...

[Thomas Kwon]

..

Edited July 3, 2015 by Thomas Kwon

[Alta4ever]

So Ontario tax collectors are getting 6 month severance package just for changing their job title..

That is disgusting...

[msj]

Good to see that BC is taking the right approach.

[Shady]

That is disgusting...

Well said. Just another example of government workers defying not only logic and reason, but the laws of business and economics. How do they find the money for this? Taxes from John and Joan Q public. Who go to work everyday, in the midst of recessions, and layoffs, and pay freezes, and sometimes pay cuts. Only to have these pieces of shit, reach into their pockets, and scoop up money that doesn't belong to them, in which they haven't earned.

It's fucking digusting. :angry:

[Bonam]

Shrug, it's government, what do you expect?

[Smallc]

Why the different approaches? Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said the government is simply honouring the terms of the province's collective agreement with its public-sector workers. The union representing the employees said they are entitled to severance pay because, even though they will immediately land new jobs with the federal government, they will no longer work for the public service in Ontario.

So should they ignore the agreement? I'm sure such a scenario was never considered when the agreement was signed, but, don't we have to live by our agreements?

[Smallc]

This is also an interesting point, that makes it far more reasonable:

Greg Hamara, a spokesman for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, said only a few employees will qualify for the maximum severance pay of $45,000 – those with 26 years' experience earning $84,000 a year. He said they will also lose their seniority and could face an uncertain future if the Harper government cuts the size of the federal civil service.

Does that mean they will lose pay?

[Bonam]

So should they ignore the agreement? I'm sure such a scenario was never considered when the agreement was signed, but, don't we have to live by our agreements?

Yes, we have to live by agreements. There are two problems though.

First, from the description, this is a technicality. People get paid severance when they are layed off, not when they are transferred to another position. This should fall into that category. This should be sorted out, through the courts if necessary.

Second, the government shouldn't be making such agreements to begin with.

[Smallc]

Yes, we have to live by agreements.

Then there isn't much to argue about here.

First, from the description, this is a technicality. People get paid severance when they are layed off, not when they are transferred to another position.

They aren't simply changing jobs though. They're changing employers, and they now have lost all seniority and have an uncertain future.

Second, the government shouldn't be making such agreements to begin with.

Why not? This isn't unique to government.

[Bonam]

They aren't simply changing jobs though. They're changing employers, and they now have lost all seniority and have an uncertain future.

Again, a technicality. Their employer is the government, financed by the taxpayers. What branch or layer of the government is not really of great importance. As for seniority, that is a flawed concept. Compensation and job security should be primarily determined by merit (performance), not by how long you've worked somewhere.

Why not? This isn't unique to government.

Private companies can make whatever agreements they want (or are forced into). The government has (or, rather, should have) a responsibility to spend the money it collects from taxpayers responsibly. The terms of its contracts with public service unions are, in my opinion, often detrimental to this goal.

[Smallc]

Again, a technicality. Their employer is the government, financed by the taxpayers. What branch or layer of the government is not really of great importance. As for seniority, that is a flawed concept. Compensation and job security should be primarily determined by merit (performance), not by how long you've worked somewhere

It's not a technicality. They are moving to a completely different employer. The Crown of Ontario is a completely separate entity from the Crown of Canada. As for the rest of it, well, this isn't the place to debate the merits of that....and perhaps you should look up the definition of seniority.

Private companies can make whatever agreements they want (or are forced into). The government has (or, rather, should have) a responsibility to spend the money it collects from taxpayers responsibly. The terms of its contracts with public service unions are, in my opinion, often detrimental to this goal.

As you say, in your opinion. Government employees are not cattle, and they are entitled to the same bargaining rights as any other employer or group of employers. Deal with it.

[Bonam]

It's not a technicality. They are moving to a completely different employer. The Crown of Ontario is a completely separate entity from the Crown of Canada. As for the rest of it, well, this isn't the place to debate the merits of that....and perhaps you should look up the definition of seniority.

They are separate entities, yet they seem closely linked enough that they can agree upon this automatic transfer of employees from one member to another. When a company buys a portion of another company and the employees get transferred over, do they all get payed their severance? No, definitely not.

As you say, in your opinion. Government employees are not cattle, and they are entitled to the same bargaining rights as any other employer or group of employers. Deal with it.

Of course, all employees have rights (the same rights that all humans in general have). However, the government is not obligated to deal only with large unions of employees. There are many people who work without unions in a variety of fields, and many government jobs could be non-unionized as well.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

They are separate entities, yet they seem closely linked enough that they can agree upon this automatic transfer of employees from one member to another. When a company buys a portion of another company and the employees get transferred over, do they all get payed their severance? No, definitely not.

That's a different situation. Yes, they are agreeing to transfer personnel, but they are not the same entity nor are they becoming the same entity.

Of course, all employees have rights (the same rights that all humans in general have). However, the government is not obligated to deal only with large unions of employees.

You're right...oh wait, no you're not. Freedom of association. The government, or any company has to deal with an association of enough willing participants.

[CANADIEN]

Well said. Just another example of government workers defying not only logic and reason, but the laws of business and economics. How do they find the money for this? Taxes from John and Joan Q public. Who go to work everyday, in the midst of recessions, and layoffs, and pay freezes, and sometimes pay cuts. Only to have these pieces of shit, reach into their pockets, and scoop up money that doesn't belong to them, in which they haven't earned.

It's fucking digusting. :angry:

Actually, the money does belong to them by law. The only thing discusting is you calling other people pieces of shit.

Edited March 12, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

So Ontario tax collectors are getting 6 month severance package just for changing their job title..

They are changing employers, not kob title. And while there is something absurd in the situation, the fact remains that technically they are being laid off their work and starting a new one with another employer. They are getting nothing less, and nothing more, that what the contract they signed said they should get.

[Jack Weber]

That's a different situation. Yes, they are agreeing to transfer personnel, but they are not the same entity nor are they becoming the same entity.

You're right...oh wait, no you're not. Freedom of association. The government, or any company has to deal with an association of enough willing participants.

Perhaps he's advocating RTW???

[Smallc]

? I'm missing the connection with return to work.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Smallc

[Wilber]

So should they ignore the agreement? I'm sure such a scenario was never considered when the agreement was signed, but, don't we have to live by our agreements?

Yes you do but you should fire the guy who signed it. Trouble is, being government, he will have an even better severance package.

[Topaz]

I see nothing wrong with this. The Ontario is ending their jobs and going out of business and so, anyone can get severance pay under Ontario law. Then the Feds rehire them under different conditions and under THIS government could cause problems for some of them. Under Ontario labour laws, if you are laid off for more than 8 months and no recall to work, the employer has to make sure they put money away for your severance but I'm not sure when the money is paid out to the worker.

[fellowtraveller]

He said they will also lose their seniority

good. Seniority should not carry when you change employers, and is pretty much an abomination even if you stay with the same employed.

Promotion and pay should be based on merit, not on how long your ass has anchored a desk.

[Smallc]

I would encourage you to read the definition or seniority...and I'm glad that you acknowledge that they are in fact changing employers, and not just jobs.

[DFCaper]

It's not a technicality. They are moving to a completely different employer. The Crown of Ontario is a completely separate entity from the Crown of Canada. As for the rest of it, well, this isn't the place to debate the merits of that....and perhaps you should look up the definition of seniority.

As you say, in your opinion. Government employees are not cattle, and they are entitled to the same bargaining rights as any other employer or group of employers. Deal with it.

I agree with Smallc that they deserve the severence. I am just surprised that the Federal government is actually hiring them. I thought part of the elimination of the PST's cost savings was the elimination of these jobs?!?!?!

[Shady]

Actually, the money does belong to them by law.

I'm not saying that by law they're not entitled to it. But it certainly is outrageous and immoral. Severance packages are suppose to be for people who actually lose their jobs. It's meant as compensation for them losing their job, and as a way for them to get by until they find new employment. This however is far from anything close to that. But, it's just another example of government employees being shielded from the reality of the real world. This type of behavior is disgusting, and needs to be condemned by EVERYONE!

It's these types of actions that will eventually lead to citizens driving their own cars and/or flying their own planes into Canadian Revenue buildings, similar to what happened in Texas. It's public workers spitting in the faces of the private sector workers who fund their salaries.

[Shady]

I agree with Smallc that they deserve the severence.

No, they don't deserve severence. Are they entitled to it? Yes. But don't say they deserve it. Because they don't. It's outrageous that tax payers have to pay for severence packages for people who aren't actually losing their jobs, they're just being absorbed by a different government bureaucracy. I've heard of gold-plated pensions. But now gold-plated severence? F'ing ridiculous. :angry:

[Smallc]

I'm not sure how this is the public sector spitting in your face. The reality is, they are losing their jobs....they're simply immediately getting new ones. This is an odd case, but the fact that they are entitled to their severance is pretty clear cut. They will no longer work for the tax collection branch of the Province of Ontario. In fact, they will no longer work for the Province of Ontario at all.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Smallc