$114,000 / federal public service employee WOW

[login]

Very suprised to see this

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Average+federal+worker+costs+Budget+watchdog/7681542/story.html

[Boges]

Yeah it's out of control. Looks like the CPC are trying to tackle that problem though. Hopefully they succeed, Paul Martin did a pretty good job trimming the Federal Civil Service.

[Fletch 27]

Thats insane.... The Average household income in 2010 was 71,000... Thats between 2 people!

[login]

Thats insane.... The Average household income in 2010 was 71,000... Thats between 2 people!

It also includes pensions and benefits.

[login]

Thats insane.... The Average household income in 2010 was 71,000... Thats between 2 people!

Yeah it's out of control. Looks like the CPC are trying to tackle that problem though. Hopefully they succeed, Paul Martin did a pretty good job trimming the Federal Civil Service.

Why did they increase the size so much though, only to have to work years to bring it down to the level they got it at?

[Boges]

Why did they increase the size so much though, only to have to work years to bring it down to the level they got it at?

Probably because they were in a minority government situation and because they've been busy with the recession for the last 4 years.

[Michael Hardner]

Thats insane.... The Average household income in 2010 was 71,000... Thats between 2 people!

That's an apples-and-oranges comparison. What is the average wage for office work, probably a better comparison there.

[Michael Hardner]

It also includes pensions and benefits.

Another good point.

[Fletch 27]

Another good point.

Yes, "Great Point". Thats $435K in pensions?

Again, the Average houshold income was 71K in 2010.. Between 2 people.. Even if a single public servant made 71K,, to total 114K/A would mean $43,000 in "Penions" per year...

Again, the $114,000.00 is the "Average" as per the article... Pensions and benefits removed or not, thats sickening.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Fletch 27

[Topaz]

Let's remember that must included, MP's, senators, speakers tetc. and ALL of their spending too.

[Michael Hardner]

Pensions and benefits removed or not, thats sickening.

No, it's not sickening. You yourself get sick, revolted, outraged quite easily as we've discussed on here. And that is your problem, not anyone else's.

You need to get some data first to evaluate whether you should be sickened or not. This is a complex issue to discuss, lead with your head not your stomach.

[Wilber]

According to this site http://www.livingin-canada.com/work-salaries-wages-canada.html the average management salary in Canada is $62,000. It would take $52,000 in benifits to bring that up to the average federal worker. Not likely.

[Fletch 27]

No, it's not sickening. You yourself get sick, revolted, outraged quite easily as we've discussed on here. And that is your problem, not anyone else's.

You need to get some data first to evaluate whether you should be sickened or not. This is a complex issue to discuss, lead with your head not your stomach.

You must have a strong stomach... Good for you Michael...

So you seem fine with the 114K/A.

[Michael Hardner]

You must have a strong stomach... Good for you Michael...

So you seem fine with the 114K/A.

I would never blame the worker for the situation, but rather management. I think that the current government is taking steps to rightsize things a little more - as long as they don't make some of the same mistakes we've made in the past, we should be good.

[Fletch 27]

I would never blame the worker for the situation, but rather management. I think that the current government is taking steps to rightsize things a little more - as long as they don't make some of the same mistakes we've made in the past, we should be good.

I would more accuratly say the Unions and workers managed this inflated salary..

Maybe you dont recall the actions taken in the below link ... here is a snapshot

That agreement includes wage increases of between 2.25 and 2.5 percent in each year of a four-year deal, retroactive to August, 2003—well short of the wage hikes the union had been seeking to achieve parity with the private sector. The PSAC had been seeking increases of as much as 3 percent a year, while the Treasury Board began negotiations with an offer of 5.75 percent over three years.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/psac-o14.shtml

"Management" did not approve of the actions or demands and hence a strike... By the Workers, By the Unions

[Topaz]

A report out today by TD Bank, says that lo income grew about 20% which income would be about 12,700-15,200, not much to live on and the top earners, income grew 18% by 26,000 to 145,200-171,000 and lastly the middle only grew 14%. So my point is that if wages keep going down then the gap btween rich and poor will have an effect on the economy because most rich people don't want to spend much money and the middle and low have to survive. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/12/11/business-td-income-inequality.html

[Smallc]

But...they went up.

[Bonam]

But...they went up.

Never let facts and data get in the way of a good story.

[Michael Hardner]

I would more accuratly say the Unions and workers managed this inflated salary..

Let me point out again that you have no data to indicate that this is inflated. You're showing up at this issue with your conclusions ready-made, which is why I'm reluctant to fully engage with you on this.

In any case - would it matter if they were overpaid, if we were getting value for the money ? And how is that measured ?

"Management" did not approve of the actions or demands and hence a strike... By the Workers, By the Unions

Yes - I don't think you have a good perspective on managing large organizations, to be honest. There are other questions to consider, including how the federal government operates. One of the problems I have with your method of discussing here is that you oversimplify things, even though you don't need to. You have the capacity to discuss things with more consideration but you choose not to.

[The_Squid]

The total was about $23 billion a decade ago, before the public service went on an unprecedented growth spurt.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Average+federal+worker+costs+Budget+watchdog/7681542/story.html#ixzz2EmHoxq2p

This is the Harper government's doing. Don't go blaming the opposition. They weren't in government.

[Argus]

Now that everyone's got that off their chests, let's let a dose of reality into the picture, shall we?

1. The vast majority of federal public servants make less than $50,000 per year.

2. The raises the unions have been given are a matter of public record. I believe they've averaged 1.5% over the past two negotiated settlements (3 years each). In fact, the third year of our PSAC agreement gave us 2% and the government unilaterally rolled that back to 1%.

So where on earth would he get 5% per year increases from?

Here's what I think. I think the media is using the term "personnel costs per employee" to presume this means salaries and benefits. But I don't see how that can possibly be accurate. However, if 'personnel costs per employee' includes the actual cost of employing each person, then you would add in the costs of the buildings they are in, their desks, chairs, computers, training courses etc.

It's also true that throwing in the military and RCMP, who get paid considerably more, would raise the average. RCMP average salaries are far higher than for the public service. Military salaries are also higher, and they have a lot more benefits. They are often fed and housed, for example.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Argus

[Wayward Son]

I would more accuratly say the Unions and workers managed this inflated salary..

well short of the wage hikes the union had been seeking to achieve parity with the private sector.

Managing to achieve both an "inflated salary" and it still being "well short of achieving parity with the private sector." is an impressive feat.

[jacee]

I would never blame the worker for the situation, but rather management. I think that the current government is taking steps to rightsize things a little more - as long as they don't make some of the same mistakes we've made in the past, we should be good.

The "mistake" of having a babyboom after the war, you mean?

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/res/stats/images/demo11-07-eng.html

The bulk of public employees are in their highest earning years, just before retirement, compared to 1983 when the largest group were 25-35.

There's nothing more sinister going on here than demographics.

Unfortunately, Harper's approach to downsizing - deleting positions - gets rid of the youngest/least seniority/lowest wages, a bad strategy for the future and for present staffing costs.

Like others before him, Harper will figure out that retirement incentives are his friend.

[Boges]

Unfortunately, Harper's approach to downsizing - deleting positions - gets rid of the youngest/least seniority/lowest wages, a bad strategy for the future and for present staffing costs.

That's the Union's fault not Harper. I'm sure he'd prefer to get rid of people from the top down.

[punked]

That's the Union's fault not Harper. I'm sure he'd prefer to get rid of people from the top down.

Yah Yah Yah it is everyones fault but the most powerful man in the country. GIVE ME A BREAK. He is the one with the Majority government no one else you look a fool making statements like this.