Boges Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 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. So CUPE would be fine with the government deciding who exactly gets laid off? Quote
Argus Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 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. Harper does not decide what positions are cut. That is left to the individual departments, boards and agencies. And seniority does not play a part in whether a position is cut or not. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 So CUPE would be fine with the government deciding who exactly gets laid off? CUPE is provincial. And yes, the government, ie, management of the individual departments, DOES decide who gets laid off. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Boges Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 CUPE is provincial. And yes, the government, ie, management of the individual departments, DOES decide who gets laid off. So they should be getting rid of senior employees close to retirement then. Quote
guyser Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 . And seniority does not play a part in whether a position is cut or not. Seriously they don't ? Seems surprising. Quote
punked Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 So they should be getting rid of senior employees close to retirement then. Wow you are all over the place trying to be outraged but not blame the government at the same time aren't you? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 The "mistake" of having a babyboom after the war, you mean? http://www.tbs-sct.g...o11-07-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. I think they have already put those incentives out. They have other tools at their disposal too. As I said, they could do a good job at this. Or they might not. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Boges Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) Wow you are all over the place trying to be outraged but not blame the government at the same time aren't you? I'm not outraged. It was Jacee that was saying that it was younger workers that were losing their jobs because of downsizing in the Civil service. I hardly think you can blame Harper because younger people are being laid off. 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. Edited December 11, 2012 by Boges Quote
jacee Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 That's the Union's fault not Harper. I'm sure he'd prefer to get rid of people from the top down. He can do that with early retirement incentives. Quote
Argus Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 So they should be getting rid of senior employees close to retirement then. That would not really help them downsize since those employees would be leaving soon anyway. They are focusing on the positions, not the individuals who occupy those positions. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 11, 2012 Report Posted December 11, 2012 Seriously they don't ? Seems surprising. Seniority plays no part in promotions, or in who is or is not laid off or moved to another position. It's all based on the position itself, and how necessary it is for the department or agency to do needed work. In some cases, in some departments employees have to basically compete for a reduced number of positions, but that is based on merit, on submitting ones resume and on them deciding who is the best to keep. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
CPCFTW Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 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. Source? Entry level positions are 40-50k from what I've seen. 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? 5% is probably because most federal employees also have a salary matrix which they move along... so they get a guaranteed raise, plus an all-but-guaranteed move across the pay matrix for seniority. Quote
Evening Star Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 I'd be interested to also know how much of the work is being done by "federal public service employees" who are making this much. Afaict, more and more government work is being farmed out to contractors, including temps with no benefits. Btw, employers often pay agencies close to double what the temps are paid, which suggests to me that the benefits (that the employer is saving) are in fact worth quite a bit. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 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. What led you to conclude that this is a problem? Quote
CPCFTW Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 What led you to conclude that this is a problem? Common sense? Math? Take your pick. Quote
Moonbox Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) That's an apples-and-oranges comparison. What is the average wage for office work, probably a better comparison there. It's not 114,000/year, or even close to that. It's not even in the same realm. It also includes pensions and benefits. That's great, because most companies pay next to squat for a pension and there are a large number of people with no benefits. Edited December 12, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
The_Squid Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 That's great, because most companies pay next to squat for a pension and there are a large number of people with no benefits. Unless it's a union job.... Quote
Bonam Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Benefits usually comprise about 30% of the cost of employing someone (US data): http://www.ebri.org/...x.cfm?fa=ovfaq1 Additionally, the employer must pay their share of the social security tax (6%), other applicable taxes which vary state by state, etc. All told, an employee's base salary comprises about 60% of the total direct cost that the employer incurs to hire them, as a rule of thumb. So someone costing $114k is probably making about $65-70k. The rule of thumb might be a bit different in Canada since employer's do not pay for health insurance in the same way. Edited December 12, 2012 by Bonam Quote
Argus Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 Unless it's a union job.... So are you saying its unfair that unions get their workers benefits? Would you prefer if no one had any benefits? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Moonbox Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 Not at all. If it's a public sector monopoly, however, and the unions hold out services to the public in order to bargain for benefits and pensions that are far beyond what a similarly qualified public sector employee would earn, then it's unfair. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Michael Hardner Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 That's great, because most companies pay next to squat for a pension and there are a large number of people with no benefits. Ok - so let's see the apples-to-apples then. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
PIK Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 The senior people are probably the ones making the desicions and they are not going to layoff themselves. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 Source? Entry level positions are 40-50k from what I've seen. Source is me. I work for the government. The bulk of government employees are clerks, and 50k would be top rate for a clerk, not entry. 5% is probably because most federal employees also have a salary matrix which they move along... so they get a guaranteed raise, plus an all-but-guaranteed move across the pay matrix for seniority. The matrix only increases salary by something like 1%, nor would it matter, statistically, since as some people are moving up to the top levels, new people are coming in on the bottom. Ie, a top level CR4 clerk who is promoted or leaves is replaced by a newly hired clerk who is on the first level. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 Not at all. If it's a public sector monopoly, however, and the unions hold out services to the public in order to bargain for benefits and pensions that are far beyond what a similarly qualified public sector employee would earn, then it's unfair. What you mean is that the public sector worker should not earn any more than the private sector worker who has no union and no benefits, right? Wouldn't it be better to elevate the private sector worker by creating a union for them? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Boges Posted December 12, 2012 Report Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) What you mean is that the public sector worker should not earn any more than the private sector worker who has no union and no benefits, right? Wouldn't it be better to elevate the private sector worker by creating a union for them? Well considering collective bargaining with a private company and the government is completely different. . . NO! A private company can shut the doors if the workers try to unionize. What would happen if the government tries that. I'd love to see it. Edited December 12, 2012 by Boges Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.