to expect it to twist to conform to what would be simple to implement in software.

Life is complex, technology should support that. We should not have to dumb life down to match.

Plus I’m guessing she was on a defined benefit pension, creating an incentive to stay.

I'm sure if she had options for other employment, she would have taken them. Even when working for CRA, she was only a seasonal contractor.