Postal Strike Imminent

[CPCFTW]

Source?

Seriously?

[Smallc]

Succeeding? Everyone but the rich is either falling behind or stagnant...

We haven't gotten richer, but we've kept up with inflation.

[Smallc]

The point is Canada Post is not essential any more.

It is if you live in rural Canada. It should be an essential service.

[Smallc]

Source?

Canada and Australia have lower productivity than most other western countries. Part of that is logistics, but part of it was a lack of investment in new equipment because of a low dollar. With that problem gone, our productivity has been rising much faster.

[Bonam]

It is if you live in rural Canada. It should be an essential service.

Snail mail is an essential service? Hardly. Honestly the only times I've had to use it lately are to send in government forms that require it. The government would be far better off to review these requirements and let people email/fax all the forms that currently must be mailed. Besides that, if people want to send physical packages/letters to friends/relatives/customers/etc, they can use private companies to deliver them. Declaring a national mail system an "essential service" when it is all but obsolete would be a mistake. Obsolete services should be phased out over time, not declared essential.

[Smallc]

Obsolete services should be phased out over time, not declared essential.

In rural areas like this one, we don't get courier or bus service, and there are many places like this. I can't get anything now without driving at least 40 mins away if not for the post office. There is a reason that Canada Post still exists.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Smallc

[CPCFTW]

If you look at the federal government as a corporation, you'd have to say taxpayers are the shareholders, employees/managers are the employees/managers, and the DMs and MPs are the board of directors. The corporate world has already attempted to address the problem of aligning the interests of the agents (managers, execs, board of dirs) with the interests of the shareholders. How do they do that? By linking executive compensation to the success of the company through bonuses, stock options, etc. The problem in the public sector is that employees have no incentive to be productive. They don't get any more compensation and they have almost no risk of losing their jobs.

Now how can we imitate the corporate efforts to address agency problems in the public sector so that the interests of the taxpayer are aligned with the interests of the agents (government managers/employees)?

Here's my proposal:

1. Create a new department whose sole purpose is to set quality and productivity standards for the various departments and to monitor the departments to ensure they meet the quality standards. The National Quality and Productivity Standards Department of Canada is born.

2. Across the board salary rollbacks by 10% to align compensation with the private sector. Scrap the pay scale charts and unions, and give managers more ability to hire temporary workers at minimum wage for low level jobs. Hire students and the underemployed for these low level jobs and provide them with some sort of incentive to further their education like opening an education savings plan in their names and paying an additional 5% of their earnings into it.

3. Make it easier for managers to lay off unproductive employees. (FWIW, my mom is a regional exec in the federal government and frequently laments how difficult it is to lay someone off for gross negligence and incompetence. I've heard many stories of employees from hell working the system and the taxpayers for every dime they can.)

4. Give employees incentives for meeting their productivity and quality standards. If the department meets its productivity and quality standards, low level employees get bonuses in the forms of tax credits or small cash bonuses, and managers get a big cash bonus related to how much costs have been cut.

Lets say that each department is given a yearly productivity target to cut costs by 6% - (pop. growth rate + inflation rate). Executives get paid a cash bonus of 10% of their salary for every 1% they surpass this figure only if they meet their quality standards. Executives must also prepare and provide annual reports on how costs were cut to the quality department for review. Productivity targets can be reviewed on an annual basis (ie. for departments that require expansion, the targets can be adjusted.)

Watch how quickly the casual family-like environment of the government disappears and finally turns to business, and how the 'altruistic' government execs who "could make so much more in the private sector" start slashing costs for the taxpayer.

The only problem is that execs might be making 7 figures in the first few years with so much fat to trim!

Comments/suggestions? Lets work out the kinks and send this to Harper!!

Edited June 3, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Tilter]

The Cons put us into deficit before the recession hit actually...

Wrong--- the last budget before the recession struck paid back some deficit money and had a surplus.

[Tilter]

Then along came the Republicans, and huge tax cuts for the rich, and huge entitlements for -- corporations. And the rich got richer and richer, and the budget deficits grew year by year.

And I guess the fact that the US was spending 8 to 10 Billion a MONTH on the war had nothing to do with the fact that the US deficit grew to humongous levels? I don't think the

huge tax cuts for the rich, and huge entitlements for -- corporations

had a lot to do with the financial downfall of the US but the trillions spent on armaments were likely the largest culprit. Edited June 3, 2011 by Tilter

[Battletoads]

We haven't gotten richer, but we've kept up with inflation.

Treading water isn't succeeding, it's just barely adequate to keep from drowning.

It's glaringly obvious that the economic policies employed by the various conservative and liberal governments have done nothing for the average Canadian. I wouldn't be surprised if they were worse off now, after this recession. Simply put, 30 years of economically right wing have failed to do anything but make the rich richer. Ah well, we all knew the trickle down theory was bullshit anyways.

[Bonam]

Treading water isn't succeeding, it's just barely adequate to keep from drowning.

It's glaringly obvious that the economic policies employed by the various conservative and liberal governments have done nothing for the average Canadian. I wouldn't be surprised if they were worse off now, after this recession. Simply put, 30 years of economically right wing have failed to do anything but make the rich richer. Ah well, we all knew the trickle down theory was bullshit anyways.

On the contrary, managing to "tread water" at the same time as our labour force has been thrust into direct competition with countries where wages and living standards are many many times lower is an almost unbelievable achievement.

[Battletoads]

On the contrary, managing to "tread water" at the same time as our labour force has been thrust into direct competition with countries where wages and living standards are many many times lower is an almost unbelievable achievement.

What you say would be true if the upper class was in the same boat. No, our society as a whole is getting richer, but all that gain is being funneled into a small fraction of the population's pockets.

[mikedavid00]

The problem is that we ARE paying people to be career cashiers but we label them token collectors and post office clerks and pay them 50k + benefits.

EXACTLY!

It's amazing here how people just don't 'get it'.

[Smallc]

Treading water isn't succeeding, it's just barely adequate to keep from drowning.

That's been the trend in pretty much every western country.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Canada and Australia have lower productivity than most other western countries. Part of that is logistics, but part of it was a lack of investment in new equipment because of a low dollar. With that problem gone, our productivity has been rising much faster.

See, that's the issue I have. People assume we have lazier workers.

The reality is that the worker may actually be much more productive. But our transportation and equipment used is the lagging factor.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/economy/measuring-productivity-canada.aspx#US_ranked

Are Canadians not working hard enough?

Many people confuse the concept of productivity with that of work intensity. But improving productivity is not about working longer or harder, it’s about working smarter. It’s about finding more efficient and effective ways to produce goods and services so that more can be produced with the same amount of effort. It’s also about producing higher-value-added products and services that are worth more in the marketplace. The onus of improving productivity lies not just with governments, but with individual firms.

Take, for example, the auto manufacturer that introduces new robotics technologies that cut the time it takes to assemble cars, meaning that the same number of workers can now produce more cars per day, without working longer or harder. Or the same auto manufacturer that adds a GPS system to a car model that retails for $30,000. The innovative technology increases the sales price by $3,000. Because the redesigned car takes the same amount of time to build, however, labour productivity—in terms of output per worker—is boosted by 10 per cent.

Challenges to improving productivity are multi-faceted. To enhance productivity, Canada must foster a culture of innovation, open industries to competitive pressures, and improve the level and quality of capital intensity.

Edited June 3, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Shwa]

I goofed my first response and cannot re-post its too long so I will encapsule my comments here

So the public sector pays more, the bennies are better. Ok.

The public sector workers are more or less in the same pay range as the public sector except when you include the executive class. Or did you miss that part? Why do you think the CFIB had to include "benefits" into the equation? Because their criticism of outrageous public sector remuneration doesn't work without it. And again, once you start comparing all the "benefits" in the private sector executive class, well, the whole report falls down as unmitigated bullshit.

We do not know,but we could sepculate.

Public sector employees stay longer because they like riding the gravy train. The private ones like to move up and find something better. The public sector likes the pay and especially the benefits like the generous retirement plan, The private sector has to go for more to be able to have more come retirement.

So? And can you blame them? But the point was about factoring length of employment as influencing the pay rate as noted in the report. Do you have anything to say about that?

I doubt either of us know.

Well, why don't you find out? Wouldn't an objective report used as a 'reasonable measure' include such constraints on their data?

Un fair comparison either way. Private is for profit, public isnt. Risk vs reward.

Public is for legal reasons, much of it based on Constitutional requirements. The private isn't. Reward versus legal responsibility. Unless you want our army being essentially mercenaries? How about the police? Should we simply hire private security firms? I am sure they could do it cheaper.

Nothing like a lil hyperbole thrown in for good measure I guess

Fair enough, living large ...how about retiring large and generously?

$350 -$600 per month is a lot of money when you are on the low side in private sector....add in the pension and other perks and well.....

And a few million in stock options is a lot of living large too.

Private industry is a profit making enterprise. Dont make it, see ya later. Not so much in the public sector.

Public sector is a legal making enterprise. Don't make it, see ya later. Sometimes in court. Not so much in the private sector.

Except there is.

No doubt they were negotiated in good faith, I would not nor have I categorized it any differently.

But negotiating using someone elses money is pretty easy. Negotiating in the private sector is a ton harder since profits have to be maximized.

And so you tell me the last time binding arbitration was forced on the CAW workers during their contract talks with General Motors. How about INCO? Negotiating in the private sector is a ton harder on the workers, not the executive class. All with "someone elses" money.

You can be jocular all you want but the fact remains the difference is always in favour of the public and thousands of people would be happy to get a raise of 2-13%. Dont discount that fact.

Except when you compare the private sector executive class. Millions more people would prefer that sort of "raise" wouldn't they?

A couple more days off, hours that are rigid......seems it would make some in the private sector happier.

Vacations in exotic locales, fancy cars, big mansions... seem it would make some on the public sector happier. I mean, how about those soldiers that were shot at or wounded in Afghanistan? Shouldn't we compensate them with vacations in exotic locals, fancy cars and big mansions? What is their value? What is the value of the firefighter than comes and saves a family from destruction or death? Oh wait, it's all about profit.

Trust me, no clerk anywhere , Mutual Ins or not, has anything to do with denying a claim. Apple to orange.

Trust me, I know a few private sector insurance agents. They worked to deny claims and save their employer from payouts so the firm could earn more profit.

One has a duty to raise revenue, find new streams of revenue and to grow the business.

The other has a duty to ensure that the laws of the land are followed, people get employment insurance benefits, are safe when they travel home at night.

The other one has all the revenue given to him, finds some more in the same pockets by digging deeper and has no competition of any kind anywhere in this country.

Are you even aware that Canada has a Constitution and what that means?

One has a networking calendar full of night time engagements, weekends working , travelling or in meetings.

The other has no business engagments at night,no travel , meetings of course, but on the whole, hardly comparible.

Seriously? You don't think that the executive class in the public sector have evening engagements or travel? And on this basis there is no fair comparison?

LOFL!

Edited June 3, 2011 by Shwa

[Sir Bandelot]

Canada Post website seems to be down. I wonder if that is due to the union strike action?

[Scotty]

Because we're succeeding here. Is that so hard for you to accept? I know that I can't afford to pay for six weeks of vacation. One employee takes about three, and the other get vacation pay, and that's about all that I can do. Large corporations probably could afford it, but many small businesses couldn't.

Also, as someone pointed out, the countries you're talking about generally have higher tax rates, some of them much higher. There is a price to be paid for everything.

They're succeeding there, too. Only, they also have a better lifestyle than us. They have more time with their families, less stress, less fear of what happens if they lose their jobs as they have far better social safety nets.

How are you measuring success anyway?

[Scotty]

It just might work except for one tiny problem. If it is found that three German unionized workers do the work of five unionized workers in Canada and Canadian governments moved to require the same every union worker in Canada would shit bricks. Riots everywhere.

Higher rates of production are generally more related to higher investment in technology and efficiency than whether one worker is 'better' than another worker. Canada sucks as far as investing in technology goes.

[Scotty]

The Cons put us into deficit before the recession hit actually...

It was so tiny, if it actually existed, that it would have been fairly easily handled had the recession not arrived.

[Scotty]

Canada and Australia have lower productivity than most other western countries. Part of that is logistics, but part of it was a lack of investment in new equipment because of a low dollar. With that problem gone, our productivity has been rising much faster.

In other words, as I said, it has nothing to do with how hard workers actually work.

[Scotty]

If you look at the federal government as a corporation, you'd have to say taxpayers are the shareholders, employees/managers are the employees/managers, and the DMs and MPs are the board of directors. The corporate world has already attempted to address the problem of aligning the interests of the agents (managers, execs, board of dirs) with the interests of the shareholders.

Right. Which is why those CEOs now think exclusively in the short term. Who cares if the company goes under in ten years!? I've got to maximize my yearly bonuses!

[Scotty]

And I guess the fact that the US was spending 8 to 10 Billion a MONTH on the war had nothing to do with the fact that the US deficit grew to humongous levels? I don't think the had a lot to do with the financial downfall of the US but the trillions spent on armaments were likely the largest culprit.

A hundred billion is kind of small change when looking at a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

[Scotty]

That's been the trend in pretty much every western country.

I suspect by 'every western country' you're thinking 'well, here and in the US'.

Because it's not like there are any other western countries...

[Smallc]

They're succeeding there, too. Only, they also have a better lifestyle than us.

Well, that's debatable, since we have amongst the happiest most peaceful lives in existence (recent world polls). Many of us choose to not even take our full allotted vacation.