...

[Shady]

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.

Yes, they're simply immediately getting new ones, so how do they deserve severence? It's interesting that when it comes to people in the top 5% of income earners who work for the government, you're their biggest defender, while the little guy gets thrown under the bus. But when it comes to private sector earners in the top 5%, you demonize and attack them, when at least the money they earn is THEIR OWN! I guess you pick and choose when you stick up for the common people huh? Pathetic.

[Smallc]

I don't do either of the things that you just said. A contract is a contract. I love how you only like the rules when they fit your ideology.

Government workers earn their own money too....or are you suggesting that they've stolen it?

Edited March 12, 2010 by Smallc

[Shady]

I don't do either of the things that you just said. A contract is a contract.

Like I've said. They're entitled to their severence, but it's not deserved. Severence is suppose to be for people who lose their jobs, and aren't getting them back. Not for being shuffled around between levels of government. How do you not understand what the purpose of a severence is? Why are you being obtuse? Why do you always cheer for government, even when they're in the wrong?

Government workers earn their own money too....or are you suggesting that they've stolen it?

Yes, they earn their money for the work they do. However, giving out severence pay to somebody who's just switching bureaucracies, isn't earned money. It's tantamount to theft. But government condoned theft.

[Smallc]

Like I've said. They're entitled to their severence, but it's not deserved. Severence is suppose to be for people who lose their jobs, and aren't getting them back.

And that's exactly what's happening.

Not for being shuffled around between levels of government. How do you not understand what the purpose of a severence is? Why are you being obtuse? Why do you always cheer for government, even when they're in the wrong?

They aren't simply being shuffled between levels of government. Like in the the US, these levels of government have nothing to do with each other on the operational and organizational level. These people have new employers. They are now working for the Government of Canada instead of the Province of Ontario. I don't see the government as being in the wrong here. If I lose my job and I'm entitled to severance, I still get it even if I get a new job the next day.

Yes, they earn their money for the work they do. However, giving out severence pay to somebody who's just switching bureaucracies, isn't earned money. It's tantamount to theft. But government condoned theft.

Right, theft....

You hate this because it involves unions and government. It's that simple.

[Jack Weber]

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

By RTW,I'm not referring to return to work.I'm referring to legislation used in the Deep South and the Mid-Western US colloquially called "Right to Work"...It's also called "Open Shop".It was basically promoted by the NAM(National Association of Manufacturers) in the late '50's.It's basically is a union busting tactic by Big Business in an attempt to finacially break the backs of individual union locals.

[Smallc]

Ah, sorry, so used to hearing return to work called RTW. Sorry for the confusion.

[Shady]

If I lose my job and I'm entitled to severance, I still get it even if I get a new job the next day.

They're not losing their jobs. They're being given new ones. They don't deserve severance. Do you think that when one business buys out another business, and re-organizes workers, that those workers, who now work for a new employer, and who may have new jobs, recieve severance pay? Of course not. Once again, government workers defy all logic and reason, and are insulated from reality.

Severance pay is suppose to be compensation for a lost job, where an employee isn't being offered a new one. If you can't grasp that basic concept, you're retarded. Yep, I said retarded. Or you're just a pathetic devotee of all things government, whether they're right or wrong.

This is no different then the contractual obligations of bankers, who are entitled to bonuses, even though those institutions lost billions of dollars, and recieved billions in bailouts.

[Smallc]

They're not losing their jobs. They're being given new ones. They don't deserve severance. Do you think that when one business buys out another business, and re-organizes workers, that those workers, who now work for a new employer, and who may have new jobs, recieve severance pay? Of course not. Once again, government workers defy all logic and reason, and are insulated from reality.

That's a different case. They literally are moving to a different employer and losing their job with the other one.

Severance pay is suppose to be compensation for a lost job, where an employee isn't being offered a new one.

Is Ontario offering them a new job? No.

If you can't grasp that basic concept, you're retarded. Yep, I said retarded. Or you're just a pathetic devotee of all things government, whether they're right or wrong.

And you simply hate governments and unions. You stick to ideological lines and you don't seem to have any ability to understand anything outside of those lines. I don't need to call you names, you do enough damage to your credibility on your own.

This is no different then the contractual obligations of bankers, who are entitled to bonuses, even though those institutions lost billions of dollars, and recieved billions in bailouts.

Find me somewhere the I complained about bonuses...just one. Like I said, a contract is a contract, and I support those bonuses.

[YEGmann]

At cbc.ca forum people say that the transferred workers retain their seniority and have no interruptions in benefits. I cannot verify if this is true.

The situation is similar to that when a company is bought by another one. This is not a case of losing job.

Interestingly that the Ontario government had to explain these payments. These confirms that this is not a normal situation of terminating employment.

This clearly shows the difference in job compensation between private and public sectors.

[capricorn]

Severance pay is suppose to be compensation for a lost job, where an employee isn't being offered a new one.

IMO that certainly applies where it is in the same company, i.e lateral transfer or promotion. Of course if you are re-hired by a different company, the first company would honour the severance pay agreement if one exists. In this case, the question is, is one level of government the same as another level of government? IOW are both the federal and provincial governments the same employer? Clearly, they are not.

It appears the provincial government is a contractual agreement to remit severance pay to the tax collectors.

In simple terms, employees will be paid severance by the provincial employer, which they would probably be entitled to in any case once they leave the federal employer.

But is the employee advantaged by drawing the severance pay now? In one way yes, in another no. They will get a chunk of cash they can spend immediately and get taxed on, cash that will not be there in their future years.

Let's estimate the cost of severance at say, $50M. Assuming half cash the severance pay, at a 20% tax rate, $5M goes right back into government coffers plus any taxes collected on consumer purchases.

The bottom line is these employees will receive severance pay either now, or in the future. Paying it now means the funds come from the provincial treasury, paying it later means the funds would come from the fed treasury. What is unknown is whether the province made a deal with the feds to recoup the cost of the severance expenditure.

We may not like it but there's nothing we can do about it except rant.

[Smallc]

Let's estimate the cost of severance at say, $50M.

I think the article pegged it at $25M.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Smallc

[msj]

IMO that certainly applies where it is in the same company, i.e lateral transfer or promotion. Of course if you are re-hired by a different company, the first company would honour the severance pay agreement if one exists.

Yep.

I've seen it many times - the new company wants a clean slate with the staff so the old company has to pay them out and the new company rehires the staff.

Records of employment are issued, separate T4's will be issued, etc....

What I find interesting is that BC, so far, isn't paying it. I wonder if that will be the case, and, if so, why?

[Smallc]

What I find interesting is that BC, so far, isn't paying it. I wonder if that will be the case, and, if so, why?

Perhaps they don't have a severance agreement?

[msj]

Perhaps they don't have a severance agreement?

Get real: they are unionized so of course they have a severance agreement.

If they didn't, the employment standards would kick in to give them minimum severance and case law would surly kick in to extend severance beyond those paltry levels (minimum of 8 weeks).

I have a suspicion, and it will only be confirmed if the union remains quiet on this, that the BC employees will transfer with their seniority, etc, intact.

Fair enough.

But the question becomes - was this already baked into the $1.6 billion (or is it $1.8?) that the Feds agreed to give to BC to transition to the HST?

If so, transparency is lacking.

[Smallc]

Get real: they are unionized so of course they have a severance agreement.

Maybe they agreed to get something else rather than severance in the past. Who knows?

[msj]

But is the employee advantaged by drawing the severance pay now? In one way yes, in another no. They will get a chunk of cash they can spend immediately and get taxed on, cash that will not be there in their future years.

Let's estimate the cost of severance at say, $50M. Assuming half cash the severance pay, at a 20% tax rate, $5M goes right back into government coffers plus any taxes collected on consumer purchases.

The bottom line is these employees will receive severance pay either now, or in the future. Paying it now means the funds come from the provincial treasury, paying it later means the funds would come from the fed treasury. What is unknown is whether the province made a deal with the feds to recoup the cost of the severance expenditure.

We may not like it but there's nothing we can do about it except rant.

I think a more realistic look at this is needed.

Lets say the number is $50 million.

Now, let's assume that half of that is directly put into a "retiring allowance" (i.e. put into the individuals RRSP under the retiring allowance rules).

Eventually, this money, including investment earnings, will be pulled out of the RRSP and taxed. It will likely be taxed at rates of at least 30% in Ontario.

Now, the employee will continue to make, lets say, about $70,000+ for the year while working under the province (for Jan to Jun/10) and the Feds (Jul to Dec/10).

So, the marginal tax rate on the other half of the severance starts at 35% in Ontario.

So we are probably talking around $16+ million will, eventually, be taxed through income taxes. Add in HST and other consumption taxes and this mitigates the cost quite a bit.

So all in all, the employee getting the $45,000 in severance, and puts $22,500 of it into a RRSP, and continues to work, is likely to pay a total of $9,050 of tax on it in 2010 and a further $6,750+ when the other portion is eventually withdrawn from the RRSP.

So, total tax of about $15,800 on that severance (about 35% average tax rate).

Just a quick and dirty example for you.

[capricorn]

I think the article pegged it at $25M.

Who knows what the actual figure is. I doubt we'll ever know.

[capricorn]

I think a more realistic look at this is needed.

---

So we are probably talking around $16+ million will, eventually, be taxed through income taxes. Add in HST and other consumption taxes and this mitigates the cost quite a bit.

So all in all, the employee getting the $45,000 in severance, and puts $22,500 of it into a RRSP, and continues to work, is likely to pay a total of $9,050 of tax on it in 2010 and a further $6,750+ when the other portion is eventually withdrawn from the RRSP.

So, total tax of about $15,800 on that severance (about 35% average tax rate).

Just a quick and dirty example for you.

I like your numbers better than mine msj. And yes, I was being, ahem, conservative in my estimates.

[Martin Chriton]

Do you think that when one business buys out another business, and re-organizes workers, that those workers, who now work for a new employer, and who may have new jobs, recieve severance pay? Of course not. Once again, government workers defy all logic and reason, and are insulated from reality.

I agree with your sentiment -- at the end of the day these public sector employees still have the same employer.

However, to nitpick, in the private sector if a business is bought out stock options become fully vested (in a lot of cases -- all?). If the business I work at were to become purchased I'd be better off financially. As it is, I have a 5 year vesting period (for the most recent options) to deter me from jumping ship.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Martin Chriton

[msj]

I agree with your sentiment -- at the end of the day these public sector employees still have the same employer.

Being employed by the province is not the same as being employed by the federal government or being employed by a local government.

That. Is. A. Fact.

So, get over it.

This is like saying that if Bell bought out Telus then no severance would have to be paid because they are the same employer.

They are not and, yes, severance would either have to be paid or Telus workers seniority would have to be maintained and integrated into Bell's.

And, yes, this will factor into the purchase/selling price.

[Renegade]

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?

There is quite a simple fix. As part of the federal-provincial HST agreement, the province should require that the job offer by the Federal government to the employee be conditional upon the employee waiving the severance clause. IOW, the employee gets to choose between a severance and a federal job.

[msj]

There is quite a simple fix. As part of the federal-provincial HST agreement, the province should require that the job offer by the Federal government to the employee be conditional upon the employee waiving the severance clause. IOW, the employee gets to choose between a severance and a federal job.

That's just it - essentially this is what can be done and is generally done. Except that it is much more complicated when a union is representing many employees.

Either they get severance and lose some or all of their seniority (and certain benefits) as they move to a new employer or the new employer finds a way to integrate their seniority (and benefits).

The new employer (federal government in this case) then takes on the risk of having to pay severance if they want to lay off an employee in the future (and the severance would be based on the employee's start date with the provincial government rather than the more recent start date with the federal government).

[fellowtraveller]

are their pensions schemes continuing with the new employer?

If so, they should not get a penny in severance.

[CANADIEN]

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.

There is nothing outrageous in an employee get what they have a right to get.

As for any behaviour being disgusting and ooutr4ageous. it is YOURS. Raising the threat of murder is irresponsible, hateful and quite frankly brainless.

[Jack Weber]

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.

Take your Free Dominion,wacko,right wing nutjob theories back there with the other deluded dementoids....