$114,000 / federal public service employee WOW

punked · December 12, 2012

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.

The government MAKES THE LAW. It is just passing such a law would cost them their seats so they don't. Stop making excuses if you don't like the government stop supporting them but don't be mad when unions play by the rules.

Edited December 12, 2012 by punked

cybercoma · December 12, 2012

Common sense? Math? Take your pick.

Elaborate.

Boges · December 12, 2012

The government MAKES THE LAW. It is just passing such a law would cost them their seats so they don't. Stop making excuses if you don't like the government stop supporting them but don't be mad when unions play by the rules.

I was just responding to the statement that perhaps, instead of getting rid of public service unions, private companies should unionize. Forcing companies to allow Unions, now that's some good freedom for everyone.

CPCFTW · December 12, 2012

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.

That's a pretty sad source. I've worked for the fed as well and the majority certainly were not clerks and were making much more than 50k. My mother also works for the feds as an executive level and has said the same.

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.

That is not true. New hires are subject to the same cba and their entry-level wage is set along the matrix by year. So a new hire in 2012 will be paid xx% more than a new hire in 2000 was. If you're trying to suggest that new hires are replacing tenured employees at a lower cost, then that is just dishonest. In fact it is the opposite, the average fed worker is getting older and more expensive and it's pretty hard to get in as a young person.

And to add: most "clerks" have a college diploma at best, and are virtually unemployable in the private sector (outside of minimum wage jobs).

Anyway, if you're really curious how he got 5%, you should probably just read the report. But it's basically summarized here:

The PBO report shows salaries, which account for 72 per cent of the wage bill, have grown 5.4 per cent a year over the decade. About half of that increase was attributed to negotiated wage increases at the bargaining table, but the rest was fuelled by the changing composition of the public service and the work it does.
The public service has aged, heavily recruited educated and highly-paid specialists, and undergone a generational leadership change. All employers faced the same trends, but few as profoundly as in the public service.

The number of higher-priced professionals, computer and IT specialists, economists, social scientists, biologists and lawyers increased dramatically, while the number of lower-ranked workers such as secretaries, data processors, labourers and clerks dwindled.

A controversial pay equity settlement, reclassifying jobs as a backdoor way to increase pay and a doubling of the executive cadre also contributed to pushing up the wage bill.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Average+federal+worker+costs+year+Budget+watchdog/7681542/story.html#ixzz2EsfPL7h3

Edited December 12, 2012 by CPCFTW

scribblet · December 12, 2012

I think the report is a tad overstated according to this guy

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2012/12/kevin-pages-misleading-statistics.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DanielDickin+%28Daniel+Dickin%29

CPCFTW · December 12, 2012

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?

Yes, as we have seen, private unions are untenable in some industries, so unions are not always feasible in the private sector.

In the public sector, unions exist because it is always easier to raise taxes or borrow more from China than to put up with strikes and voter backlash over cuts to services. Fortunately it looks like voters have finally realized that the gravy train is coming to an end because of what's going on in Europe and the US.

punked · December 12, 2012

Yes, as we have seen, private unions are untenable in some industries, so unions are not always feasible in the private sector.

We have not seen that. You can't just assume everyone agrees with your opinion when asked for facts you know.

CPCFTW · December 12, 2012

It's funny how lefties all swear by Page when he's criticizing spending on F35s, but when he is critiquing spending on the public service he must be fudging the numbers. Typical lefty hypocrisy.

punked · December 12, 2012

It's funny how lefties all swear by Page when he's criticizing spending on F35s, but when he is critiquing spending on the public service he must be fudging the numbers. Typical lefty hypocrisy.

No is arguing his numbers. What is being argued is what his numbers are about. Defining the numbers so they make sense.

CPCFTW · December 12, 2012

We have not seen that. You can't just assume everyone agrees with your opinion when asked for facts you know.

We have seen that. See Hostess.

No one asked for facts, Argus asked for an opinion. Re-read the question:

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?

That is asking for an opinion, not facts. You can't just make things up you know?

Argus · December 13, 2012

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.

A private company can shut the doors as long as laws allow it. Why do you suppose the companies in Europe manage to operate so successfully while being heavily unionized?

Argus · December 13, 2012

Yes, as we have seen, private unions are untenable in some industries, so unions are not always feasible in the private sector.

Where, exactly, would unions in the private sector be 'untenable'?

Argus · December 13, 2012

I was just responding to the statement that perhaps, instead of getting rid of public service unions, private companies should unionize. Forcing companies to allow Unions, now that's some good freedom for everyone.

Do you think the people in Nordic countries are not free? What about Germans? Not free?

Edited December 13, 2012 by Argus

Argus · December 13, 2012

That's a pretty sad source. I've worked for the fed as well and the majority certainly were not clerks and were making much more than 50k. My mother also works for the feds as an executive level and has said the same.]

And what organization did you work for? What organization did your mother work for?

The CRs have always been by far the largest designated group in the public service. Other large groups include the Da-cons (data entry) and GS (general services). None of them make over $50k

That is not true. New hires are subject to the same cba and their entry-level wage is set along the matrix by year. So a new hire in 2012 will be paid xx% more than a new hire in 2000 was.

The collective agreements give raises by year: lately about 1-1.5%. Within a designated category, i.e., CR3s, there will be 4-5 incremental levels in recognition that an employee doing the job for several years has more skills/knowledge and is more valuable to the organization than one who just started. An employee who just started will obviously make more than one who started 12 years go (duh) because the starting salaries have all gone up in that period. But they will make less than an employee who is on a higher incremental level within that category.

And to add: most "clerks" have a college diploma at best, and are virtually unemployable in the private sector (outside of minimum wage jobs).

Most clerks probably do have a college diploma at best. Your believe they would be unemployable outside of minimum wage jobs is based on bile and ideology without a hint of fact. As one example, most of the clerks within my agency use SAP. SAP is a very in-demand software in many organizations. It takes quite a while to train people in its various roles, so an experienced clerk who had been using the system for a while and knew many of its 'roles' would be highly prized by an organization using SAP.

punked · December 13, 2012

We have seen that. See Hostess.

No one asked for facts, Argus asked for an opinion. Re-read the question:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

That is asking for an opinion, not facts. You can't just make things up you know?

Hostess you mean the company that was kept afloat by the UNION PENSION FUND? Yah I see them what about them?

A terrible company that is run into the ground is going to fail with or without a union or are you saying no company with out a union has every gone belly up? Again pointing to companies that have failed doesn't prove anything it still make it an OPINION. We can't all just agree with your OPINIONS. How about some facts. Here is a fake the weakest Union states (the right to work states) have the SAME unemployment as the strong union states. Know what tells me? You are full of crap. See how I used a fact instead of an opinion. Numbers and all.

Edited December 13, 2012 by punked

CPCFTW · December 13, 2012

And what organization did you work for? What organization did your mother work for?

The CRs have always been by far the largest designated group in the public service. Other large groups include the Da-cons (data entry) and GS (general services). None of them make over $50k

I worked for inac and environment canada. I wont tell you where my mother works since she is an exec, but it is another large fed department.

There are plenty of lower level jobs, but I think you are being dishonest to argue that a majority of fed jobs earn under 50k. Unless you are thinking FPTP majority #s :lol:

Boges · December 13, 2012

Do you think the people in Nordic countries are not free? What about Germans? Not free?

Not if they force companies to allow unions.

BTW I wouldn't be using the Europeans as as economies to admire.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Boges

Fletch 27 · December 13, 2012

Anyone who uses a European model is a defeatist... Try living it..........

Argus · December 13, 2012

Not if they force companies to allow unions.

BTW I wouldn't be using the Europeans as as economies to admire.

You'd be using the Americans?

I'm using the Europeans as a place where working conditions totally outmatches American working conditions, where working people have a better life, and are given more protection. There's no evidence this somehow destroys the economy, as FAUX news would have you believe, since unlike the US, many such countries have balanced budgets and lower unemployment than the Americans.

Argus · December 13, 2012

Anyone who uses a European model is a defeatist... Try living it..........

Uh yeah. How horrible it is over there with those bread lines and gulags, right?

Boges · December 13, 2012

You'd be using the Americans?

I'm using the Europeans as a place where working conditions totally outmatches American working conditions, where working people have a better life, and are given more protection. There's no evidence this somehow destroys the economy, as FAUX news would have you believe, since unlike the US, many such countries have balanced budgets and lower unemployment than the Americans.

Or the Canadian system where only about 15% of the workforce is Unionized. Unless you're in Skilled Trades or a Public Servant, chances are you aren't in a Union.

Canada is outperforming both Europe and the US. Define working conditions BTW?

Do good working conditions mean that you have a pre-set role and if you deviate from that role you can get grieved?

Edited December 13, 2012 by Boges

Argus · December 13, 2012

Canada is outperforming both Europe and the US. Define working conditions BTW?

That pretty much says it all, Boges, about your knowledge with regard to working conditions around the world.

Canada has better working conditions than the US, but is a far distance behind the Europeans.

Define working conditions? I'm talking about employers who respect their employees and treat them decently. I'm talking about generally 5-6 weeks vacation, minimum, for ordinary working people. I'm talking about family leave to care for sick relatives, medical leave, while your job is held for you, the right not be arbitrarily moved or disciplined. Unions are consulted and work in concert with the employer on major issues which affect employees. Employers work at helping even the lowest level employees gain skills in order to move up in the workplace through on-site training and off-site courses.

Then there is hours of work. Do you know that American workers put in 500 hours a year more work hours than French workers?

http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/

Tell me how it's better to be an American worker.

Boges · December 13, 2012

So it's vacation is an important metric? I currently have 4 weeks, when I became full time I started with 3. I must work in poor conditions then. Correct?

Also 500 over 52 weeks is about 10 hours a week. So does that mean people in France work a 40-hour work week and Americans generally work 50 plus? Or do people in France work an average of 30 hours a week and you're considering a standard 40-hour work week are bad working conditions.

Many successful people work 50 hours a week plus, they do it because they love their jobs.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Boges

Evening Star · December 13, 2012

Why would you not use Northern European economies as a model? They're very successful, not at all like Greece or Portugal.

punked · December 13, 2012

Or the Canadian system where only about 15% of the workforce is Unionized. Unless you're in Skilled Trades or a Public Servant, chances are you aren't in a Union.

Canada is outperforming both Europe and the US. Define working conditions BTW?

Do good working conditions mean that you have a pre-set role and if you deviate from that role you can get grieved?

Its always fun making up facts but in Canada around 30-35% of our workers are in unions. Sorry about the facts getting in your way again but you are a Conservative so making up numbers is always easier then using the real ones right?