Civil Servants on Strike

[Argus]

Liberals always believe that appearances are more important than reality. That's why, despite wasting billions and billions in graft, patronage and corruption, they rarely miss a chance to be seen as "holding the line on wages" with its fairly meek unions. And it seems that Paul Martin is set to show us yet again, that the NEW Paul Martin government is no different from the OLD Jean Chretien by strutting the tough guy walk with its unions again.

For about 12 years, I think, the Liberals froze the wages of their employees (not their own wages, of course), pleading poverty. In 2001, amid record surpluses, I think they offered 1% or something similar, and PSAC was gearing up for strike action when 911 caused the government to rethink. In fact, I was being held up by a picket line at my work place when the planes hit the WTC. I heard it on a pocket radio.

Now amid massive spending hikes the government is again set to show us that they'll "hold the line" and be good money managers. Oh MPs have gotten a raise, and senior civil servants have gotten big increases, up into the double digits. But now they'll show the country that they'll HOLD THE LINE! as noble and desperately brave caretakers of our tax dollars.

Canada's inflation rate over the last three years (the life of the government's labour contracts) has been 2.6, 2.2, and 2.8%. A total, then of 7.6%. In the Case of Revenue Canada, who are now on strike, the government is ignoring a concilators report recommending about an 8% increase over 3 years and holding rock firm at 2.25, 1.75, and 1.75, or a total of a 5.75% increase - which, of course, is actually a decrease given the increases are less than inflation.

So the Liberals are holding true to their habit of lavishing massive amounts of money on their friends and supporters, on big shots and themselves, and screwing the little guy while putting on a show about how tight fisted they are with money.

And there's no doubt this is coming straight from the PMO. The conciliators' recommendation was fairly modest. The only reason for a flat rejection is because the Liberals are courting a strike, wanting to be shown as "standing up for the taxpayer" or some such bullshit. Unfortunately, there are so many idiots out there that it generally works.

[August1991]

Federal civil servants in Ottawa will get little sympathy from anyone in the real world.

[Argus]

Federal civil servants in Ottawa will get little sympathy from anyone in the real world.

Yes, that's kind of the attitude the Liberals have been counting on for the last fifteen years. Make themselves look good by beating on their employees. Everyone either resents or is jealous of civil servants, so no matter how unfair or two-faced the government is it helps them look good to the plebes.

[Michael Hardner]

I worked for the government as a student, and have friends who are in the civil service. The pension is good, but you have to submit yourself into the "machine". It's like 1984.

God help any ambitious person who gets caught up in that - it will crush them.

[Bro]

Here's a good tip,don't vote them back in.The majority of civil servants don't like a change of government becuase they don't like to rock the boat in case they lose monetarily by a new government.You got what you voted for,again.

[Argus]

Here's a good tip,don't vote them back in.The majority of civil servants don't like a change of government becuase they don't like to rock the boat in case they lose monetarily by a new government.You got what you voted for,again.

I voted Conservative. However, given the tories' fairly obvious hostility for civil servants I know a lot of people voted for the libs simply for fear their jobs would be eliminated under the tories. Not an unreasonable fear, imo.

[Black Dog]

Federal civil servants in Ottawa will get little sympathy from anyone in the real world.

I always find the antipathy towards the civil service to be more the product of conservative anti "big" government rhetoric, which ends up creating a popular perception that government is bloated, its workers overpaid leeches flushing our tax dollars away.

Of course the idea of a bloated civil service and a spendthrift government is not borne out in the real world.

Here we can see that federal government spends just 11.6% of GDP in direct spending (which is all spending minus debt interest payments).

You have to go a helluva long way back to find such a misery number.

As for the civil service, between 1993 and 1997 alone, the Canadian federal government axed thirty-five thousand people from the rolls. The total civil service employment as of about 1999/2000 is 275,000 people, serving a country of over 30 millions.

That's 0.92% of the Canadian population. To compare, in the 1960s, the civil service was 199,000 strong, serving 18 million. That's 1.1% of the Canadian population.

Now, who thinks government is more efficient today versus government 30 years ago?